I meant Rob...apologies for misspelling your name... Daniele BR > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli > Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2022 14:02 > To: Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Massy) <julien.maisonneuve@xxxxxxxxx>; > Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Joel Halpern > <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: BCP 83 PR actions and new media > > 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 > > > > > >
