Have there been harassment cases in the IETF, using the definition given in the I-D? I'm thinking that most cases of harassment (here and elsewhere) are either a) not sufficiently notable (people being jerks without causing too much grief), or b) so notable as to merit civil or criminal law action. Clearly there's not much for us to do about (b), and doing much about (a) seems unwarranted. No doubt there is also a class (c) of jerks who won't stop being jerks, but they risk either escalating to legal action territory ((b)), or being ostracized. IMO for type (c) cases there is a lot to say for using social stigma, because otherwise we're just politicizing everything. But perhaps we have too much of (c), in which case a formal mechanism for dealing with harassment becomes desirable. This is partly why I ask the above question. Or perhaps we're trying to avoid ever getting to where (c) is a problem? Perhaps we have new participants who are demonstrating heretofore-unparalleled skill at being jerks? Or perhaps this is a tick-the-box exercise (because other comparable organizations are doing this?). Also, I'm +1 to Michael StJohn's question about ISOC and IETF trust legal review. Finally, we certainly have cases where discussions get heated and some participants end up using the sort of language that would be a behavior problem and which yet does not meet the definition of harassment given in the I-D. The remedy generally is for someone (anyone, often WG chairs, ADs, but not necessarily) to warn them privately. If that works well enough (I think it does), then why wouldn't that also work for harassment as defined in this I-D, and if it doesn't work well enough, then is the scope of harassment here too narrow? I'd rather continue using the social tools at our disposal as long as possible. Once we have formal tools we'll have to use them, which will make the IETF somewhat less pleasant a forum. Our hand can always be forced here, and you can see I'm curious as to whether that's what's happened. BTW, I have observed participants at the hotel bar using language that I consider inflammatory but which they don't, and which one might consider to fall into the definition given in the I-D but which others might not. A common example that might test the given definition is disagreement as to whether sharp criticism of country A's policies is distinguishable from (and therefore permissible) harassment based on the ethnicity/religion/... of the people of country A. I don't really want to see an official body of the IETF become embroiled in deciding such matters. It's all unpleasant, and I'd rather participants kept these opinions to themselves. But it happens, and I've a feeling that the Ombudsteam will become one of those highly politicized bodies, to our collective detriment. In the worst case I can see civil lawsuits (e.g., defamation) resulting, which is one reason to want the lawyers of the entities whose pockets might be affected to review this! Nico --