Adrian, On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. OK > 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. The more actual executive authority the Ombudsperson has, the less they are a neutral arbiter and facilitator and the more likely they are become ensnarled as one of the actors in a messy controversy. The authority to take such a rare and drastic action as deleting messages should be with the IESG, not the Ombudsperson. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > 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. >