Subject: Proposed IETF Anti-Harassment Policy

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:44:23 +0800

The IETF should be an open and accessible body in which any individual feels
able to participate without fear of oppression or harassment.  The IESG has
become aware of some incidents of concern, is aware of various incidents in our
industry in general, and has also observed that many similar organisations and
conferences have a policy on this matter.

In order to ensure the right atmosphere and to provide a suitable environment,
the IESG has decided that it is desirable to write a simple and straightforward
policy on harassment. This is not only to remind participants not to harass
others (something that we hope is obvious to us all), but also to let anyone who
it the target of harassment know that we take these matters seriously and that
there is something they can do to address these sorts of incidents should they
occur.

A small design team has looked at existing policies used by other groups similar
to the IETF and consulted with some of the ISOC professionals with expertise in
human resources and issues of workplace harassment. The design team has put
together what the IESG feels is a good anti-harassment policy for the IETF: It
is short and to the point, it is modeled on and makes heavy re-use of the
language of existing policies, and it sets forth reasonable procedures for the
IETF.

The IESG intends to put in place Ombudspersons as confidential initial contact
points for situations where there is a concern of harassment. The selection of
Ombudspersons will happen later, and the person(s) will have appropriate
training and expertise.

The IESG plans to adopt this as an IESG Statement. We solicit your feedback. We
understand that this is a difficult and sensitive topic to discuss, but we do
want your comments. If you feel more comfortable sending comments directly to
the IESG <[email-masked]> rather than discussing them on the IETF list, please
feel free to do so.

Jari Arkko for the IESG

--- Draft Statement ---

IETF Anti-Harassment Policy

IETF meetings, virtual meetings, and mailing lists are intended for professional
collaboration and networking. The IETF strives to create and maintain an
environment in which people are treated with dignity, decency, and respect.
Those who participate in the IETF are expected to behave according to
professional standards and demonstrate appropriate workplace behavior. While
participating in the IETF, communication between participants should be
appropriate for a professional audience including people of many different
backgrounds.

While our processes let chairs deal with disruptive public behaviors on mailing
lists and in IETF face-to-face meetings, harassment is a serious problem that
warrants special attention. IETF participants should not engage in harassment
while at IETF meetings, virtual meetings, social events, or on mailing lists.
Harassment is unwelcome hostile or intimidating behavior, in particular speech
and behavior that is sexually aggressive or intimidates based on attributes like
race, gender, religion, age, color, national origin, ancestry, disability,
sexual orientation, or gender identity. Harassment of this sort will not be
tolerated in the IETF. Harassment includes the use of offensive language or
sexual imagery in public presentations and displays, degrading verbal comments,
deliberate intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply
immediately. If you believe you have been harassed, notice that
someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, you are encouraged
to raise your concern in confidence with one of the Ombudspersons.

If these standards are violated, appropriate action will be taken.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 03:27:29 +0300

seems an excellent start.  let's fly with it for a while and see how it
goes.  thanks for this.

randy

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:03:32 +0000

+1

Looks good and similar to what many companies have been doing for some
time -- good to bring these sorts of things to the IETF as well.

Jason

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:02:39 -0400

While I'm completely in favor of the goals, I don't like this sentence:
"Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply
immediately." The problem is that this sentence assumes a clear agreed-on
definition of harassment, while it should be based on subjective
experience. If I say "Randy, that's harassment and I want you to stop," he
may respond "No it isn't."  I propose something like: "Participants asked
to stop a behavior that is being experienced as harassment are expected to
comply immediately."

Scott

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:27:50 -0700

This is a good idea.  If the professionals thinking this is the right
wording, that is also fine by me.

I do note the phrase "harassing photography or recording";  I believe our
current rules say "written, audio and video records of meetings may be made
and may be available to the public."  It may be appropriate to adjust it to
something like "harassing photography or recording of individuals outside
their roles as participants" or to otherwise clarify how photography
becomes harassment.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:36:25 +0200

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:44:23AM +0800,
 IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 104 lines which said:

> The IETF should be an open and accessible body in which any
> individual feels able to participate without fear of oppression or
> harassment.

I agree with the goal, and with the mean (having a anti-harrasment
policy). I have one question before agreeing to everything:

> IETF meetings, virtual meetings, and mailing lists are intended for
> professional collaboration and networking. The IETF strives to
> create and maintain an environment in which people are treated with
> dignity, decency, and respect.  Those who participate in the IETF
> are expected to behave according to professional standards

The (ab)use of the term "professional" seems to imply that harassement
outside of the work place is normal, and worse, it could imply that we
fight harassment, not because it is wrong or illegal, but because it
is against the standards of the corporations. Why not simply say that
"Those who participate in the IETF are expected to behave as civilized
people"?

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:38:38 +0200

Jari,

Overall, I think it's the right direction.  Just some minor issues:

> inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

You have broken up the definition with the declaration that "Harassment
of this sort will not be tolerated in the IETF."  My suggestion is to
move that sentence below and change "Harassment includes" to "Examples
of harassment are", as I don't think you intended that to be an
exhaustive list.

> If these standards are violated, appropriate action will be taken.

I would more clearly what the consequences could be.  Something like "up
to and including banning the offending individual from IETF activities,
including mailing lists and meetings".   Also explain who will take the
action and what appeals avenues the individual has.  Presumably it will
be the IESG.

Also, if it hasn't happened already, please ask counsel to review.

Eliot

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:01:34 -0400

Hi,

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> their roles as participants" or to otherwise clarify how photography becomes
> harassment.

Years ago, when I was Chair of the TRADE WG, there was a participant
who had severe disagreements with me concerning procedure and some
technical issues. No one else supported them and they didn't appeal
but they started videotaping WG meetings that I chaired. This
certainly made me feel somewhat uncomfortable, although it just added
a video recording to the audio recording already being made by the
IETF, and I could argue that they were trying to harass or, perhaps
more accurately, intimidate me. Never-the-less, they had the right to
do that and I don't think they should have been stopped from doing so.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

>> professional

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:38:51 -0400

On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Scott Brim <[email-masked]> wrote:

> While I'm completely in favor of the goals, I don't like this sentence: "Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply
> immediately." The problem is that this sentence assumes a clear agreed-on definition of harassment, while it should be based on subjective experience. If I say "Randy, that's harassment and I want you to stop," he may respond "No it isn't."  I propose something like: "Participants asked to stop a behavior that is being experienced as harassment are expected to comply immediately."

Issue:  "I find all emails containing the word "comply" to be harassing[0], and I'd like you to stop"

Now what do you do? 

W

[0]: 
Mr Smoke-Too-Much: Yes, that's right. It's all due to a trauma I suffered when I was a sbool boy. I was attacked by a bat.
Bounder: A cat?
Mr Smoke-Too-Much: No, a bat.

--
"I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is." --Terry Prachett

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:42:29 -0800

> harassing[0], and I'd like you to stop"

You kick the problem over to your (trained) ombudsman.

Melinda

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:50:35 -0400

> You kick the problem over to your (trained) ombudsman.

Ok. Fair. 

I wasn't trying to make light of the issue, I'm just worried that some folk might try and use this to stop discussions that they are not actually feeling harassed by. 
I don't have any better text to suggest -- I was thinking something like "Participants asked to stop a behavior that a reasonable person might view as  harassment are expected to comply immediately." or something, but it feels like it is missing something...

W

-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is your best friend, and inside of a dog, it's too dark to read

---

From: Rich Kulawiec <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:07:23 -0400

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:50:35AM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Ok. Fair. 
> 
> I wasn't trying to make light of the issue, I'm just worried that
> some folk might try and use this to stop discussions that they are not
> actually feeling harassed by.

I share this concern.  Sometimes discussions get...toasty...but that's
the nature of debateXXXXXXargument among smart people with strong opinions.
I think it's a good thing: I think it helps us collectively arrive at
good decisions because the give-and-take tends to weed out the bad ones.
And I don't want to see it truncated by a bogus claim of harrassment
made by someone who's on the losing side and looking for a trump card.

That said, I second Warren's "Ok. Fair." response to Melinda ("You kick
the problem over to your (trained) ombudsman") because I think it'd be
pretty easy for the ombudsman to distinguish between minor flamage and
actual harrassment.

Also, I second the recommendation (downthread) to have counsel review
this if that hasn't already been done.

Overall: +1, and I hope we never (or rarely) have to use this.

---rsk

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:32:24 +0800

Thanks for the excellent feedback so far.

I wanted to point out one thing in the continuing discussion. Despite the best intentions and us being engineers and all, it may not actually be possible to write a full spec that accurately defines what is and what is not harassing behaviour. E.g. photography. I think Don had it right in the case that he described, but it would have been hard to write that down before even hearing about such a case.

Hence judgment needs to be applied by the ombudsperson & the rest of the IETF management.

Jari

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Oct 2013 19:11:30 -0000

>You kick the problem over to your (trained) ombudsman.

I have had some experience with ICANN's trained ombudsman.  To put it
mildly, he was not part of the solution.

While I certainly agree that harassment is bad, in the IETF where
nobody is in charge and authority, such as it is, flows from the
bottom up, it is surprisingly hard to create definitions that capture
the behavior we want to stop, without also enabling endless whining
and nitpickery by people with what I might call an outsized sense of
entitlement and a lot of free time.

This isn't saying to give up, but it is saying to think carefully
about the scenarios, particularly ones involving people with no
interest in playing fair.

R's,
John

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:23:15 -0400

> Thanks for the excellent feedback so far.

Let me first add to the other comments that I think the draft is
an entirely reasonably first cut.
> 
> I wanted to point out one thing in the continuing discussion.
> Despite the best intentions and us being engineers and all, it
> may not actually be possible to write a full spec that
> accurately defines what is and what is not harassing
> behaviour. E.g. photography. I think Don had it right in the
> case that he described, but it would have been hard to write
> that down before even hearing about such a case.

Similar comments would apply to the mini-tempest about
photographing the in-room participants at a WG meeting to record
those who had (or had not) volunteered for a particular task.
We need to be clear that things, including photography and other
image-recording methods, can be privacy issues without being
harassment and vice versa.  Keeping them separated may be hard,
but it will be necessary.
 
> rest of the IETF management.

Yep.   And they should expect whatever judgments they make to be
very unpopular with someone.

Two additional observations:

(1) These kinds of policies are going to run into some of the
same issues as our IPR policies.  In particular, if someone
really has bad intentions (as distinct from being careless,
indifferent, accidentally ignorant or stupid), we could be
headed into another rat hole about who the policies actually
apply to and whether particular individuals have agreed to them.
It is my understanding that a voluntary organization's trying to
enforce a policy that may involve career-damaging punishments on
people who can't be demonstrated to have agreed to it can get
very messy.

So, like others, I would encourage having Counsel take a careful
look, both at the policy and at the potential interactions
between it and our "no membership" policies.

(2) With the understanding that this is a purely hypothetical
problem, any policy of this type also provides the opportunity
for spurious claims and other sorts of DoS attacks.  Equally
important, it provides the opportunity for some entity to claim
externally that the IETF or some of its participants harassed it
in violation of the policy, did nothing about it, and therefore
that our standards should be ignored and the organization
punished.  Those sorts of threats are certainly not a reason to
avoid establishing policies of this sort, but we should be aware
of possible misuses.  It is probably also useful to think, not
only about what measures can be imposed if bad behavior doesn't
stop, but also about how to ensure that someone complaining has
skin in the game.   In particular, it would be really
unattractive to have a harassment complaint brought against
figures in the IETF for repeatedly saying something unpleasant
about, e.g., a government that was restricting access to the
Internet.

best,
   john

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:30:28 -0800

On 10/21/13 11:23 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> of possible misuses.

Absolutely, and ultimately I think that some personal
judgment on the part of *somebody* will need to be applied
should there be complaints filed.  That's not a bad
thing.

I do think that it's worth pointing out that in other
environments where organizations have taken the step of
creating and enforcing an anti-harassment policy it's
worked out well (for example, PyCon).  It's reduced the
incidence of problems *and* created an environment where
women feel both more comfortable and more welcome.
Contrast it with DefCon and it looks like a win.

Melinda

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:12:41 +0200

>IETF Anti-Harassment Policy

So, someone who is being disciplined under this policy might want to
check it out to see how they might appeal such action, or how they can
ensure their continued access to the Standards process, or they might
simply want to make sure they are being treated fairly and within the
bounds of standard procedure. The policy contains nothing to that
effect.

