RE: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

James, 
 
>From my perspective you have (while agreeing with Stewart) opened up exactly the problem we need/want to avoid. That is, Stewart has suggested an additional category to include in the list of forms of discrimination yet you would like to debate it.
 
The concern I have is that the potential list that Stewart has suggested is short compared to the list I could suggest. Yet each new addition could be open to lengthy debate (you'll notice that far more august bodies than ours burn very large numbers of hours debating these things, yet none comes up with an identical list).
 
What we intended to do with the list was:
- reference the IESG statement, but provide a definition in this document
- provide some examples, but not be definitive
- provide a catchall (viz. 
   Any definition of harassment prohibited by an applicable law can be
   subject to this set of procedures.)
 
There are two things to avoid:
 
1. Long discussions about what is and is not harassment in the formation of this document. We have given the Ombudsteam the scope for training and judgement: let them do their job.
 
2. Failure by omission. Suppose we make a longer and more comprehensive list: will we then describe that list as definitive? If we do, what happens to the thing we accidentally omit? Does that then become acceptable behaviour for some lawyer (or equally pedantically minded person)?
 
Hence, I am not convinced by either your argument or Stewart's, and continued consideration of the topic only seems to serve to make me more convinced that the current approach is right.
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
 
From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James Woodyatt
Sent: 10 March 2015 18:38
To: [e-mail]
Cc: IETF Discussion List
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice
 
I'd like to second Mr. Bryant's general remarks, and ask that we diligently recognize a more inclusive list of the forms of discrimination in this pass so as to avoid the tiresome spectacle of litigating over amending the list to be more inclusive later.
On the minor matter of possibly changing "religion" to "religion or belief" I want to say that my preference— as someone whose inclusion seems to be the intent of the change— is that we not do it. It's a slippery phrase, and I don't like it. I can see why some other organizations might need it, but I feel pretty confident that IETF is not, and will never be, the sort of place where a clear distinction in the official text needs to be explicitly recognized at the expense of economy of language. I would be sad to discover that I'm wrong in that judgment.
 
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:
On 09/03/2015 19:50, Jari Arkko wrote:
Hi Mike,
 
Has either or both of the ISOC and IETF trust lawyers reviewed this, especially section 5?
We have asked for and received from outside counsel and the ISOC insurance folks a risk assessment. 
 
For what it is worth, we’ve been told that there’s probably also (more) risk associated with not having this procedure in place :-)
 
In any case, after a discussion and feedback we revised some of the text in Section 2 and 5.1. From my perspective we are ready to move forward.
 
Jari
 
 
Jari,

In section 2 you have
   "race, gender, religion, age,
   color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation, or
   gender identity."  
 
If I look at the various lists I see in the EU, I see that you
have omitted: disability, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy 
and maternity, and gender reassignment. Why are these omitted?
 
Additionally it is common to see religion or belief rather 
than just religion. I assume that this is to cover the case
of discrimination against non-believers.
 
Finally not in most lists but gaining traction is obesity
discrimination.
 
Whilst you have catch-all text, not including the complete set of
commonly agreed criteria risks the IETF presenting the image
that those forms of discrimination are somehow less important,
provides scope for a Respondent to escape appropriate sanction,
and may cause a Reporter to be reluctant to put forward
a legitimate complaint in these regards.
 
- Stewart
 
 
 
 



 
-- 
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering