Re: I-D.farrresnickel-harassment - timebomb

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Nico,

On 3/20/15 4:38 AM, Nico Williams wrote:

> Elsewhere I explain that we must be able to judge the lawyers' output.
> We cannot simply take it, no questions asked.

Not taking issue with other points in your list, but..

At least in my experience, the IETF leadership has had no problem not
simply taking (or even in some cases asking for) legal advice, to the 
consternation of our lawyer.

While the text in question is not great prose, if I understand the
intent correctly, it is to address this case:  if someone brings a
complaint that demonstrates a violation of law that can be applied in a
given situation, then the IETF management may need to take action in
order to protect the institution and its leadership against further
legal action, never mind what we think of as harassment.  That seems
both necessary and reasonable to me, even if the words aren't perfect.
>
> An IETF process is insufficient for keeping a harassment case out of
> the courts if the IETF process itself produces a controversy such as
> might cause one to file a civil lawsuit.  A process with the faults I
> listed is not confidence inspiring.

I am afraid that the risk of litigation by one party or another cannot
be avoided, and so I'll fall back on a non-lawyer's view: when in doubt,
do what you think is right.  But let's try to avoid what landmines we
can see.

To be fair to the IESG, and in particular Pete and Adrian, this is a
hard subject to cover, and the structure and purpose of the IETF does
not lend itself to many existing examples.

Eliot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]