On Thu, March 19, 2015 12:54 pm, Michael StJohns wrote: > Version -06 of draft-farresnickel-harassment has this small phrase that > was added in this version: > >> Any definition of harassment prohibited by an applicable law can be >> subject to this set of procedures. > > I find "prohibited by an applicable law" to be somewhat problematic and > overreaching. > > This should be removed. If something is a violation of applicable law, > then the folks responsible for that law should deal with it, not us. We > should be dealing with harassment that impinges on the IETFs creation of > standards and not with harassment that has little or no nexus with the > IETF. +1 If the harassment falls under the purview of some legal authorities we should disengage and let the legal process sort itself out. regards, Dan.