I apologize for the late review. First, I'd like to say that there are many great things about this document: 1) I think that 1) It is not overly specific; it understands we don't know everything about how this process works yet. 2) It's clear how to report an issue. 3) It has more thought about conflict of interest than is typical for the IETF. 4) It acknowledges that this an area where an ISOC appeal may end up being the right answer and explicitly allows for that. While I hope we don't see such an appeal, I'm really happy that we're honest about the possibility and permit that approach when needed. I've reviewed Michael's concerns about section 5. I agree that the team will need to carefully consider what remedy is appropriate. However, I do believe that the options provided by section 5 are all necessary and don't think we will succeed in doing a better job of writing section 5 at this time. I think there's significant legal liability involved here. If the IETF fails to act in a situation where there is harassment, we and our participants may face significant liability. If the IETF isn't careful in how it acts, especially if it acts in a manner that disadvantages a party, it may have significant liability for impacts on the standards process's openness. You actually have liability when you make decisions. That's kind of the point though. If we want to avoid liability, we could close up shop. I suspect folks would be happy to move into the vacuum:-) Yes, the IESG should get legal review. Yes, we should not take unnecessary risks. However, we should also commit ourselves both to avoiding harassment and to an open standards process. Both of those commitments involve legal and other risk. I do have two concerns about the draft: 1) Certain disclosures are necessary for the process to work. As an example it's probably necessary for a respondent to know that there has been a report to properly investigate it. The draft sort of anticipates this sort of necessary disclosure. However, if I were on the IESG or involved in handling a complaint of harassment, I don't think the current text would be adequate for me to do my job. Here are some examples: * Does the respondent get to know the identity of the reporter? What about the subject? Arguments against are the general language of confidentiality. Arguments for are the mutually review statement, and the offer of mediation. Also, it seems like it would be really hard to respond without knowing the identity of the subject. However reporter seems more complex. * How does this whole thing where the team recommends removing someone from a position of leadership work? What level of detail can be shared with the IESG for removing a chair? 2) I am concerned that there's no effective mechanism to remove an AD, IAOC member or IAB member under this BCP. How do you possibly imagine getting enough signatures for a recall petition? How does that interact with your confidentiality and the needs of the recall committee. Please talk to folks involved in the recent recall petition and consider how much difficulty we had in a very clear-cut case. If you believe the existing procedures are adequate, please add some description of how something leading to recall might work focusing on how confidentiality is approached.