A chair might find themself in a situation where they have to deal with
harassment and check out the policy to see how they should deal with it,
whether they should handle the matter on their own, or if they should
refer it to an ombudsperson, or whatever. The policy notes the existing
power granted to chairs, but then just says harassment "warrants special
attention" without elaborating.

An ombudsperson might refer to the policy to see how they can deal with 
harassment problems, or they might want to refer others to it, e.g. to
make others aware of their discretion and power, or when taking action
against someone, inform them of their rights to defend against actions
they find inappropriate. The policy just says "appropriate action will
be taken".

Instead, the policy goes to excessive lengths telling people they should
maintain behavioral norms. I think it is appropriate in such a policy to
establish some context, but going at it for too long makes it seem as if
something extraordinary is being asked of participants, as if it said
"Unlike other organisations, the IETF strives to create and maintain..."

I think the prelude should be shortened to be bare minimum, and instead
text of the nature discussed above should be added; possibly by way of
external references, e.g. if an RFC concerning the rights and responsi-
bilities of IETF ombudspersons is forthcoming, a reference to that would
address some concerns. I believe this can be done in few sentences.

>inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

I strongly object to listing "sexual imagery" here unless accompanied by
a much longer list that includes violent imagery, imagery of aggressive
or otherwise dangerous animals, death, illness, medical imagery, and
whatever else people might find intimidating, say Fort Meade engulfed in
lightning in a violent thunderstorm and the eye of Sauron montaged on
top of it.

I think "use of offensive language" should not be considered harassment
without linking it to purpose, intent, and other limiting factors. It is
common that people use language considered offensive by some unknowingly
e.g. due to cultural differences, limited language skills, or youth. The
beginning of this paragraph can also easily be read to suggest that mere
"unwelcome hostile speech" falls under the definition without additional
qualifiers.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:51:51 -0400

> lightning in a violent thunderstorm and the eye of Sauron montaged on

I think you will find that there would be those who would be quite
surprised by that last being considered "harassing language".  Which
is ultimately the problem with trying to define harassment.  Anyone
can be easily offended, and claim that they are offended just because
someone is wearing a "NSA: The only part of the government which
listens" T-shirt.  Do we really want to litigate each and every
instance where someone feels that something is harassment?

In some ways, it's much easier to say that "sexual harassment" shall
not be tolerated, with the observation that it's much easier to for
people to agree that there is no place for any kind of sexual imagery
or reference or analogy in a professional computing meeting/event.
(This is ignoring the use of the terms "male" and "female" in
reference to things like RS-232 adapters, but we don't use them any
more, so we're probably OK.  :-)

The moment the definition is widened to include any kind of
harassment, questions of definition start becoming very difficult.  I
remember lots of anti-OSI comments being made many years ago (some
with a technical bent, some less so).  Would that now be considered
harrassment if some ISO standardization folks were to step up and
complain?

Or how about discussions over failures of Certifying Authorities in
issuing bogus certificates, and how to fix it.  Would discussion of
past failures of various public CA's be considered intimidating by
employees of those CA's?

						- Ted

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 02:37:59 +0000

I support the goal, and, similar to others, think this is a good first cut. Others have raised difficult questions, such as the lack of a crisp definition of "harassment" and the need for both judgement on the part of the ombudsman and an appeal process in the event that the ombudsman is not seen as "part of the solution". 

I wondered at the last sentence. What is the definition of an "appropriate" response to harassment? Does this mean that law enforcement might be contacted? Does it mean that an abusive poster might be excluded from posting to a list? If it is in the context of a meeting, does it mean that the aggressive party might be asked to leave, either the specific meeting or the meeting venue? I suspect that this may imply some variant on legal process (as noted in Ted's use of the term "litigate"), which worries me immensely. What guidance can be given to the ombudsman and to an appellant of an ombudsman's decisions to ensure the appropriateness of a counter-measure?

