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

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Has either or both of the ISOC and IETF trust lawyers reviewed this,
> especially section 5?

   As of the start of yesterday's telechat, Jari held a DISCUSS awaiting
such a review.

> If so, would you please provide the written evaluation that indicates
> they see no issue with respect to IETF liability should the Ombudsman
> actually attempt to exclude someone from the face to face or online
> sessions?

   +1

> I'm still in great opposition to this document

   -1

> as I believe Section 5 provides too broad a palate of "remedies" without
> appropriate checks and balances on the system.

   +1

   I find it worrisome that a Respondent is prohibited from requiring
public review of the process which led to a decision to exclude him/her.
(Obviously the Reporter is entitled to privacy; but a person being
excluded should have some option to request that the exclusion be
publicly shown to not be arbitrary. This seems to be lacking.)

> It's unclear that what actual recourse the IETF has if the target of
> the remedies simply chooses to ignore the directions of the OBs.

   This, too: I fail to understand how an exclusion would be enforced.

>... Since this is targeted for a BCP, the supporting documentation needs
> to be part of the approval package.

   +0

   I think this last statement needs a public response.

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>