> do not alter the public record. it is a public record, not edited > history. this is a primrose path. Randy, you are right, and I have as much antipathy to spring flowers as the next person, but... When I look at https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html I see a similar issue handled "in exceptional circumstances" to protect the IETF from litigation, to protect individuals from extreme forms of targeting, and to protect the reputation of the IETF. I think the Ombudsperson should have this remedy available. I would not expect it to be applied as a regular remedy against cases of argumentum ad hominem, but I think the Ombudsperson should be allowed to remove exceptionally crass material. Yes, the conflict with freedom of speech is very concerning. But there is surely a line here somewhere. Suppose someone takes a photo of me naked emerging from my hotel shower and posts it on the WEIRDS mailing list? So, what I want to work towards is language that lets the Ombudsperson know that this remedy is available, but that it is not expected to be applied casually. I think that, just as we did for the IESG statement on I-Ds, we should take advice (in this case from counsel and the IAOC) before forming a solid policy. To my knowledge two emails have been removed from the general archive in the last five years on the direction of the IESG (Jari and Russ may have better recollection). They were very offensive personal attacks. It is right that we should debate this. Cheers, Adrian