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:30:52 -0400

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:37:59AM +0000, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 
> I wondered at the last sentence. What is the definition of an
> "appropriate" response to harassment? Does this mean that law
> enforcement might be contacted? Does it mean that an abusive poster
> might be excluded from posting to a list? If it is in the context of
> a meeting, does it mean that the aggressive party might be asked to
> leave, either the specific meeting or the meeting venue? I suspect
> that this may imply some variant on legal process (as noted in Ted's
> use of the term "litigate"), which worries me immensely. What
> guidance can be given to the ombudsman and to an appellant of an
> ombudsman's decisions to ensure the appropriateness of a
> counter-measure?

These are indeed the critical questions.  It's easy to have a
statement about what might be considered "harassment".  If however
someone tries to use this as a debating tactic during a particularly
robust technical discussion, what happens next?  Does it get raised to
the wg chair?  If the wg chair says, that's just a robust technical
discussion, does it get escalated to ombudsman?  If the ombudsman
says, "nope, sorry", does it get escalated to the AD and IESG, and do
they then have to write up carefully crafted appeal documents which
will no doubt suck up huge amounts of their time?

Should there be any cost to someone who tries to escalate disputes via
the anti-harassment process, when it is determined afterwards that it
is not harassment?  If we do, then it might deter valid plaintiffs
from coming forward.  If we don't, how do we deter people who might
try to abuse this process from using it to that end?  Historically, we
certainly had people who have been rather enthusiastic about using
whatever appeal processes we've made available.

One hint --- we should definitely try to pursuade folks not to try to
get a decision based on the specific facts of a particulate dispute
via the court of public opinion:

       "Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost"
       http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/

						- Ted

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:51:32 +0000

>       http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/

Hmm. I might want to hear more from Amanda Blum.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:02:08 +0100

because Amanda espouses a viewpoint you agree with?

http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-the-surface-that-amanda-blum-article-on-adria-richards-is-not-what-it-seems/

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) [[email-masked]]
Sent: 22 October 2013 10:51
To: Theodore Ts'o
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Anti-Harassment Policy

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:15:13 +0000

> will no doubt suck up huge amounts of their time?

The path is harassment->ombudsbeing, not harassment->wg chair.  I would expect the ombudsperson to push back at this point unless something inappropriate was said.   If someone says "that's a stupid idea, because FOO" and "because FOO" is valid, then it would be appropriate for the ombudsperson to say to the offending party, "you know, you didn't need to say that was a stupid idea—all you needed to say was 'because FOO.'".   OTOH, if the offending party said "I'm going to cut off a deer's head and leave it in your refrigerator if you don't stop denying that FOO," then that would elicit a different response.

> whatever appeal processes we've made available.

I think if someone develops a history of engaging in this kind of tactic, it might become grounds for banning from mailing list discussion, and there might be appeals, and that would suck.   But that's really the status quo now, so it's not like this changes anything.   It's unlikely that it would be appropriate to respond to a single accusation of harassment that the ombudsperson does not agree is harassment with any kind of censure.

>       http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/

What happened at PyCon is a really strong argument for having an escalation path other than twitter.   We can't stop participants from doing stuff like this, but hopefully the lesson has been learned that this is a bad tactic for dealing with behavior in meetings that one finds inappropriate.   So there should be an incentive to try the ombudsperson tactic first, and then escalate to twitter only if that fails.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:36:31 -0800

On 10/22/13 6:15 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> What happened at PyCon is a really strong argument for having an
> escalation path other than twitter.   

That is a very, very, very good point.

Melinda

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:18:07 -0600

On Oct 22, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> What happened at PyCon is a really strong argument for having an escalation path other than twitter. 

+1

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:20:57 -0600

Looks good good to me.

Lets run this and I really hope it it all we need. Time will tell and we can adjust it if needed. This is much better than the current situation of pretty much nothing so lets not let perfection be the enemy of getting this published.

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:43:07 -0400

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:15:13PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> The path is harassment->ombudsbeing, not harassment->wg chair.  I
> would expect the ombudsperson to push back at this point unless
> something inappropriate was said.  If someone says "that's a stupid
> idea, because FOO" and "because FOO" is valid, then it would be
> appropriate for the ombudsperson to say to the offending party, "you
> know, you didn't need to say that was a stupid idea—all you needed
> to say was 'because FOO.'".  OTOH, if the offending party said "I'm
> going to cut off a deer's head and leave it in your refrigerator if
> you don't stop denying that FOO," then that would elicit a different
> response.

