Hi Andrea,
At 06:50 22-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
Could you please clarify / expand on what you mean exactly?
The end of the sentence is about using the procedures in
draft-farrresnickel-harassment-00 when other procedures have been
ineffective. As such it allows the procedures to be invoked when the
other procedures did not produce the desired results.
My preference is to use this intended BCP when a case of harassment
is reported. If it a case of, for example, me being rude to you,
that can be addressed through existing BCPs (unless it is reported as
harassment). I prefer not to see this intended BCP used as a
threat. That avoids having to get into a lengthy security
consideration discussion about the misuse of the intended BCP.
The passage seems quite clear to me. An IETF document (whatever its
nature) cannot trump applicable laws. In some countries /
jurisdictions, especially when certain forms of harassment are a
criminal offense, not informing authorities might be itself a
violation of the law. The trick is of course knowing which
particular law / legal system would apply. That's not something that
can be solved in this document, though.
The question was about whether an Area Director would inform the
authorities. There was a question from Fred Baker during a previous
discussion about the same topic (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg83398.html
). There wasn't any response to that question.
As a comment for the Area Directors,
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html
has the following:
"If you believe you have been harassed, notice that someone else is being
harassed, or have any other concerns, you are encouraged to raise your
concern in confidence with one of the Ombudspersons."
There isn't any information about who the Ombudspersons are or how to
contact them.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy