Subject: Anti-harassment procedures - next version

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:27:57 +0000

Hi,

The previous discussion of an anti-harassment policy was based on a cut 
of a draft posted in an email by Jari. In order to get a good sense of 
changes and change-control, we have posted a -00 version that contains 
the same text.  We have also moved forward with a -01 revision to pick 
up some of the issues raised on the list. There are, as I'm sure you're 
aware, a number of open issues as well, but we felt it would be helpful 
to make some forward progress.

Adrian and Pete.

==Issues Resolved==

Replace "Target" to cover the fact that the person who suffers 
harassment may not have been specifically targeted. The word "Victim" 
was suggested, but the authors feel that word is too judgmental on a 
number of levels. There was also some email preferring the word "Target" 
until harassment had been established.  We have chosen the word "Subject".

Added the definition of harassment as used in the original IESG 
statement. There was also a request to provide a more-detailed 
definition, but the authors feel this would distract from the purpose, 
lead to endless appeals that a specific action was not covered by the 
document, and would detract from the Ombudsperson's judgement.

We noted the suggestion to include a definition of the relevant training 
to be given to the Ombudsperson. We recognize that neither the IETF 
chair nor the newly appointed Ombudsperson will have a well-formed 
opinion on this, yet we feel that providing a list here will be too 
rigid and not open to new needs or new training schemes. We have, 
therefore, changed the text to make this a determination to be made with 
assistance of professionals.

Various proposals were made regarding the details for handling of 
complaints. We made the definition of these details the responsibility 
of the Ombudsperson.

==Changes not Made==

Abdussalam request s/Reporter/PH Reporter/ where PH means Potential 
Harassment. The authors feel that this is not necessary. The whole 
context of the document is harassment, and the definition explains the 
precise meaning of the term.

Wrt "Respondent" Abdussalam said "This should explain his/her respond 
and to whom he/she responding to." The remainder of the document 
explains the interaction between the Respondent and the Ombudsman. The 
Respondent is responding to the claim of harassing behavior and is 
directing that response to the Ombudsman. There is no need to put all of 
the explanation into the definition of the term.

Abdussalam commented that "There should be diversity, so if a harassing 
is related to a race then the ombudsperson should not be in same race". 
The text already suggests that the appointment of Ombudspersons may 
consider elements of diversity, and the authors believe that the 
diversity issue has far too many facets and elements to enable a team of 
trained Ombudspersons to have nothing in common with any potential 
Reporter, Respondent, or Subject.  The Ombudsperson is expected to be 
professional about their work. The appeals process may be used to catch 
exceptional cases of alleged or apparent bias by the Ombudsperson.

Abdussalam requested inclusion of other specific potential remedies and 
grades of remedies. The authors believe that it is better to represent 
the ends of a spectrum and allow the Ombudsperson to select the 
appropriate remedy. The text already makes this clear.

SM suggested severely trimming Section 3.1 just to say where the 
responsibility lies and leaving out the options, flavors, and 
commentary.  This is a good point which has a lot of merit.  However, 
the authors feel that there is benefit in making suggestions and giving 
context for the people who have to execute these processes in the future.

We looked carefully at the discussion of the term Ombudsperson. While 
agreeing that it is not a word with a long history, and feeling that it 
is somewhat clumsy in its attempt to not say "man" we did not hear any 
arguments that significantly swayed us (thanks, John, for the 
species-ist comment) we have retained the term complete with its definition.

==Issues Still Open==

Should the Ombudsperson be a fixed size team defined in this document?  
A team of three was suggested.

Should the Ombudsperson (all of them) be selected from the IETF 
community, or should wider choice be allowed? There was some suggestion 
about restricting to the community although no measure of previous 
community involvement was suggested.

Where should the Ombudsperson go for professional and legal advice? 
Should there be retained professionals to supply advice on an on-demand 
basis?

Who appoints the Ombudsperson? Who removes them? Who reappoints? Is this 
too much to expect of the IETF chair?

How to handle the case that the person responsible for appointing the 
Ombudsperson is the Respondent.

To whom are appeals made?

How to handle the case that someone on the appeals body is the 
Respondent or otherwise involved in a case.

