James,
From my perspective you have (while agreeing with Stewart) opened up exactly
the problem we need/want to avoid. That is, Stewart has suggested an
additional category to include in the list of forms of discrimination yet you
would like to debate it.
The concern I have is that the potential list that Stewart has suggested is
short compared to the list I could suggest. Yet each new addition could be open
to lengthy debate (you'll notice that far more august bodies than ours burn
very large numbers of hours debating these things, yet none comes up with an
identical list).
What we intended to do with the list was:
- reference the IESG statement, but provide a definition in this document
- provide some examples, but not be definitive
- provide a catchall (viz.
Any definition of harassment prohibited by an applicable law can be
subject to this set of procedures.)
There are two things to avoid:
1. Long discussions about what is and is not harassment in the formation of
this document. We have given the Ombudsteam the scope for training and
judgement: let them do their job.
2. Failure by omission. Suppose we make a longer and more comprehensive list:
will we then describe that list as definitive? If we do, what happens to the
thing we accidentally omit? Does that then become acceptable behaviour for some
lawyer (or equally pedantically minded person)?
Hence, I am not convinced by either your argument or Stewart's, and continued
consideration of the topic only seems to serve to make me more convinced that
the current approach is right.
Thanks,
Adrian
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of James Woodyatt
Sent: 10 March 2015 18:38
To: stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Cc: IETF Discussion List
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF
Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice
I'd like to second Mr. Bryant's general remarks, and ask that we diligently
recognize a more inclusive list of the forms of discrimination in this pass so
as to avoid the tiresome spectacle of litigating over amending the list to be
more inclusive later.
On the minor matter of possibly changing "religion" to "religion or belief" I
want to say that my preference— as someone whose inclusion seems to be the
intent of the change— is that we not do it. It's a slippery phrase, and I don't
like it. I can see why some other organizations might need it, but I feel
pretty confident that IETF is not, and will never be, the sort of place where a
clear distinction in the official text needs to be explicitly recognized at the
expense of economy of language. I would be sad to discover that I'm wrong in
that judgment.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 09/03/2015 19:50, Jari Arkko wrote:
Hi Mike,
Has either or both of the ISOC and IETF trust lawyers reviewed this, especially
section 5?
We have asked for and received from outside counsel and the ISOC insurance
folks a risk assessment.
For what it is worth, we’ve been told that there’s probably also (more) risk
associated with not having this procedure in place :-)
In any case, after a discussion and feedback we revised some of the text in
Section 2 and 5.1. From my perspective we are ready to move forward.
Jari
Jari,
In section 2 you have
"race, gender, religion, age,
color, national origin, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation, or
gender identity."
If I look at the various lists I see in the EU, I see that you
have omitted: disability, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy
and maternity, and gender reassignment. Why are these omitted?
Additionally it is common to see religion or belief rather
than just religion. I assume that this is to cover the case
of discrimination against non-believers.
Finally not in most lists but gaining traction is obesity
discrimination.
Whilst you have catch-all text, not including the complete set of
commonly agreed criteria risks the IETF presenting the image
that those forms of discrimination are somehow less important,
provides scope for a Respondent to escape appropriate sanction,
and may cause a Reporter to be reluctant to put forward
a legitimate complaint in these regards.
- Stewart
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)nestlabs(_dot_)com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering