Hi. I wanted to follow up after some off-list discussions with Pete. I do not mean to imply that Pete agrees with these issues; we discussed some ways of addressing them below, and I give Pete credit for ideas that are his. However, Pete did not express an opinion about whether I had identified issues that required resolution, simply worked to find solutions. Thanks for a really helpful discussion. First, I'm really happy that the IETF is doing this work. I hope to work in an IETF that takes a strong stand against harassment (and as Dave points out bullying). I believe the general approach in this draft is sound, and I am happy thinking about that basic approach. However, reading this draft, I'm filled with sadness, disappointment and worry when I think about some of the details. I do not think this draft is ready and I think we have some more work to do. I don't support the idea that what we have is good enough and we should run with it and incrementally improve later. Also, after reading Dave Crocker's review and discussing with him off-list, I think he has points that critically need to be considered. In particular, Dave's point about distinguishing interpersonal difficulty from harassment and not focusing on asking subjects to act differently in the case of harassment seems important. Here are my specific concerns restated. I have two concerns; the first relates to confidentiality and both Pete and I believe this is easy to address. The second is likely to get a very strong emotional reaction, so I'll put it at the end. I think the text about confidentiality is highly problematic. We all seem to agree that their are tradeoffs between confidentiality and getting a job done. As an example, everyone I've talked to seems to agree that when a detailed investigation takes place, the respondent is going to find out that some report is made. If I were going to participate in this process, I would want to better understand what information would be disclosed to whom. At what point in the process is the respondent likely to find out? Will they find out the identity of the reporter? The subject? Many similar questions exist. I don't expect this document to answer these questions. I think the ombudsteam has an obligation to answer these questions and failure to write down answers to the questions means the process is very unfair. Whether I want to report or disclose information may depend on who will learn that information. So, I propose that the list of items that the ombudsteam needs to document in their procedures should be expanded to include "Description of the current thinking of when disclosures of confidential information are made in the process and to whom." I'm sure the wording can be improved. In addition, " All information brought to the Ombudsteam shall be kept in strict confidence." is too strong. The later sentence about striving for confidentiality is more accurate and believable. Pete seemed to believe that the above sentence might be intended to be scoped to some narrow purpose. It needs to be changed in some way. ---------------------------------------- When I heard that the IESG added text saying that the ombudsteam cannot remove a leader, I felt a great anger. How could they do that? I explored that feeling and realized that I was deeply disappointed, sad and afraid. I hoped that our leadership would commit to holding themselves to high standard and would be committed to resolving problems when our leaders engage in harassing behavior. However, what I hear when I read that change is the IESG has decided to exclude itself and its appointments of working group chairs from review of the ombudsteam. On knowledge and belief, I assert that that IESG members have engaged in harassing behavior over the years and there are ongoing problems involving working group chairs. I'm relieved that I personally have not been subjected to behavior for which removal from a leadership position would be an appropriate remedy. However, given that harassment does happen within our leadership, it seems likely that removal will sometimes be the right approach. I suspect the IESG intends me to hear something else. Pete says that is the case. That doesn't matter; the statement is so loud that anything you may have tried to say is lost in the shouting of my emotional reaction. The IESG had a chance to embrace the idea that our leadership is accountable and chose for whatever reason to step away from it. I've asked others to review the change and the reaction I got was a strong negative emotional reaction that the IESG would not support a viable mechanism for removing a leader. Pete proposes that the ombudsteam could effectively exclude a leader by preventing them from attending meetings. There's nothing in the document that suggests this is how to remove a leader. If I were subjected to that remedy, I'd make an appeal that the ombudsteam had taken on power specifically denied to them by trying to remove me from my leadership position. I suspect some ombudsteam members will be uncomfortable given the language in the document trying to effectively remove a leader. The emotional effect on subjects and reporters who read this document and find their need for a chance at redress is denied is huge. I am in the strongest possible disagreement with this text and the process that lead to it. The IESG is highly conflicted with regard to the question of remedies applied to IETF leadership. Having such a remedy be removed as a decision taken by the IESG is entirely inappropriate. Yes, the previous text was broken, and the document couldn't have been approved with it present. However, the IESG took on the decision of whether to fix the text or remove it themselves. The IESG decided to replace that text with a positive statement denying the ombudsteam the ability to remove leaders. Even if you intended something else, the IESG took an affirmative stand that partially exempts our leadership from the anti-harassment process. I believe this issue must be fixed in the document. I believe the IESG has a significant conflict-of-interest with regard to this issue and has displayed a lack of sensitivity to that conflict in the process it has used to date. I request the IESG be sensitive to this conflict and adopt a procedure that might be even more sensitive to the issue than usual because it has already displayed a lack of sensitivity. With regard to the specific question of how do you provide a way to address leaders that need removal, Pete and I tried to brainstorm solutions. However we ran out of time because I needed to run off to another meeting.