Should the pre-remedy output of the Ombudsperson be a "sanitized 
summary" of all events as agreed by the Reporter and Respondent (and the 
Subject if an individual exists)?

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:56:43 +0000

Thank you, Pete and Adrian. I would also like to thank for all the excellent feedback that has been sent on this topic. I realise that there are many big choices to still make, but your thoughts have been very useful for at least me in understanding this topic and the various options we have.

Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:42:23 +1300

Thanks for moving this along.

On 04/03/2014 07:27, Pete Resnick wrote:
...
> A team of three was suggested.

I would suggest something like "one person or a small team" for
now. Experience will tell us the right answer.

> community involvement was suggested.

Again, I think experience will tell us. I think it should be
left flexible for now.

> Should there be retained professionals to supply advice on an on-demand

If we have an "amateur" with limited experience, s/he will need
advice and I think we should ask ISOC to stand ready to provide
or fund such advice as and when needed. Don't over-design.

> too much to expect of the IETF chair?

I think we should recommend that the IETF Chair seeks advice
from the IAB Chair and the ISOC President, but I think it's
entirely reasonable to give the Chair this responsibility.

> Ombudsperson is the Respondent.

It seems sufficient to specify that the Ombudsperson cannot be
fired if such a case is under way.

> To whom are appeals made?

On balance I don't like the proposal in the -00 draft. It is
too inward-looking and we need outside eyes in such a case.
I think we should explore the ISOC Board option (or perhaps
better, a subcommittee of the ISOC Board).

> Respondent or otherwise involved in a case.

That person is recused; standard operating procedure.

> Subject if an individual exists)?

Ideally. But if such agreement is not possible, the Ombudperson
publishes the summary with a note that the other parties do not
agree with it.

    Brian

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 12:25:05 +0100

>document, and would detract from the Ombudsperson's judgement.

So, http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement.html says

  These messages represent the IESG's best effort to deal with specific
  issues that have come up from time to time and are not meant to be a
  way for the IESG to revise the established IETF processes. If at any
  time someone feels that one or more of these messages represents a 
  misunderstanding of the intent of the relevant RFCs the issue should 
  be taken to the IESG mailing list for discussion.

It seems to me the "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy" should have a relevant
RFC and not remain an IESG Statement and accordingly should be included
in the document. Particularily so objections to the text of the policy
can go through the IETF process, rather than being ignored.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:28:36 -0000

Hi Bjoern,

Sorry for parsing you while being in a WG meeting.

I think you are saying that *this* document should not lean on the IESG
statement, but should be a standalone policy document.

We believe we have achieved this by direct text rather than a normative
reference.

But we would be happy to hear exactly where we messed up.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 04 March 2014 11:25
> To: Pete Resnick; Adrian Farrel
> Cc: IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next version
> 
> * Pete Resnick wrote:

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:33:40 +0100

> now. Experience will tell us the right answer.

A team with diversity, it MUST have male and female, and will add east
and west region, so my minimum total is between 3-4 persons. The
importance is their quality decision and fairness to the victom and
others. The numbers can be more but not less, however, agree with
Brian but will limit the team designed to become diverse.

> Again, I think experience will tell us. I think it should be

I think the selection should be guided by diversity approaches.

> or fund such advice as and when needed. Don't over-design.

The ISOC seems a good option if there is a anti-harassment procedure
for such interaction between IETF and ISOC.

> entirely reasonable to give the Chair this responsibility.

Responsibilities are reasonable but not always and at all times, there
may be some conditions we may look at, however, such power needs to be
guided by procedure to make sure diversity and fairness are perceived.

> fired if such a case is under way.

Agree,

AB

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 12:35:18 +0100

>But we would be happy to hear exactly where we messed up.

I think the Internet-Draft should make the IESG statement redundant and
then the IESG statement should be obsoleted.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:57:27 +0000

> then the IESG statement should be obsoleted.

That is the plan I am following. (Or to be more exact, the eventual RFC will obsolete the statement…)

Jari

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 20:31:07 +0100

Any WG chair is responsible to report issues seen in session meeting of
their list, if he/she is not reporting harassment incidents, then should be
removed. All lists of IETF should have one responsible to follow wrong
attacks. The IETF should not have any manager or director that does not
report harassment (watching is worse).

