Stewart, I do wish you would reference the document before launching into your critique. There is nothing in this document that constitutes the IETF making up "its own list". The text of the document, makes an observation about the IESG statement at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html. This statement was made on 2nd November 2013 while you were serving on the IESG. The text then says that the document "adopts the general definition, but does not attempt to further precisely define behavior that falls under the set of procedures..." In other word, this document does not provide a list of categories that maybe considered grounds for harassment. So your assertion is not founded. I understand that you have good reason to believe that the list at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents is well considered and reasonable. People coming from other cultures might consider it missing many categories while others might consider some of the categories it includes to be outrageous! Unless we are going to build a full and water-tight definition of harassment and obtain IEFT consensus on it *before* adopting any anti-harassment processes and appointing a team to handle any complaints, I suggest we need to move ahead with the document as it is. Personally, I would be pleasantly surprised if a body as culturally diverse (and opinionated) as the IETF could come to consensus on such a definition in any short period of time given (as you note) the IETF "has no significant expertise in this area." Perhaps a way forward here would be for us to all support this document and for a further document to attempt to give a more precise definition as advice and guidance to the Ombudsteam. If you would like to start a draft on that and run it through the consensus process, we might all benefit from it. Best, Adrian