Hi SM,
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:39 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi Andrea,
At 06:50 22-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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
--
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