Harald echoes my original email Just to show diversity, I agree with Bjoern and disagree with Patrik. I think that AB's 2119 MUST is far too strong. I think that Patrik's requirement that the archives retain everything posted is too rigid. In the I-D, Pete and I have tried to devolve such decisions (on other things) to the Ombudsperson on the grounds that we want consistency of application, and reasonable assessment of what should be removed. I believe that for legal reasons, the original email must be retained in a non-public place that can be accessed by the Secretariat. Can we leave this, that the authors will add a line to the document noting that this is an action the Ombudsperson may consider? Then we can all move on to making the Internet better. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand > Sent: 09 March 2014 19:41 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Removing stuff from archives (Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next > version) > > On 03/09/2014 01:40 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > * Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> On 2014-03-07 16:15, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > >>> AB/ text suggest/add/ > >>> If there is any remaining harassment message or record (which is > >>> publicly evidence) after the reported attack and the decision made by > >>> IETF, then the related harassment object MUST be removed/destroyed from > >>> IETF public access and MAY be saved in private data base of the IETF. > >> I object strongly. > >> > >> What has been visible on an IETF mailing list must also be visible in > >> the archives. > > That might sound nice in principle but there are all sorts of overriding > > interests where content should be removed, like wholly illegal content, > > copyright violations, and certainly also content violating personality > > rights. If, for instance, somebody is being harassed by having images of > > them posted to IETF mailing lists, and the victim wants them removed, I > > think such a request should be given very serious consideration. > We have been through this before. Last time we had this discussion, it > was centered around I-Ds, but I don't think the principles need to be > much different. > > The policy for removal of I-Ds has been in place at least since 2012, > and is found here: > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html > > Basically, the IESG decides when we have a real case to decide on; if > possible, we will make sure it's obvious from the archives that stuff > has been removed. Until then, we don't remove anything. > > I think that's an appropriate policy.