IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 09 March 2015 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E691ACD31 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4lI4OGB0jza6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965341ACD18 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729ED4012E6C0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=k3ntog4YnRYZGeLWw+AtCTym6C8=; b=bDwwsu6YTUo lrg5cquQ2zyGu2AgkNX6Sj0udw6EVphi4cK+C7JKfYNsKGI4OYxYyYxJT/vKK5F+ hHl6/hZb8+DH4mnVCZZSV1J18rw8jEhl47HtUonxNogZIbUYD5YXpgwLvKwUPLCW Qiq6/Vi6KkcQF8hZZNvvINaHFH2qirzg=
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60AB5400F8A29 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igjz20 with SMTP id z20so24959418igj.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.86.12 with SMTP id s12mr16973304icl.47.1425933846125; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.130.66 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <275BDAE9-2855-44E8-852D-009A15CE8892@piuha.net>
References: <20150116152211.25947.49086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20150117174430.9A0471ACE15@ietfa.amsl.com> <275BDAE9-2855-44E8-852D-009A15CE8892@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:44:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhNTDdj6hEt48JhU7hSODh-G_wjZXVbhePBp2rpQTwCCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mQEdYCvUjSJE7IqTlPtpA4aB1XU>
Cc: IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 20:44:07 -0000

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> For what it is worth, we’ve been told that there’s probably also (more) risk associated with not having this procedure in place :-)

That's probably difficult to estimate given the international reach of
the IETF (should counsel review the civil laws of... every country
from which we have participants or where the IETF meets? certainly
not).

I'm not sure that not having a procedure for dealing with harassment
as defined is sufficient to cause significant risk of civil lawsuits,
but certainly not handling complaints about such harassment could -and
very likely would- be.  This is probably justification enough for
having such a procedure, or at least for having one we can publish in
a hurry if we needed it.  (Perhaps that happened here?  I don't know.)

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email