Hi Adrian
I agree with you totally. I think also that the draft needs to consider
that there are many people watching the discussions and IETF activities of
lists/group, but because of those watchers (usually from Asia and
Europe) good reputation in community, so they will refuse to engage in such
groups discussion/activity because those groups/list have LARGE space of
freedom to even shoot at humans instead to shoot at
ideas/texts/technologies.
In addition, IMHO the draft should include the social problem of
the identified and unidentified persons that may become parts in
the harassing situation. So usually reporters like to be unknown to public,
usually harass respondents like to be unknown, and the victims like to be
known by good reputation but unknown of such attacks against them. This may
be important to ombudsperson responsibilities to maintain privacy.
The IETF discussion registration gives chance to any person to have more
than one name or identity but not real names (which may be known only by
few hidden harassing persons so they can enjoy). The IETF ombudsperson
usually uses identities to investigate, so there is a problem which can be
solved by removing inputs quickly within minutes in such unknown
harassing. I will try to do some text to suggest into the draft, but others
can help formulating the idea if they agree.
Regards
AB
On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
do not alter the public record. it is a public record, not edited
history. this is a primrose path.
Randy, you are right, and I have as much antipathy to spring flowers as
the next
person, but...
When I look at
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html I
see a
similar issue handled "in exceptional circumstances" to protect the IETF
from
litigation, to protect individuals from extreme forms of targeting, and to
protect the reputation of the IETF.
I think the Ombudsperson should have this remedy available. I would not
expect
it to be applied as a regular remedy against cases of argumentum ad
hominem, but
I think the Ombudsperson should be allowed to remove exceptionally crass
material.
Yes, the conflict with freedom of speech is very concerning. But there is
surely
a line here somewhere. Suppose someone takes a photo of me naked emerging
from
my hotel shower and posts it on the WEIRDS mailing list?
So, what I want to work towards is language that lets the Ombudsperson
know that
this remedy is available, but that it is not expected to be applied
casually.
I think that, just as we did for the IESG statement on I-Ds, we should take
advice (in this case from counsel and the IAOC) before forming a solid
policy.
To my knowledge two emails have been removed from the general archive in
the
last five years on the direction of the IESG (Jari and Russ may have better
recollection). They were very offensive personal attacks.
It is right that we should debate this.
Cheers,
Adrian