Hi Julien, That's not what Ron is saying. > But there > may be some actions that the IETF could take that may help protect the > harassed individual, e.g., at the extreme end, preventing them from participating > in the IETF. This doesn’t mean that the IETF should top-up law enforcement. If the IETF decides to ban a person from a mailing list or to prevent someone from participating in IETF meetings is something that goes in parallel with the legal process, it doesn't interfere with it. BR Daniele > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - > FR/Massy) > Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2022 13:07 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Joel Halpern > <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: BCP 83 PR actions and new media > > This is troubling. In effect you're arguing that legal recourse is insufficient and > that IETF needs to top-up whatever law enforcement and the justice system > might decide. What would a judge think about that ? > This is not our role. Encouraging people to be nice is good, but designing rules to > prevent extorsion, rape or rampage in the meetings should not be our concern, > we have laws and law enforcement for that. > J. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 12:25 PM > To: Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: BCP 83 PR actions and new media > > Hi Joel, > > I might be disagreeing: > > If an IETF participant chooses to harass another IETF participant, be that via > email (public or private), verbally, or physically, then the harassed participant > should absolutely be able to raise their concerns via the relevant channels (e.g., > as Lars previously indicated below), so that appropriate action can be taken, if > possible. > > However, if your point is that some of those actions (e.g., involving law > enforcement) is outside the scope of the IETF then I agree with you. But there > may be some actions that the IETF could take that may help protect the > harassed individual, e.g., at the extreme end, preventing them from participating > in the IETF. > > I would like to think that we are collectively here to build standards and make > the Internet better for humanity. Personally, I believe that we should > collectively try hard to be as nice as possible to each other when participating in > the IETF. > > Regards, > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern > Sent: 10 November 2022 10:15 > To: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lars Eggert > <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: BCP 83 PR actions and new media > > I do not see how the IETF can take any role or position regarding private > communication. One can argue that private communication may be relevant > evidence for judging public behavior, but that is very tricky. > > Yours, > > Joel > > On 11/10/2022 5:11 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On 11/10/22 03:25, Lars Eggert wrote: > > > >> PR actions per BCP 83 can only be used in response to on-list > >> behavior. I agree this is far from ideal as our participation > >> channels have multiplied. > > Right, I was asking about what "should" be the case, since there seems > > to be some interest in revising BCP 83. I'm not sure what I > > personally believe should be the case, since I think there's some > > utility in people being able to speak their minds freely, and private > > communications are less likely to be disruptive than public > > communications. On the other hand, in recent years it has seemed > > that sometimes people collaborate to pressure or even harass people > > via private email, and on occasion this practice even seems to have > > been driven by management. If nothing else such a practice lacks > > transparency. > > > >> If you feel you are being harassed as an IETF participant in general > >> and/or in ways other than on mailing lists, please see the IETF > >> Anti-Harassment Policy [1], i.e., contact the IESG or - if privacy is > >> a concern - the ombudsteam [2]. > > > > I'm aware of those mechanisms, but in my limited experience with them > > they've worked rather poorly, and (at least at that time) were clearly > > not operated independently of IETF management. > > > > Keith > > > >