The chair/AD should try to stop such attacks but if they might not report
to solve issue in their social skills still that is wrong, because such
behavior has occurred and affected community.

See link in diversity

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00497.html

I will send another comments, sorry for this.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:13:45 +0100

Hi Adrian,

I will respond here as your request.

On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Adrian Farrelwrote:

>
> AB wrote:
>
> >
> > I started to dislike posting at IETF because it's not diverse. I prefer
> this
> > diversity list mostly. I was told by one nice USA person yesterday that
> > many USA participants don't know what is the meaning of diversity. So
> > may be add the definition of it well help. Comments below,
>
> OK. It is generally more efficient to have all discussions of the same
> concept
> in the same place so that everyone can join in.
> However, I hear your point and understand your reasons.
>
> [snip]
>
> > What bothers me are
> > 1) the slowness of unresolved issues.
>
> OK. I see how this can fit with the anti-harassment process.
> We could set targets for investigation by the Ombudsperson.
> I am reluctant to set absolute deadlines because circumstances can vary,
> but
> guidance is easy.
> Do you have suggestions for timelines?

There should be a reporter if there is no reporter to IETF then this
organisation is a bad organisation ( I may replace bad behavior by cow boy
shooting style).  There should be no delay more than 24 hours between
incident and reporting. The IETF should receive that report in its data
base and its mailnot in its ombudsperson's private email-box. The
ombudsperson should contact the victim within 16 hours (just to give time
between different regions). The ombudsperson should check investigate with
respondent and give him/her right to report any incident happened with
Subject/possible-victim. The judgement of ombudsperson should take not more
than 3-4 working days from receiving the report.

> >  2) the cow boy style in few inputs from participants (we are not in a
> >  movie of Good Bad and Ugly), so may we shoot documents, we may
> >  shoot texts, we may shoot paragraphs, we may shoot processes, we
> > MAY not shoot humans (i.e. Just because they are Indians, Africans,
> > Women, Religious, Weak, non-expert, new-comers, etc.)
>
> Yes. We all (you, me, them) need to learn to moderate and improve our
> communication styles.
>
> I don't think there is any action on this document from your comment. It
> might
> be more related to Dave's document.

You may distinguish both your document and Dave's document, but for me they
are similar against bad behaviour and may work together for preventing
harassment in IETF.

IMHO The IETF managers should report any IETF
attacking of personalities because it mostly may become/used-in harassment
in future and such report will help future investigations. IETF Messages
are used to make people laugh about other colleagues and humiliate them
within the WG or IETF.

> > 3) no one stops cow boy style, so are we in a BAD organisation
> > or a COW BOY organisation.
>
> Interesting observation.
> I don't think we are a cowboy organisation or a bad organisation.
> We have some folk who act as cowboys (they might not actually be cowboys
> :-)
> I think we have some management issues that we need to work on.

Yes, managers should report it in IETF, and then solve to limit that
freedom of such cowboy style. That can be better managed when defining
harassments.

>
> Advice on process for handling those issues would be valuable. That is
> "make it
> stop" is understood, but how to do that is harder.

I think is not hard. IETF should be stronger (proactive not only
reactive) and prevent such actions before occurs.

> As Jari said the other night (and there was a comment from the floor) it
> doesn't
> scale for the IETF chair or the IESG to respond to email beahviour in real
> time.

It is ok, even within 2 or 3 days, but why the message is not destroyed
from the IETF lists, are IETF messages like RFCs. If there
are  IETF messages against some ones personality and reputation and he/she
wants  to file to police I think that person got rights.

> As with the previous point, I don't think there is any action on this
> document
> from your comment. It might be more related to Dave's document.

I am not sure, it depends on the situation, culture and the parties future.

>
>
> > 4) Some don't respect others, and that is a BIG problem.
>
> Yes. I have this fault. I respect people's rights but not always the
> people. I
> need to work on that, I guess.

