Transparency of consultations
Certain differences between the two authorities are readily evident. AGCOM prefers to post very general and often anonymous comments, as well as motivations. On the other hand, CMT usually publishes the full version of comments, always indicating the stakeholder's identity. Finally, it is fairly clear that the level of transparency remains rather low in both cases; AGCOM and CMT did not consistently publish stakeholder comments (AGCOM published stakeholder comments in 30 per cent of cases and CMT in 47 per cent). However, of the two, CMT is somewhat more transparent in terms of the quantity of publications, transparency in the content of comments and disclosure of stakeholders' identity.
With regard to the publication of the authority's reasoning leading to regulatory policies, the portrait that emerges is even poorer. CMT posted motivations in 19 per cent of cases and AGCOM in 29 per cent. Therefore, considering the justification process, AGCOM seems to be somewhat more accountable than CMT. As a result, social accountability appears to be rather modest, although AGCOM would appear to have a greater number of regulatory policymaking accountability instruments. Namely, there are fewer restrictions (2 per cent), longer opening times, shorter documents and more published reasons.