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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

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 aRespondent to escape appropriate sanction,
and may cause aReporter to be reluctant to put forward
a legitimate complaint in these regards.

- Stewart