>
> > The use of words in IETF as: hat, and shoot makes the thought of west
> > movies which we all like to watch, but we do not like to live inside it.
>
> Yes. The use of language can carry connotations that were or were not
> intended
> by the speaker. It is a remarkably rare communication skill to select
> words that
> are sensitive to your audience. It is like speaking a foreign language
> even for
> a native speaker. It is especially hard when the speaker is using a phrase
> that
> is very deeply embedded in their culture and they are distracted by their
> enthusiasm for the subject matter.
>
> As listeners, we also have a responsibility to be flexible and open.
>
> > There are common sense issues that need solutions. What are the
> > insensible points that need mor discuss to be solved? I think that
> > may be all my points were not in the draft, so I wait.
>
> Don't wait!
> This is a discussion.
> Pursue your points and suggest text.
>
> But...
> Be aware of the specific scope of this document. It is about the
> anti-harassment
> policy. It is not a general place to capture all related issues. If we try
> to do
> that it seems unlikely to me that reaching speedy consensus and actually
> getting
> an implementation of the anti-harassment policy will happen.

Ok I will review it again with clear mind, and input another review

> Sometimes it is
> better to break the problem space into separate pieces and work on them in
> different documents.
>
> By this I mean that I am not rejecting your ideas, just suggesting to put
> them
> in different places so as to make sure that this document is not delayed.

Ok , I agree,

>
>
> > Overall, please define diversity in the draft. Then it can be discussed
> better
> > related to diversity otherwise your draft has no diversity approach.
>
> Just as we are very cautious about defining "harassment" in this document,
> I
> would be extremely worried about defining "diversity" in this document.

Ok, but introducing the situation in draft of that there may be no
diversity in groups and the possible newcomer which with high probability
will harassed, IMHO  harassment is caused from groups or individuals
that do not accept diversity in their group or space.

>
> So, bottom line, I take an action from your point 1) only, and even for
> that I
> would welcome some further input.

Ok, no problem. I will add you may have the timeline and guidance but still
some thing is missing. After all of this process what will happen to those
parties involve. May be that can be out of scope for this draft.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:15:09 +0000

Adding suggestions;

Under (5. Remedies):

AB/ text suggest/add/
If there is any remaining harassment message or record (which is publicly
evidence) after the reported attack and the decision made by IETF, then
the related harassment object MUST be removed/destroyed from IETF public
access and MAY be saved in private data base of the IETF.

Please note that I was requested by the author to post in the IETF my
comments.

Regards
AB

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 17:35:48 -0000

Yes, OK. I think there is a point here that we can work into the next revision.
Maybe significant rewording, but by supplying potential text I have been able
understand your concern.
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 07 March 2014 16:15
To: Pete Resnick; Adrian Farrel
Cc: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Anti-harassment procedures - next version
 
Adding suggestions;
 
Under (5. Remedies):
 
AB/ text suggest/add/
If there is any remaining harassment message or record (which is publicly
evidence) after the reported attack and the decision made by IETF, then the
related harassment object MUST be removed/destroyed from IETF public access and
MAY be saved in private data base of the IETF. 

Please note that I was requested by the author to post in the IETF my comments. 
 
Regards
AB

---

From: "VIGOUREUX, MARTIN (MARTIN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 17:56:23 +0000

Hi,

Note sure I perfectly understood AB's suggestion ("MAY be saved in private data base of the IETF") but as you surely know, creating database records, especially when these relate to individuals, is often subject to regulation in various countries.

-m
________________________________
De : Adrian Farrel
Envoyé : 07/03/2014 18:36
À : 'Abdussalam Baryun'; 'Pete Resnick'
Cc : 'IETF-Discussion list'
Objet : RE: Anti-harassment procedures - next version

Yes, OK. I think there is a point here that we can work into the next revision. Maybe significant rewording, but by supplying potential text I have been able understand your concern.
Thanks,
Adrian

Adding suggestions;

Under (5. Remedies):

AB/ text suggest/add/
If there is any remaining harassment message or record (which is publicly evidence) after the reported attack and the decision made by IETF, then the related harassment object MUST be removed/destroyed from IETF public access and MAY be saved in private data base of the IETF.

Regards
AB

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 00:34:24 +0000

do not alter the public record.  it is a public record, not edited
history.  this is a primrose path.

randy

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 19:41:30 -0500

That's what I was thinking. "Silence those who oppose free speech!"

--
Sent from a mobile device. Sorry for typos or weird auto-correct. Thank IETF LEMONADE for mobile email! See <http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/>

> On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 19:22:58 -0800 (PST)

I think there are degrees of hiding. If a post or series of
posts are judged to be harassment, I tend to think it a good
idea to remove them from the primary record. Provide an alternate
view of the archive which shows the suppressed/hidden content
in context.

Since the public record may be read at any point in time in the
future, it makes no sense to judge behavior harassment and then
leave it in full view. Sort of negates the whole anti-harassment
process.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 10:23:53 -0000

> history.  this is a primrose path.

Randy, you are right, and I have as much antipathy to spring flowers as the next
person, but...

When I look at
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html I see a
similar issue handled "in exceptional circumstances" to protect the IETF from
litigation, to protect individuals from extreme forms of targeting, and to
protect the reputation of the IETF.

I think the Ombudsperson should have this remedy available. I would not expect
it to be applied as a regular remedy against cases of argumentum ad hominem, but
I think the Ombudsperson should be allowed to remove exceptionally crass
material.

Yes, the conflict with freedom of speech is very concerning. But there is surely
a line here somewhere. Suppose someone takes a photo of me naked emerging from
my hotel shower and posts it on the WEIRDS mailing list?

So, what I want to work towards is language that lets the Ombudsperson know that
this remedy is available, but that it is not expected to be applied casually.

I think that, just as we did for the IESG statement on I-Ds, we should take
advice (in this case from counsel and the IAOC) before forming a solid policy. 

To my knowledge two emails have been removed from the general archive in the
last five years on the direction of the IESG (Jari and Russ may have better
recollection). They were very offensive personal attacks.

It is right that we should debate this.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 11:16:45 +0000

Hi Adrian

I agree with you totally. I think also that the draft needs to consider
that there are many people watching the discussions and IETF activities of
lists/group, but because of those watchers (usually from Asia and
Europe) good reputation in community, so they will refuse to engage in such
groups discussion/activity because those groups/list have LARGE space of
freedom to even shoot at humans instead to shoot at
ideas/texts/technologies.

In addition, IMHO the draft should include the social problem of
the identified and unidentified persons that may become parts in
the harassing situation. So usually reporters like to be unknown to public,
usually harass respondents like to be unknown, and the victims like to be
known by good reputation but unknown of such attacks against them. This may
be important to ombudsperson responsibilities to maintain privacy.

The IETF discussion registration gives chance to any person to have more
than one name or identity but not real names (which may be known only by
few hidden harassing persons so they can enjoy). The IETF ombudsperson
usually uses identities to investigate, so there is a problem which can be
solved by removing inputs quickly within minutes in such unknown
harassing. I will try to do some text to suggest into the draft, but others
can help formulating the idea if they agree.

Regards

AB

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 12:02:30 -0000

Abdussalam,
 
Don't get me wrong: I do not recommend this as a normal process. Just a case for
exceptions.
 
Also don't assume that the Ombudsperson would act that fast.
 
A list manager *might* be able to act fast if they are in the right time zone,
awake, not working, reading email all the time... But that is unlikely and
unusual. Furthermore, the list manager should not be doing this sort of thing
without care and consultation. 
 
Thus, this remedy could be included in the set, but would remain a rarity that
might be used very infrequently, and even then only after careful deliberation.
 
I suspect you hope that this could be a quick fix to a few insulting emails. I
would be surprised if the consensus was behind that view. I certainly don't
agree with it.
 
Adrian

From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 08 March 2014 11:17
To: [email-masked]
Cc: IETF Disgust
Subject: Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next version
 
Hi Adrian
 
I agree with you totally. I think also that the draft needs to consider that
there are many people watching the discussions and IETF activities of
lists/group, but because of those watchers (usually from Asia and Europe) good
reputation in community, so they will refuse to engage in such groups
discussion/activity because those groups/list have LARGE space of freedom to
even shoot at humans instead to shoot at ideas/texts/technologies. 
 
In addition, IMHO the draft should include the social problem of the identified
and unidentified persons that may become parts in the harassing situation. So
usually reporters like to be unknown to public, usually harass respondents like
to be unknown, and the victims like to be known by good reputation but unknown
of such attacks against them. This may be important to ombudsperson
responsibilities to maintain privacy. 
 
The IETF discussion registration gives chance to any person to have more than
one name or identity but not real names (which may be known only by few hidden
harassing persons so they can enjoy). The IETF ombudsperson usually uses
identities to investigate, so there is a problem which can be solved by removing
inputs quickly within minutes in such unknown harassing. I will try to do some
text to suggest into the draft, but others can help formulating the idea if they
agree. 
 
Regards
 
AB

When I look at

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 13:41:16 +0000

"In addition, IMHO the draft should include the social problem of the identified and unidentified persons that may become parts in the harassing situation. So usually reporters like to be unknown to public, usually harass respondents like to be unknown, and the victims like to be known by good reputation but unknown of such attacks against them. This may be important to ombudsperson responsibilities to maintain privacy."

I have no idea what that paragraph means.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [[email-masked]]
Sent: 08 March 2014 11:16
To: [email-masked]
Cc: IETF Disgust
Subject: Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next version

Hi Adrian

I agree with you totally. I think also that the draft needs to consider that there are many people watching the discussions and IETF activities of lists/group, but because of those watchers (usually from Asia and Europe) good reputation in community, so they will refuse to engage in such groups discussion/activity because those groups/list have LARGE space of freedom to even shoot at humans instead to shoot at ideas/texts/technologies.

In addition, IMHO the draft should include the social problem of the identified and unidentified persons that may become parts in the harassing situation. So usually reporters like to be unknown to public, usually harass respondents like to be unknown, and the victims like to be known by good reputation but unknown of such attacks against them. This may be important to ombudsperson responsibilities to maintain privacy.

The IETF discussion registration gives chance to any person to have more than one name or identity but not real names (which may be known only by few hidden harassing persons so they can enjoy). The IETF ombudsperson usually uses identities to investigate, so there is a problem which can be solved by removing inputs quickly within minutes in such unknown harassing. I will try to do some text to suggest into the draft, but others can help formulating the idea if they agree.

Regards

AB

When I look at

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 08:06:27 +0000

On 2014-03-07 16:15, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> AB/ text suggest/add/
> If there is any remaining harassment message or record (which is
> publicly evidence) after the reported attack and the decision made by
> IETF, then the related harassment object MUST be removed/destroyed from
> IETF public access and MAY be saved in private data base of the IETF. 

I object strongly.

What has been visible on an IETF mailing list must also be visible in
the archives.

   Patrik

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:40:15 +0100

>What has been visible on an IETF mailing list must also be visible in

That might sound nice in principle but there are all sorts of overriding
interests where content should be removed, like wholly illegal content,
copyright violations, and certainly also content violating personality
rights. If, for instance, somebody is being harassed by having images of
them posted to IETF mailing lists, and the victim wants them removed, I
think such a request should be given very serious consideration.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:14:03 +0100

Bjoern,

> think such a request should be given very serious consideration.

We need to distinguish between the normal cases (the principle) and the
unusual circumstances. The unusual circumstances are safe guarded by a
set of rules. I think this works well, and no need to change.

The unusual circumstances does not include that I feel harassed by
someone repeatedly claims that wg chairs should be removed if they
fail to be report that there is some misbehavior on a mailing list.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 20:40:56 +0100

> think such a request should be given very serious consideration.
We have been through this before. Last time we had this discussion, it 
was centered around I-Ds, but I don't think the principles need to be 
much different.

The policy for removal of I-Ds has been in place at least since 2012, 
and is found here:

https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html

Basically, the IESG decides when we have a real case to decide on; if 
possible, we will make sure it's obvious from the archives that stuff 
has been removed. Until then, we don't remove anything.

I think that's an appropriate policy.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:46:03 -0000

Harald echoes my original email

Just to show diversity, I agree with Bjoern and disagree with Patrik.

I think that AB's 2119 MUST is far too strong.
I think that Patrik's requirement that the archives retain everything posted is
too rigid.

In the I-D, Pete and I have tried to devolve such decisions (on other things) to
the Ombudsperson on the grounds that we want consistency of application, and
reasonable assessment of what should be removed.

I believe that for legal reasons, the original email must be retained in a
non-public place that can be accessed by the Secretariat.

