At 06:15 PM 3/19/2015, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >I read "local law" as meaning the law where the interaction is taking place. While that can get very complicated for electronic interaction, for the example you chose to cite it is very clear. If Charlie Hebdo's cover violates local law where you are reading it, you have chosen to ask for more trouble than just a discussion with the IETF harrasment ombudsman. Except the document does not say "local law" and does not say "local law at the place where the IETF occurs during only the time the IETF is in session". The phrase was "applicable law" and that is NOT equivalent to "local law" in any way, shape or form. >Yours, >Joel > >PS: While one can indeed decline the advice of attorney, one needs to be very sure of the reasons for the advice, and the implications of declining, before doing so. > >On 3/19/15 6:05 PM, Dan Harkins wrote: >> >> Hi Pete, >> >>On Thu, March 19, 2015 2:31 pm, Pete Resnick wrote: >>>On 3/19/15 2:54 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. >>> >>>This was added at the behest of the attorneys that did the legal review. >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>You have misread the sentence (for which I don't blame you; see below). >>>It is not talking about dealing with acts that are violations of local >>>law. What it says is that the procedures in this document *can* be >>>applied to an act that falls under the definition of harassment that >>>appears in a local law. That is, if a local law says that harassment >>>includes commenting on the stripe pattern of someone's shoes, a person >>>*may* bring a complaint of harassment to the Ombudsteam and ask that >>>these procedures be used. >> >> Is this bringing our standards down to the lowest common denominator >>in the world? Your example is (intentionally, I presume) trivial but not >>by much. Let me try a real world example: >> >> If I am sitting in the lobby of the IETF hotel reading Charlie Hebdo and >>the cover has something someone finds offensive and that might, in fact, >>be a violation of a law in their home country am I subject to becoming >>a Respondent? Even if it's not a violation of the law but the person feels >>like he or she has been harassed by viewing the cover of my magazine >>am I subject to becoming a Respondent? >> >>>I did not think that the wording was particularly clear, but it is the >>>wording that the attorneys felt would be legally useful. >> >> Sometimes it's OK to politely decline to take an attorney's advice. >> >> regards, >> >> Dan. >> >> >>