On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:57:09AM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 10:35 AM 3/20/2015, John C Klensin wrote:
In that sense, an "applicable law" provision changes nothing
because its presence or absence does not restrict the issues
that can be raised.
I want to nit this a bit. The problem with the applicable law
provision is that it blurs the line between what's important to the
IETF (e.g. directed harassment of pretty much any color that affects
the standards process) with a whole lot of things that can "legally"
be considered harassment depending on time, place and participant(s).
If it affects the IETF process, we raise it internally and we resolve
it with the remedies at hand (mediation, separation and exclusion).
Yes. But see my separate objections as to processes that can lead to
separation and exclusion without due process, and civil liability that
the IETF risks as a result.
If its also (or only) a "legal" issue, we direct the affected
participants to engage elsewhere and keep our mitts out of that part
of it.
Yes. And, of course, if such law purports to bind the IETF to have a
role in enforcing it, then the IETF must consider it, for the obvious
reason that not doing so may incur liability in/as to that locality. I
think this was part of the intent, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm only asking for better text. The lawyers should not treat us like
children, though explaining their text to us as if we were children is
fine and desirable.
I would say that John's example is pretty much the definition of
directed harassment affecting the standards process. However, the
mere fact that participant A insults participant B is not necessarily
an IETF issue (and I'm glad of this or many of us on this list would
have already been excluded). Doing so in a manner that prevents B
from fully participating in the IETF probably is.
Yes, our discussions sometimes get heated and we don't end up with hard
feelings. While we should each be careful not to cross certain lines,
we also should not fear for our livelihoods due to heated debates
leading an aggrieved party to file a career-ending secret complaint with
a too-zealous IETF police.
A process that promises confidentiality and can result in exclusion is a
sham and is intolerable, but a process that allows sunlight to shine on
it and which affords the Respondent real due process rights is fine,
acceptable, and highly desirable.
Nico
--