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