Has either or both of the ISOC and IETF trust lawyers reviewed this, especially
section 5? If so, would you please provide the written evaluation that
indicates they see no issue with respect to IETF liability should the Ombudsman
actually attempt to exclude someone from the face to face or online sessions?
I'm still in great opposition to this document as I believe Section 5 provides
too broad a palate of "remedies" without appropriate checks and balances on the
system. It's unclear that what actual recourse the IETF has if the target of
the remedies simply chooses to ignore the directions of the OBs.
I would not publish it in its current form and would never publish it without
appropriate documented professional review ideally by both legal and HR
experts. Since this is targeted for a BCP, the supporting documentation needs
to be part of the approval package.
Later, Mike
At 10:22 AM 1/16/2015, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures'
<draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2015-02-13. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
IETF Participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF
meetings, virtual meetings, social events, or on mailing lists. This
document lays out procedures for managing and enforcing this policy.
This document updates RFC 2418.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-harassment/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrresnickel-harassment/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.