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

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

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