Can we leave this, that the authors will add a line to the document noting that
this is an action the Ombudsperson may consider? Then we can all move on to
making the Internet better.

Adrian

> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: 09 March 2014 19:41
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Removing stuff from archives (Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next
> version)
>

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 19:57:33 +0000

> Just to show diversity, I agree with Bjoern and disagree with Patrik.

FWIW, I agree with you.

There might be reasons why things are removed, but as Harald stated we
do have a policy for it.

   Patrik

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:22:41 -0400

Adrian,

> I think that Patrik's requirement that the archives retain everything posted is

OK

> reasonable assessment of what should be removed.

The more actual executive authority the Ombudsperson has, the less
they are a neutral arbiter and facilitator and the more likely they
are become ensnarled as one of the actors in a messy controversy. The
authority to take such a rare and drastic action as deleting messages
should be with the IESG, not the Ombudsperson.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 22:03:28 -0400

> should be with the IESG, not the Ombudsperson.

So, what about "The IESG on the advice of the Ombudsperson"?  I also
think it needs to be made pretty clear that this is an action reserved
for the most egregious cases.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 22:36:40 -0400

We used to try to expunge old versions of drafts from the Internet.
Whatever process the IETF comes up with, if there is a possibility of
material being removed, other archives will work harder to be sure it is
preserved.

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 06:14:22 +0000

> We used to try to expunge old versions of drafts from the Internet. Whatever 
> process the IETF comes up with, if there is a possibility of material being removed, 
> other archives will work harder to be sure it is preserved. 

There is something literally Orwellian about attempting to remove messages from the archives in the name of political correctness. I wonder why we are even considering the notion. This is the IETF, not the "Ministry of Truth." 

Besides, as Scott points out, it cannot work. We have been using email on the Internet for more than 30 years, and by now we should all be aware that there is no such thing as a "recall" button. The mailing list is distributed, anybody can archive it, and I am pretty sure that people already do. Any attempt to remove something from the archives will most likely trigger the re-publication of the offending material in some alternate site. Welcome to the Streisand effect.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Jelte Jansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:34:42 +0000

> material being removed, other archives will work harder to be sure it is

And this removal of dead drafts has been a problem too. There were cases
where code points were assigned but the drafts never made it to RFC
status. While that made the code points officially obsolete, it would
have been useful to be able to find what they originally meant, for
(historic) documentation purposes as well as making sure they weren't
actually still in use, which gets a lot harder if you don't even know
*what* use.

Jelte

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:17:43 +0100

Bonjour, Ni Hao, and Hallo,
(greatings used in some IETF individuals meeting :-)

IMHO the draft should encourage and recommend progress in WGs and
progress between participants social skills problems (may be in
introduction). If we replace shooting style/behavior with forgiveness
style/behavior, then such participation style will help progress for
more people politely setting their output tone or messages. Therefore
more IETF input participation and diversity.

Adding section related to Assisting Subject and Respondent :

AB> the draft may need some thing that helps both sides, as assistance
in their plans and thoughts while they are in such situation. The
Ombudsperson may need volunteers (close friends to both sides) to help
reduce the HEAT. Please note that Subject MAY call the police, which
we may not prefer because we MAY be able to solve the issues
internally in IETF. Therefore, having a section to promote internal
volunteering within IETF makes us more social and more proactive.

Adding suggestion into draft:

under (5.Remedies):

AB>suggest to add text>
If the decision was to give the respondent full activity rights, then
the respondent MUST apologies in public to the subject and to the
community of such possible harassment. This will help the main goal of
anti-harassment which is that all work together within healthy
environment to encourage participation and diversity.

under (5.Remedies):

The draft paragraph>
   However, the Ombudsperson has ultimate
   responsibility for the choice of remedy.

 AB>discussing> the Ombudsperson SHOULD consider and to discuss the
subject request remedies to get better results of his/her final
Ombudsperson remedy choice, as how to make both (subject and
respondent) in future be able to work with each other and forgive each
other and how to help the Internet-community/Internet-societies to
work with both of them. The aim of Ombudsperson remedy choices is to
consider the IETF vision, diversity and objectives but also to protect
subjects to any such harassment objects within IETF and in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that I was requested by the author to post/share my
thoughts in the IETF list to make it in one place. However, I prefere
the diversity list so I send a copy to it as well.

Salam,
(my personal used greating :-)

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:00:17 +0000

My last comment for this new draft-01:

draft-farrresnickel-harassment-01

AB/ discuss/ Ombudsperson may receive many reports from community for such
incident. Is the ombudsperson report per subject or per respondent? As if
one respondent harasses two subjects what will be the report/decision or if
two/more respondents harassing one subject what will be reported/decided.

AB/discuss/ I suggest ombudsperson to report per subject not per
respondent. However, should include reference to other subjects if
harassing is related by same respondent or same harassing object. Per
subject is best because it focuses the anti-harassing actions and
conclusion to respect and protect each subject (subjects may be different
even if they had same harassing respondent or same harassing object). The
subjects may have different reactions.

Therefore, suggest:

ADD/ in section 4
The ombudsperson MUST report/document all harassment/anti-harassment
actions and his/her actions and decisions and summaries that report with
conclusion and recommendation. The ombudsperson report, 1) will summaries
are reporters information per subject but not per respondents and not per
harassment object, 2) will include actions and conclusions with dates and
time, 3) will include final anti-harassment decision.

ADD/ in section 5
The ombudsperson SHOULD report his/her actions after execution but
SHOULD report final anti-harassment decisions before presented to subject
or respondent.

Thanks. My Best Wishes.

Salam,

AB

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:15:43 +0100

All,

I find this reporting business becoming more and more orwellian, at
least reading the mail below.

The way it work today is that wg chairs are running wg meetings and
mailing lists. We take care of any harassment that we see and deal with
it locally. Realistically I've seen no real harassment cases, but maybe
one or maybe two cases where I as wg chair told people to behave over
the last 10 years. And like other things that I can handle as a wg chair
I don't want to "report"!

I can see that an ombudsman is a good safety net and support for the
wg chairs, but as all safety nets it should never be used. Adding
a "reporting everything" clause is just plain stupid. I guess that the
ombudsman will be smart enough to understand what needs to be brought
to IAB, IESG or ISOC. We don't want to make a bird flock of a very
small feather.

/Loa

On 2014-03-13 11:00, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> AB/ discuss/ Ombudsperson may receive many reports from community for
> such incident. Is the ombudsperson report per subject or per
> respondent? As if one respondent harasses two subjects what will be the
> report/decision or if two/more respondents harassing one subject what
> will be reported/decided.
>
> conclusion to respect and protect each subject (subjects may be
> different even if they had same harassing respondent or same harassing
> object). The subjects may have different reactions.
>
> Therefore, suggest:
>
> ADD/ in section 4
> conclusion and recommendation. The ombudsperson report,
> 1) will summaries are reporters information per subject but not per
> respondents and not per harassment object, 2) will include actions and
> conclusions with dates and time, 3) will include final anti-harassment
> decision.
>
> ADD/ in section 5
> SHOULD report final anti-harassment decisions before presented to
> subject or respondent.
>
> Thanks. My Best Wishes.
>
> Salam,
>
> AB
>
>     publicly

--

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:37:03 -0800

On 3/13/14 5:15 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> mailing lists.

My understanding is that there have been incidents outside
of a working group context, at IETF events.

Melinda

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:49:39 +0000

The ombudsperson's report is important because the draft mention the
possibility of IETF chair to remove such ombudsperson, or complaints
against ombudsperson by subject or respondent. The ombudsperson report is
for directors only. Such report is good for IESG and IAB and IETF chair.

AB

On Thursday, March 13, 2014, Loa Andersson wrote:

>      > evidence) after the rep

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:51:43 +0100

Melinda,

Sure I am aware of this - it is just that the "reporting everything" to
me seems totally unnecessary. The ombudsman should report what the
ombudsman do. No argument there, but it should be limited to that.
And the ombudsman should just not "interfere" when things work well.

/Loa

--

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:54:36 -0800

> And the ombudsman should just not "interfere" when things work well.

I think so, as well, but I'll worry about those proposals
you're responding to when more than one person thinks
they're a good idea.

Melinda