Hi On Thu 20/Feb/2014 21:56:38 +0100 Jari Arkko wrote: > > I know this topic is hard to discuss. Hopefully there are very few > situations where these procedures are needed, but they are needed. > I thank you for your help and respectful input into this difficult > but important discussion. A couple of comments: > > IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures > draft-farrresnickel-harassment-00 > > The following terms are used in this document: > > Reporter: An IETF participant who reports potential harassment to > the Ombudsperson. You mean "harassment or potential harassment", don't you? I suggest a fifth definition, grouping the persons --Target(s) or Reporter(s)-- who started or were involved in a case. For example: Harassed Subject: The Target or the Reporter if there is no individual Target. > > The Ombudsperson is expected to be present at the majority of IETF > meetings and to be available for face-to-face discussions. In that case, it might be practical to consider Ombudsperson deputies, nominated by the Ombudsperson directly, possibly for a single meeting/event only. > All information brought to the Ombudsperson shall be kept in strict > confidence. Yes, unless the Harassed Subjects agree to publish it. I see no reason to make it necessarily confidential in every case. In some cases, public disapprobation can save the day (see below). > Any electronic information (such as email messages) that > needs to be archived shall be encrypted before it is stored. Since this is not a technical memo, it could suffice to say that the Ombudsperson will use adequate precautions when transmitting or archiving confidential information. > When a Reporter brings an incident of potential harassment to the > Ombudsperson's attention to, the Ombudsperson will discuss the events > with the Reporter and may give advice including recommendations on > how the Reporter can handle the issue on their own and strategies on > how to prevent the issue from arising again. The Ombudsperson may > also indicate that the issue would be best handled using regular IETF > procedures (such as those for dealing with disruptive behavior) > outside the context of harassment, and in this case the Ombudsperson > will provide assistance in using the relevant IETF procedures. In > any event, the Ombudsperson will not initiate detailed investigations > or impose a remedy without agreement to proceed from the Target (or > the Reporter if there is no individual Target). This is yet another place where the fifth definition comes handy. > After examining the circumstances regarding the complaint of > harassment and determining that harassment has taken place, the > Ombudsperson is expected to choose a remedy that is appropriate to > the circumstance. At one end of the spectrum, the Ombudsperson may > decide that the misbehavior is best handled with the regular IETF > procedures for dealing with disruptive behavior and may assist the > Reporter to bring the issue to the attention of the working group > chair or IESG member who can deal with the incident. The > Ombudsperson might also choose simply to discuss the situation with > the Respondent and come up with a plan such that there is no repeat > of the harassment. With the agreement of both parties, the > Ombudsperson can also help to mediate a conversation between the > Respondent and the Target (or the Reporter if there is no individual > Target) in order to address the issue. In such circumstances, the Ombudsperson can devise a punishment or penitence to be inflicted to the Respondent. Anything like a slap on the wrist or having the Respondent stand naked on the stage and publicly apologize for his/her misconduct will do, so long as the Harassed Subjects agree that it is appropriate. Of course, the Ombudsperson has no legal power to enforce a punishment, but the Respondent's willingness to receive it voluntarily is to be considered when making further decisions on the case. jm2c Ale