"In addition, IMHO the draft should include the social problem of the identified and unidentified persons that may become parts in the harassing situation. So usually reporters like to be unknown to public, usually harass respondents like to be unknown, and the victims like to be known by good reputation but unknown of such attacks against them. This may be important to ombudsperson responsibilities to maintain privacy." I have no idea what that paragraph means. Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 08 March 2014 11:16 To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: IETF Disgust Subject: Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next version Hi Adrian I agree with you totally. I think also that the draft needs to consider that there are many people watching the discussions and IETF activities of lists/group, but because of those watchers (usually from Asia and Europe) good reputation in community, so they will refuse to engage in such groups discussion/activity because those groups/list have LARGE space of freedom to even shoot at humans instead to shoot at ideas/texts/technologies. In addition, IMHO the draft should include the social problem of the identified and unidentified persons that may become parts in the harassing situation. So usually reporters like to be unknown to public, usually harass respondents like to be unknown, and the victims like to be known by good reputation but unknown of such attacks against them. This may be important to ombudsperson responsibilities to maintain privacy. The IETF discussion registration gives chance to any person to have more than one name or identity but not real names (which may be known only by few hidden harassing persons so they can enjoy). The IETF ombudsperson usually uses identities to investigate, so there is a problem which can be solved by removing inputs quickly within minutes in such unknown harassing. I will try to do some text to suggest into the draft, but others can help formulating the idea if they agree. Regards AB On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote: > 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