What about a slide presentation in a wg discussion in perpass which
included the following image?

     http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/tag/nsa/

Bjoern Hoehrmann has already asserted he believes it would be
considered harassment.

						- Ted

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:33:37 +0000

> included the following image?

My reaction to this is that it seems to trivialize types of real-world harassment that are quite common (although hopefully not common in the IETF).   If this image were the worst "harassment" that our ombudsperson had to deal with, that would seem to me to be very good news indeed.

But I don't work for the NSA, so maybe I'm missing something about this image that someone who does work for the NSA would see.

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:54:48 -0400

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:33:37PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> My reaction to this is that it seems to trivialize types of
> real-world harassment that are quite common (although hopefully not
> common in the IETF).  If this image were the worst "harassment" that
> our ombudsperson had to deal with, that would seem to me to be very
> good news indeed.

Actually, looking at the policy more closely, I believe it shouldn't
be a problem and Bjoern Hoehrmann's assertions are specious.  To quote
from the policy:

   Harassment is unwelcome hostile or intimidating behavior, in
   particular speech and behavior that is sexually aggressive or
   intimidates based on attributes like race, gender, religion, age,
   color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation,
   or gender identity.

People who work at the NSA are not a protected class by the above
definition, so there would be no grounds for a complaint of
harassment.  Indeed, by this strict definition, even something like,

   "Actually, X, Y, and Z, means that that making change A to the spec
   would result in failure mode B, as any idiot could see."

... might not be professional language, but it wouldn't be harassment.

    	      	 	      		    - Ted

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:08:17 -0400

Ok, we are already at the stage of "that's harassment", "no it's not".

This is why I (hurriedly) and others suggested it should be more
subjective. The purpose is productive relationships, so what's important is
how people feel. Only have a lightweight definition of harassment, and some
examples.  Give people a process by which they can tell others (directly or
through an intermediary) how they feel about what they hear and work toward
better collaboration.  Forget punishment for now.

Scott

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:11:40 +0100

>    color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation,
How does this policy help if there is no identity known by the one who
abuses other identified people? Usually harrassment will come from people
that hide their identity, gender, religion, race, etc, because they don't
want policies to affect their behavior/future, or most important
their real-work or real-title or real-reputation in the IETF or in its WGs
(the system policy attacker likes to have more faces/addresses instead of
more hats/authorities). Therefore, IMHO, there is still a problem with this
anti-harrassment policy is not solving very much in facing the allowance of
anonymous postings without policies related to anonymous posting. I suggest
to make a policy for anonymous then this anti-harrassment will have better
value, or make them joined in one policy.

AB

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:42:21 -0400

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:11:40AM +0100, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> more hats/authorities).

So, my understanding of the harassment policy is that a statement such
as "Certifying Authorities can't be trusted to be competent at
validating the entity requesting a certificate is really authorized to
speak for Certificate Subject" would not be harassment because
Certifying Authorities is not a protected class.

On the other hand, a statement such as, "I don't believe you because
you are heterosexual", or "We can't trust Joe because he is a
Pastafarian", etc., would be arrassment, because they are based on the
proctected classes listed above.

Note that in both of these examples, it does not matter what identity
class(es) the sender happens to fall into, whether he/she/it is Male,
a Pastafarian, Tibetian, wheelchair-bound, etc.

I agree with the suggestion that giving some examples of things which
would be clearly considered by an ombudsperson and those that would
not would be very useful.

					- Ted

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:52:14 +0200

>Bjoern Hoehrmann has already asserted he believes it would be

I think that people can legitimately feel personally threatened and
disturbed, to the point where they require protection, by imagery.

An example would be decorating the perpass meeting room with graphic
posters of extrajudicially killed surveillance victims which might
induce fear in some participants and effectively censor them. It is
fair to regulate that to ensure proper debates are possible, though
I do not think it is necessary or useful to specifically call out
imagery in this sense, and the image above obviously doesn't qualify.

The problem is that the proposed policy does not call out violence,
disease, death, poisonous animals or other things that are harmful
to people, it only mentions "sexual imagery". For the United States
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf#page=76 that
may be normal and I can live with including it in such a policy, but
certainly not in a way that suggests sexual imagery deserves special
mention.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/