RE: BCP 83 PR actions and new media

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

I meant Rob...apologies for misspelling your name...

Daniele
BR

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
> Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2022 14:02
> To: Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Massy) <[e-mail]>;
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>; Joel Halpern
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: BCP 83 PR actions and new media
> 
> Hi Julien,
> 
> That's not what Ron is saying.
> 
> >  But there
> > may be some actions that the IETF could take that may help protect the
> > harassed individual, e.g., at the extreme end, preventing them from
> > participating in the IETF.
> 
> This doesn’t mean that the IETF should top-up law enforcement. If the IETF
> decides to ban a person from a mailing list or to prevent someone from
> participating in IETF meetings is something that goes in parallel with the legal
> process, it doesn't interfere with it.
> 
> BR
> Daniele
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Maisonneuve, Julien
> > (Nokia -
> > FR/Massy)
> > Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2022 13:07
> > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>; Joel
> > Halpern <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: BCP 83 PR actions and new media
> >
> > This is troubling. In effect you're arguing that legal recourse is
> > insufficient and that IETF needs to top-up whatever law enforcement
> > and the justice system might decide. What would a judge think about that ?
> > This is not our role. Encouraging people to be nice is good, but
> > designing rules to prevent extorsion, rape or rampage in the meetings
> > should not be our concern, we have laws and law enforcement for that.
> > J.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 12:25 PM
> > To: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: BCP 83 PR actions and new media
> >
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > I might be disagreeing:
> >
> > If an IETF participant chooses to harass another IETF participant, be
> > that via email (public or private), verbally, or physically, then the
> > harassed participant should absolutely be able to raise their concerns
> > via the relevant channels (e.g., as Lars previously indicated below),
> > so that appropriate action can be taken, if possible.
> >
> > However, if your point is that some of those actions (e.g., involving
> > law
> > enforcement) is outside the scope of the IETF then I agree with you.
> > But there may be some actions that the IETF could take that may help
> > protect the harassed individual, e.g., at the extreme end, preventing
> > them from participating in the IETF.
> >
> > I would like to think that we are collectively here to build standards
> > and make the Internet better for humanity.  Personally, I believe that
> > we should collectively try hard to be as nice as possible to each
> > other when participating in the IETF.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
> > Sent: 10 November 2022 10:15
> > To: Keith Moore <[e-mail]>; Lars Eggert
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: BCP 83 PR actions and new media
> >
> > I do not see how the IETF can take any role or position regarding
> > private communication.  One can argue that private communication may
> > be relevant evidence for judging public behavior, but that is very tricky.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Joel
> >
> > On 11/10/2022 5:11 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > On 11/10/22 03:25, Lars Eggert wrote:
> > >
> > >> PR actions per BCP 83 can only be used in response to on-list
> > >> behavior. I agree this is far from ideal as our participation
> > >> channels have multiplied.
> > > Right, I was asking about what "should" be the case, since there
> > > seems to be some interest in revising BCP 83.   I'm not sure what I
> > > personally believe should be the case, since I think there's some
> > > utility in people being able to speak their minds freely, and
> > > private communications are less likely to be disruptive than public
> > > communications.   On the other hand, in recent years it has seemed
> > > that sometimes people collaborate to pressure or even harass people
> > > via private email, and on occasion this practice even seems to have
> > > been driven by management.   If nothing else such a practice lacks
> > > transparency.
> > >
> > >> If you feel you are being harassed as an IETF participant in
> > >> general and/or in ways other than on mailing lists, please see the
> > >> IETF Anti-Harassment Policy [1], i.e., contact the IESG or - if
> > >> privacy is a concern - the ombudsteam [2].
> > >
> > > I'm aware of those mechanisms, but in my limited experience with
> > > them they've worked rather poorly, and (at least at that time) were
> > > clearly not operated independently of IETF management.
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> > >