On 3/22/2015 12:24 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> and will just add exposing the respondent could expose the subject, an
> important consideration.
I see this point as forcing a single, simplifying model of the Ombud's
authorization:
If the Ombudteam determines that harassment has taken place, and
If the Ombudteam further determines that strictures are required and
If the Ombudteam further determines that such strictures need to
include removal from a Nomcom-selected office and/or removal from
participation in some or all IETF activities,
Then the Ombudteam shall have the authority to effect such
strictures directly.
An appeal to a stricture is permitted with the ISOC Board of
Trustees, who shall be bound to the same confidentiality requirements as
the Ombudteam.
In case the above isn't clear enough: No other appeal path. No other
approval path. No other review.
However I think the Ombudteam should be developed out of appointments
from multiple sources, such as IETF Chair, IAB, and ISOC Board, rather
than only from the IETF Chair.
(I'm assuming the ISOC Board will agree to this role, on those terms.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net