"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."
I have no idea what that paragraph means.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
[abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 08 March 2014 11:16
To: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
Cc: IETF Disgust
Subject: Re: Anti-harassment procedures - next version
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