I completely agree with Noel on every detail of these comments. And, no, I was not one of the complainers either. :-) -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] --> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:26 AM --> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Cc: jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) --> --> > From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --> --> >> it is better that we aren't copied because to do so --> would be unfair to --> >> the complainer(s). --> --> > As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past ... --> I think he's right --> > in this case. In my opinion, any sort of disciplinary --> action needs to --> > be *perceived* as fair. ... I think we do need to --> follow due process. --> --> I'm going to disagree with you on this. My reasoning is --> that the decision of --> whether or not to suspend should be based almost entirely --> on the target --> person's posts, so the identity (and, indeed, the number) of people --> complaining is basically irrelevant. --> --> The whole concept of "facing your accuser" came about --> because the accusers --> usually made factual claims ("I saw Joe steal Frank's --> car"). Traditionally, --> people wanted to be able to weigh the truthfulness of such claims by --> observing the person making the assertion, and observing --> their response to --> questioning. In addition, the target might know of some --> grudge that led the --> accuser to make a false accusation. In this case, however, there is --> absolutely no probative value coming from knowing *who* complained. --> --> To put it another way, I would hope if several people --> complained about some --> reasonable post, the SaA(s) would independently review the --> post, and if they --> thought it was reasonable, would take no action, the number --> or identity of --> the complainers notwithstanding. The issue is not who --> complained - the issue --> is the content of the posts - and that's all. --> --> Indeed, any miniscule probative value in knowing who --> complained is entire --> outweighed, IMO, by the possibility that making their --> identities public would --> result in a campaign of harrassment against them. --> --> And no, I was not one of the people who complained privately. --> --> --> > I do agree that the Sergeants-at-Arms can act on --> their own volition, --> > but if they do they should say so --> --> I have no probem with the SaA(s) disclosing whether or not --> they acted --> entirely on their own bat, in response to complaints, or --> both. In addition, I --> have no problem with them disclosing the number (if any) of --> complainters. --> --> However, I strenuously oppose making the names public, --> because the potential --> harm in that (possibility for harassment, and also the --> possibility that --> less-forthcoming people will sit on their hands rather than --> complain, if --> their names have to be made public) far outweighs any --> possible value in in --> mking them public. Indeed, it turns out that most police --> departments actually --> have anonymous tip lines, for precisely these reasons (and others). --> --> --> If the community decides to do elsewise, I offer myself up --> as an anonymizing --> agent for any complaints to the SaA(s); i.e. I will forward --> any complaints --> sent to me, as if they were my own, after removing the --> identity of the --> former. If I can recruit a few other people to do the same, --> that will suffice --> to avoid any issue with one person not being able to --> complain more than once. --> --> Noel --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf