Subject: IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:09:51 -0800

Hi Pete, Adrian,

I have a few comments about draft-farrresnickel-harassment-00.

In Section 1:

   'This sort of behavior, described in the IESG Statement on an "IETF
    Anti-Harassment Policy" [1], is not easily dealt with by our normal
    working group guidelines and procedures."

I assume that this intended BCP, if approved, will replace the 
above-mentioned policy.

   "These procedures are intended to be used when other IETF policies and
    procedures do not apply or have been ineffective."

The above sounds like government legislation where the law is used as 
a matter of convenience instead of the original intent.

   "Nothing in this document should be taken to interfere with the due
    process of law for the legal system under the jurisdiction of which
    any harassment takes place."

What does this mean?  Would an Area Director contact the authorities 
(e.g. 
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/20737/Anti-social-behaviour-racial-harassment 
) if there is reason to do so?

In Section 2:

   "This document does not attempt to precisely define behavior that
    falls under the set of procedures identified here.  In general,
    disruptive behavior that occurs in the context of an IETF general or
    working group mailing list, or happens in a face-to-face or virtual
    meeting of a working group or the IETF plenary, can be dealt with by
    our normal procedures, whereas harassing behavior that is
    interpersonal is more easily handled by the procedures described
    here."

For what it is worth, there was an interesting comment at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00309.html 
There is a transcript of a (private) conversation at 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957  The swear word can 
also be heard in one of the IETF's audio recordings.  The point here 
is that it is a matter of context and culture.  Please note that I am 
not arguing for having a definition.

In Section 3.1:

   "The Ombudsperson is appointed by the IETF Chair.  The appointment is
    solely the responsibility of the IETF Chair although the Chair may
    choose to consult with the IESG, the IAB, and with ISOC.
    Furthermore, the IETF Chair may take opinion from the community.

    The IETF Chair may choose to solicit nominations or advertise the
    post.  This is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair.

    The IETF Chair is also free to decide how many people are needed to
    fill the role of Ombudsperson.  This may depend on the skillsets
    available, the work load, and the opinions of the seated
    Ombudsperson.  Furthermore, the IETF Chair may consider elements of
    diversity in making this decision."

It would be easier to write:

   The IETF Chair appoints the Ombudspersons.  The number of Ombudspersons
   appointed is at the discretion of the IETF Chair.

The quoted text mentions that the appointment is the sole 
responsibility of the IETF Chair and then gets into 
consultations.  The consultations part does not bring in any 
value.  The text mentions "may consider elements of 
diversity".  Either the entire appointment matter is at the 
discretion of the IETF Chair or it isn't.

In Section 3.2:

   "It is not expected that there will be candidates with all of the
    necessary ombudsperson skills and training who also have a clear
    understanding and familiarity with the IETF processes and culture.
    The Chair might choose someone with a great deal of professional
    experience evaluating and mediating harassment disputes, but little
    exposure to the IETF, or could select someone with more exposure to
    the IETF community, but without as much experience dealing with
    issues of harassment.  Since all of these attributes may be regarded
    by the IETF Chair as essential for an appointment, the IETF is
    committed to provide funding for necessary training for an appointed
    Ombudsperson."

As I read the above my first thought is that it has been drawn from a 
mindset of a particular country and having the person(s) trained to 
follow the values of that particular country.  That section comes out 
as satisfying some compliance requirement instead of trying to find 
someone who can be viewed as an acceptable mediator.

In Section 3.5:

   "The IETF Chair may remove a serving Ombudsperson before the end of
    their term without explanation to the community.  Such an action
    shall not be appealable.  See also Section 6."

That is not transparent at all.

I will defer my comments about Section 3.6.

It is understandable that the names of the parties involved (see 
Section 5) might have to be kept private.  However, keeping the cases 
secret opens the way for gossip or worse.  The approach comes out as 
hiding the issues in a closet instead of trying to find the balance 
between transparency and confidentiality.

In Section 6:

   "All elements of the appeal, including the fact of the appeal, will be
    held in confidence, but will be recorded and held securely for future
    reference."

Is this the IETF's version of a (U.S.) National Security Letter?

I suggest not having zen stuff in the Security Considerations section.

In my opinion the person who is subject to harassment is a victim and 
not a target.  The word "target" does not convey any empathy.  I am 
interested in reading other opinions  about the draft before taking a position.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 15:50:02 +0100

Hi,

On Saturday, February 22, 2014, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The above sounds like government legislation where the law is used as a
> matter of convenience instead of the original intent.

Could you please clarify / expand on what you mean exactly?

> What does this mean?  Would an Area Director contact the authorities (e.g.
> http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/20737/Anti-social-
> behaviour-racial-harassment ) if there is reason to do so?

The passage seems quite clear to me. An IETF document (whatever its nature)
cannot trump applicable laws. In some countries / jurisdictions, especially
when certain forms of harassment are a criminal offense, not informing
authorities might be itself a violation of the law. The trick is of course
knowing which particular law / legal system would apply. That's not
something that can be solved in this document, though.

So, I guess the answer to your question would be "it depends".

In my opinion the person who is subject to harassment is a victim and not a
> target.  The word "target" does not convey any empathy.
>

Well said.

Best,

Andrea

-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:39:35 -0800

Hi Andrea,
>Could you please clarify / expand on what you mean exactly?

The end of the sentence is about using the procedures in 
draft-farrresnickel-harassment-00 when other procedures have been 
ineffective.  As such it allows the procedures to be invoked when the 
other procedures did not produce the desired results.

My preference is to use this intended BCP when a case of harassment 
is reported.  If it a case of, for example, me being rude to you, 
that can be addressed through existing BCPs (unless it is reported as 
harassment).  I prefer not to see this intended BCP used as a 
threat.  That avoids having to get into a lengthy security 
consideration discussion about the misuse of the intended BCP.

>The passage seems quite clear to me. An IETF document (whatever its 
>nature) cannot trump applicable laws. In some countries / 
>jurisdictions, especially when certain forms of harassment are a 
>criminal offense, not informing authorities might be itself a 
>violation of the law. The trick is of course knowing which 
>particular law / legal system would apply. That's not something that 
>can be solved in this document, though.

The question was about whether an Area Director would inform the 
authorities.  There was a question from Fred Baker during a previous 
discussion about the same topic ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg83398.html 
).  There wasn't any response to that question.

As a comment for the Area Directors, 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html 
has the following:

   "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."

There isn't any information about who the Ombudspersons are or how to 
contact them.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 22:31:19 +0100

On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Saturday, February 22, 2014, S Moonesamy
>
>> In my opinion the person who is subject to harassment is a victim and not
>> a target.  The word "target" does not convey any empathy.
>>
>
> Well said.
>
>
IMHO, Target is suitable term with responder and  reporter, we never no who
is the real victim sometimes if no witnesses.  After investigation we get
to know if target is victim. If you assume witnesses available then
"victim" is the right word replacing "target" but still we need to change
the other two terms.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 00:58:01 -0800

Hi Abdussalam,
At 13:31 22-02-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>IMHO, Target is suitable term with responder and  reporter, we never 
>no who is the real victim sometimes if no witnesses.  After 
>investigation we get to know if target is victim. If you assume 
>witnesses available then "victim" is the right word replacing 
>"target" but still we need to change the other two terms.

The archive of this mailing list is publicly accessible.  It is 
possible to verify whether this message, which is addressed to you, 
could be considered as offensive.  It is assumed that the mailing 
list moderator will see that message and any other message which 
could be considered as offensive.

The mailing list moderator can intervene if he or she thinks that the 
email exchange is reaching a point where it might be considered as 
abusive or harassment.  An Area Director can assess whether the 
mailing list moderator took an appropriate decision, e.g. by reading 
the mail archive.

There aren't any witnesses or mail archive for a private exchange 
between two persons.  The mailing list moderator will not see those messages.

Person A might send an abusive message to person B if:

   (a) Person A can do that anonymously.

   (b) There isn't anyone to witness that.

   (c) The people witnessing that will remain quiet about it.

   (d) Person B will not complain about it.

   (e) Person B can complain about it but nobody will take any action
       against Person A.

The word "target" depersonalizes the matter.  The need for 
objectivity doesn't prevent one from showing some consideration for Person B.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 14:28:36 +0100

Hi S. Moonesamy

On Sunday, February 23, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:

>> IMHO, Target is suitable term with responder and  reporter, we never no
>> who is the real victim sometimes if no witnesses.  After investigation we
>> get to know if target is victim. If you assume witnesses available then
> The archive of this mailing list is publicly accessible.  It is possible
> to verify whether this message, which is addressed to you, could be
> considered as offensive.  It is assumed that the mailing list moderator
> will see that message and any other message which could be considered as
> offensive.

The draft does not say only mailing list, so it is for any IETF activity
including social events.

> email exchange is reaching a point where it might be considered as abusive
> or harassment.  An Area Director can assess whether the mailing list
> moderator took an appropriate decision, e.g. by reading the mail archive.
>
> There aren't any witnesses or mail archive for a private exchange between
> two persons.  The mailing list moderator will not see those messages.

It will be nice to mention activity channels as the list, the meetings, the
WG rooms, others

> The word "target" depersonalizes the matter.

That scenario is correct to not use the word Target because the B is
victim. There are many scenarios in my mind but the draft does not define
limits and levels as I already mentioned in my inputs.

>  The need for objectivity doesn't prevent one from showing some
> consideration for Person B.

Please note that I have been in the B situation, so I understand what you
mean, but I know that this draft to become BCP it will need to be practical
and involve many possible scenarios not only mailing scenarios.

Best Regards

Abdussalam

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:57:04 +0100

Hi SM,

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:39 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ineffective.  As such it allows the procedures to be invoked when the other
> procedures did not produce the desired results.
>
> My preference is to use this intended BCP when a case of harassment is
> reported.  If it a case of, for example, me being rude to you, that can be
> addressed through existing BCPs (unless it is reported as harassment).  I
> prefer not to see this intended BCP used as a threat.  That avoids having
> to get into a lengthy security consideration discussion about the misuse of
> the intended BCP.
>

What you say makes sense to me, but I do not well enough the general "norms
of behaviour" within the IETF to go much beyond in my comments. However, I
do not see the logical link between your original statement regarding the
nature of law and the way it is used (or not) and your consideration above.
This does not invalidate the value of this latest comment of yours, of
course.

>> nature) cannot trump applicable laws. In some countries / jurisdictions,
>> especially when certain forms of harassment are a criminal offense, not
>> informing authorities might be itself a violation of the law. The trick is
>> of course knowing which particular law / legal system would apply. That's
>> not something that can be solved in this document, though.
>>
>
> discussion about the same topic ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/ietf/current/msg83398.html ).  There wasn't any response to
> that question.
>

Not being a lawyer but having studied law and working in an environment
where legal procedures are rather important, I honestly do not think it is
possible to give a universally valid answer to such a question. It depends
on many factors, including (but not limited to) what the applicable law(s)
of the applicable jurisdiction(s) say. I understand it is not the purpose
of this proposed BCP to become a general compendium of anti-harassment
laws. ;)

Best,

Andrea

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 04:20:10 -0800

Hi Andrea,
At 00:57 25-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>What you say makes sense to me, but I do not well enough the general 
>"norms of behaviour" within the IETF to go much beyond in my 
>comments. However, I do not see the logical link between your 
>original statement regarding the nature of law and the way it is 
>used (or not) and your consideration above. This does not invalidate 
>the value of this latest comment of yours, of course.

Ok.

>Not being a lawyer but having studied law and working in an 
>environment where legal procedures are rather important, I honestly 
>do not think it is possible to give a universally valid answer to 
>such a question. It depends on many factors, including (but not 
>limited to) what the applicable law(s) of the applicable 
>jurisdiction(s) say. I understand it is not the purpose of this 
>proposed BCP to become a general compendium of anti-harassment laws. ;)

I smiled as I read the above. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy