GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7776

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Resnick Request for Comments: 7776 Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. BCP: 25 A. Farrel Updates: 2418, 7437 Juniper Networks Category: Best Current Practice March 2016 ISSN: 2070-1721

                  IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures

Abstract

 IETF Participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF
 meetings, virtual meetings, or social events or while participating
 in mailing lists.  This document lays out procedures for managing and
 enforcing this policy.
 This document updates RFC 2418 by defining new working group
 guidelines and procedures.  This document updates RFC 7437 by
 allowing the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition without further
 signatories.

Status of This Memo

 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  The Ombudsteam  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.1.  Size of the Ombudsteam  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.2.  Appointing the Ombudsteam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.3.  Professional Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.4.  Qualifications and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.5.  Term of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.6.  Compensation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.7.  Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.8.  Disputes with the IETF Chair Regarding the Ombudsteam . .   7
 4.  Handling Reports of Harassment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.1.  Ombudsteam Operating Practices  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
 5.  Remedies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.1.  Remedies for Respondents in IETF Positions  . . . . . . .  11
   5.2.  Purpose of Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 6.  Disputes with the Ombudsteam  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 7.  Conflicts of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 8.  Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
 10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

1. Introduction

 The IETF has general policies for managing disruptive behavior in the
 context of IETF activities.  In particular, [RFC7154] provides a set
 of guidelines for personal interaction in the IETF, and [RFC2418] and
 [RFC3934] give guidelines for how to deal with disruptive behavior
 that occurs in the context of IETF working group face-to-face
 meetings and on mailing lists.
 However, there is other problematic behavior that may be more
 personal and that can occur in the context of IETF activities
 (meetings, mailing list discussions, or social events) that does not
 directly disrupt working group progress but nonetheless is
 unacceptable behavior between IETF Participants.  This sort of
 behavior, described in the IESG Statement "IETF Anti-Harassment
 Policy" [Policy], is not easily dealt with by our previously existing
 working group guidelines and procedures.  Therefore, this document
 sets forth procedures to deal with such harassing behavior.
 These procedures are intended to be used when other IETF policies and
 procedures do not apply or have been ineffective.
 Nothing in this document should be taken to interfere with the due
 process of law.  Similarly, it does not release any person from any
 contractual or corporate policies to which they may be subject.

2. Definitions

 The following terms are used in this document:
 o  IETF Participant: Anyone who participates in an IETF activity,
    including IETF support staff.
 o  Reporter: An IETF Participant who reports potential harassment to
    an Ombudsperson.
 o  Respondent: An IETF Participant who is claimed to have engaged in
    harassing behavior.
 o  Ombudsteam: A group of people who have been selected to take
    reports of potential harassment, evaluate them, and impose
    appropriate actions and/or remedies to address the circumstances.
 o  Ombudsperson: A member of the Ombudsteam.
 o  Lead Ombudsperson: The Ombudsperson assigned to be the primary
    contact person for a particular report of potential harassment.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 o  Subject: An individual, group, or class of IETF Participant to
    whom the potentially harassing behavior was directed or who might
    be subject to the behavior.
 The IESG Statement on harassment [Policy] gives a general definition
 of harassment as:
    unwelcome hostile or intimidating behavior -- in particular,
    speech or behavior that is sexually aggressive or intimidates
    based on attributes such as race, gender, religion, age, color,
    national origin, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation, or
    gender identity.
 This document adopts that general definition but does not attempt to
 further precisely define behavior that falls under the set of
 procedures identified here, nor does it attempt to list every
 possible attribute that might be the basis for harassment, except to
 note that it may be targeted at an individual, directed at a specific
 group of people, or more generally impact a broader class of people.
 This document concerns itself with harassment that has the purpose or
 effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's participation
 in IETF activities or of creating an environment within the IETF that
 would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive in such a situation.
 One way in which harassment can occur is when submission to such
 conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition
 of an individual's participation in IETF activities or is used as a
 basis for decisions affecting that individual's relationship to the
 IETF.
 In general, disruptive behavior that occurs in the context of an IETF
 general or working group mailing list, or happens in a face-to-face
 or virtual meeting of a working group or the IETF plenary, can be
 dealt with by our normal procedures, whereas harassing behavior is
 more appropriately handled by the procedures described here.
 However, there are plausible reasons to address behaviors that take
 place during working group meetings using these procedures.  This
 document gives some guidance to those involved in these situations in
 order to decide how to handle particular incidents, but the final
 decision will involve judgment and the guidance of the Ombudsteam.
 Any definition of harassment prohibited by an applicable law can be
 subject to this set of procedures.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

3. The Ombudsteam

 This section describes the role of the Ombudsteam in terms of the
 appointment of Ombudspersons, their qualifications and training, the
 length of the term of service, any compensation from the IETF for
 their service, and how they may be removed from service.  The general
 operational procedures for the Ombudsteam are described in Sections
 4, 5, and 6.

3.1. Size of the Ombudsteam

 The Ombudsteam shall comprise no fewer than three people.  From time
 to time, the size may fall below that number owing to changes in
 membership, but the team will be rapidly brought up to size through
 new appointments.  The team may be grown to a larger size as
 described in Section 3.2

3.2. Appointing the Ombudsteam

 The Ombudsteam is appointed by the IETF Chair.  The appointment is
 solely the responsibility of the IETF Chair, who may choose to
 consult with members of the IETF community.
 The IETF Chair is encouraged to appoint at least some of the
 Ombudsteam from within the IETF community.
 The IETF Chair may choose to solicit nominations or advertise the
 post.  This is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair.
 The IETF Chair is also free to decide to appoint more than three
 Ombudspersons to the Ombudsteam.  This may depend on the skill sets
 available, the work load, and the opinions of the seated Ombudsteam.
 Furthermore, the IETF Chair may consider elements of diversity in
 making this decision.

3.3. Professional Advisors

 It is recognized that the Ombudsteam may need to call on professional
 services from external advisors for certain matters, including legal
 and Human Resources (HR) advice.  The IETF (via the IETF
 Administrative Support Activity (IASA)) is committed to funding such
 advice as needed.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

3.4. Qualifications and Training

 It is not expected that there will be candidates with all of the
 necessary Ombudsperson skills and training who also have a clear
 understanding and familiarity with the IETF processes and culture.
 The Chair might choose someone with a great deal of professional
 experience evaluating and mediating harassment disputes but little
 exposure to the IETF or could select someone with more exposure to
 the IETF community but without as much experience dealing with issues
 of harassment.  Since all of these attributes may be regarded by the
 IETF Chair as essential for the team, the IETF is committed to
 providing training (or funding for it) as deemed necessary for
 appointed Ombudspersons.  In determining the appropriate training,
 the IETF Chair and Ombudsteam shall take professional advice and will
 consult with the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) with
 respect to the overall IETF budget.

3.5. Term of Service

 An Ombudsperson shall be appointed for a two-year term.  That is, the
 Ombudsperson is making a commitment to serve for two years.  It is
 understood, however, that circumstances may lead an Ombudsperson to
 resign for personal or other reasons.  See also Section 3.7.
 If an Ombudsperson's term ends while they are acting as Lead
 Ombudsperson for a report as described in Section 4, that
 Ombudsperson's term shall be extended until the handling of that
 report has been completed.
 It is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair whether a serving
 Ombudsperson is reappointed at the end of their term.  Given the
 sensitivity of, and training required for, this role and the ideal
 being a lack of activity, it is likely the IETF Chair may choose to
 reappoint a successful and still-willing Ombudsperson for a number of
 two-year terms.

3.6. Compensation

 An Ombudsperson shall receive no compensation from the IETF for their
 services.  This includes, but is not limited to:
 o  IETF meeting fees
 o  Remuneration for time spent
 o  Out-of-pocket expenses (such as telephone charges)
 o  Travel or accommodation expenses

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 The IETF will, however, meet the costs of training when agreed to by
 the IETF Chair as described in Section 3.4.

3.7. Removal

 The IETF Chair may remove a serving Ombudsperson before the end of
 their term without explanation to the community, including during the
 course of processing an active case.  Such an action shall be
 appealable as described in Section 3.8.
 An Ombudsperson shall not be removed from service, even if their term
 has expired, during the period that the IETF Chair is recused as
 described in Section 7.  Once the case that led to the Chair being
 recused has been closed, normal processes resume.

3.8. Disputes with the IETF Chair Regarding the Ombudsteam

 If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IETF
 Chair regarding the appointment, removal, or management of an
 Ombudsperson or the Ombudsteam, that person should first discuss the
 issue with the IETF Chair directly.  If the IETF Chair is unable to
 resolve the issue, the dissatisfied party may appeal to the IESG as a
 whole.  The IESG shall then review the situation and attempt to
 resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.  The procedures of
 Section 6.5.4 of [RFC2026] apply to this sort of appeal.

4. Handling Reports of Harassment

 Any IETF Participant who believes that they have been harassed, or
 that any other IETF Participant or group of IETF Participants has
 been or may have been harassed, should bring the concern to the
 attention of any serving Ombudsperson.  This can be done by email to
 ombuds@ietf.org or can be done directly to a chosen Ombudsperson.
 Direct contact information for the members of the Ombudsteam,
 including the email addresses to which mail to ombuds@ietf.org is
 forwarded, can be found at <https://www.ietf.org/ombudsteam>
 [OmbudsteamPages].
 All IETF Participants are encouraged to talk with the Ombudsteam if
 they are uncomfortable or unsure about any behaviors.  Though much of
 this document relates to the formal duties of the Ombudsteam, it
 should be understood that an important function of the Ombudsteam is
 to provide confidential advice and counsel for any IETF Participant
 regarding issues of harassment.  The Ombudsteam will not commence a
 formal investigation of any potential incident of harassment without
 agreement by the Reporter and Subject.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 When a Reporter brings an incident of potential harassment to the
 attention of the Ombudsteam, a single Ombudsperson shall be
 designated as the primary contact person (the Lead Ombudsperson) for
 the report.  When the Reporter contacts a single Ombudsperson, that
 Ombudsperson shall be the Lead Ombudsperson for the report unless the
 Reporter and Ombudsperson mutually agree to select another Lead
 Ombudsperson.
 Information conveyed by the Reporter should be kept in confidence by
 the Lead Ombudsperson to the greatest extent possible.  When
 necessary (for example, in the course of a formal investigation), the
 Lead Ombudsperson may share information regarding the report with the
 rest of the Ombudsteam except when an Ombudsperson is recused (see
 Section 7).  If a Reporter believes that a member of the Ombudsteam
 should recuse themself, the Reporter should make this known to the
 Lead Ombudsperson as soon as possible.  See Section 4.1 for further
 discussion of the confidentiality requirements of the Ombudsteam.
 The Lead Ombudsperson will discuss the events with the Reporter and
 may give advice, including recommendations on how the Reporter can
 handle the issue on their own as well as strategies on how to prevent
 the issue from arising again.  The Lead Ombudsperson may also
 indicate that the issue would be best handled using regular IETF
 procedures (such as those for dealing with disruptive behavior)
 outside the context of harassment, and in this case, the Lead
 Ombudsperson will provide assistance in using the relevant IETF
 procedures.  Otherwise, with agreement to proceed from the Subject
 (or the Reporter if there is no individual Subject), the Ombudsteam
 may initiate a detailed investigation of the matter and may
 subsequently, after completing their investigation, impose a remedy
 as described in Section 5.  The Subject can withdraw their agreement
 to proceed at any time.

4.1. Ombudsteam Operating Practices

 The Ombudsteam is responsible for devising and documenting their
 operating practices.  These practices must be discussed with the IESG
 and published in a publicly visible place (such as on the IETF web
 site).  Discussion with the IETF community is encouraged and, while
 IETF consensus is not necessary, significant objections to the
 processes that are not addressed should result in an appeal per
 Section 6.5.3 of [RFC2026] and/or a recall petition against the IETF
 Chair (and any of the rest of the IESG if appropriate) if they do not
 address the concern.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 The practices must include at least the following high-level
 components:
 o  Each member of the Ombudsteam is expected to be present at the
    majority of IETF meetings and to be available for face-to-face
    discussions.  The Ombudsteam is expected to arrange itself so that
    there is coverage of every IETF meeting by at least one
    Ombudsperson.
 o  The Ombudsteam shall strive to keep all information brought to it
    in strict confidence.  However, it is acknowledged that the
    operation of the Ombudsteam may involve sharing of information
    within the team and may require that the parties to the complaint
    (the Reporter, Respondent, and Subject) learn some of the
    confidential information.  The Ombudsteam is responsible for
    documenting its expectations of when disclosures of confidential
    information are likely to be made in the process and to whom.  Any
    electronic information (such as email messages) that needs to be
    archived shall be encrypted before it is stored using tools
    similar to those used by the Nominating Committee (NomCom).
 o  When conducting a detailed investigation of the circumstances
    regarding the complaint of harassment, the Ombudsteam may contact
    the Respondent and request a meeting in person or by a voice call.
    The Ombudsteam shall have contacted the Respondent and either
    discussed the matter or ascertained the Respondent's unwillingness
    to cooperate prior to deciding to impose a remedy as described in
    Section 5.  The Respondent is not obliged to cooperate, but the
    Ombudsteam may consider failure to cooperate when determining a
    remedy (Section 5).
 o  The Ombudsteam shall endeavor to complete its investigation in a
    timely manner.
 o  Any individuals who make a good faith report of harassment or who
    cooperate with an investigation shall not be subject to
    retaliation for reporting, complaining, or cooperating, even if
    the investigation, once completed, shows no harassment occurred.
    Anti-retaliation is noted here to alleviate concerns individuals
    may have with reporting an incident they feel should be reviewed
    or cooperating with an investigation.
 o  In all cases, the Ombudsteam will strive to maintain
    confidentiality for all parties, including the very fact of
    contact with the Ombudsteam.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 9] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 o  The results of investigations as reported to the Subject or
    Respondent and all requests for remedial action (such as to the
    IETF Secretariat) shall be in writing.
 o  The Ombudsteam shall keep written records of their investigation
    and any contacts or interviews such that there is material
    available in the event of an appeal or legal action.  Such records
    shall be held securely and in confidence.
 When investigating reports of harassment and determining remedies, it
 is up to the Ombudsteam whether they choose to act as a body or
 delegate duties to the Lead Ombudsperson.

5. Remedies

 After examining the circumstances regarding the complaint of
 harassment, the Ombudsteam should prepare a brief summary of the
 incident and their conclusions and discuss this with all parties.
 The objective of this step is to make clear what the Ombudsteam has
 concluded and to make an attempt at getting all parties to reach
 agreement.
 If the Ombudsteam determines that harassment has taken place, the
 Ombudsteam is expected to determine the next action.
 o  In some cases, a mechanism or established IETF process may already
    exist for handling the specific event.  In these cases, the
    Ombudsteam may decide that the misbehavior is best handled with
    the regular IETF procedures for dealing with disruptive behavior
    and may assist the Reporter to bring the issue to the attention of
    the WG Chair or IESG member who can deal with the incident.
 o  In other cases, there is a spectrum of remedies that may be
    appropriate to the circumstances.  At one end of the spectrum, the
    Ombudsteam might choose to discuss the situation with the
    Respondent and come up with a plan such that there is no repeat of
    the harassment.  With the agreement of both parties, the
    Ombudsteam can also help to mediate a conversation between the
    Respondent and the Subject (or the Reporter if there is no
    individual Subject) in order to address the issue.  If mediation
    fails, then the Ombudsteam can decide to apply other remedies,
    including those discussed here.
 o  At the other end of the spectrum, the Ombudsteam could decide that
    the Respondent is no longer permitted to participate in a
    particular IETF activity, for example, ejecting them from a
    meeting or requiring that the Respondent can no longer attend
    future meetings to ensure that the reported harassment cannot

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 10] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

    continue or escalate.  If the Respondent holds a management
    position in the IETF, the remedies imposed may make it difficult
    or impossible for them to perform the duties required of that
    position.  Further remedies may be applied to Respondents in IETF
    management positions as described in Section 5.1.
 o  In determining the appropriate remedy, the Ombudsteam may
    communicate with the Reporter, Subject, or Respondent in order to
    assess the impact that the imposition of a remedy might have on
    any of those parties.  However, the Ombudsteam has ultimate
    responsibility for the choice of remedy.
 o  In all cases, the Lead Ombudsperson informs the Respondent of the
    decision and imposes the remedy as appropriate.  In cases where
    the remedy is removal from IETF activities, the Lead Ombudsperson
    will confidentially notify the Secretariat in writing of the
    remedy such that the Secretariat can take whatever logistical
    actions are required to effect the remedy.  Only the remedy itself
    shall be disclosed to the Secretariat, not any information
    regarding the nature of the harassment.
 Where specific action is required to ensure that a remedy is realized
 or enforced, the Ombudsteam will make a request in writing to the
 IETF Secretariat and/or IETF Administrative Director (IAD) to take
 action as appropriate.

5.1. Remedies for Respondents in IETF Positions

 The remedies discussed earlier in this section are equally applicable
 to all IETF Participants regardless of role.
 The Ombudsteam will want to be aware of the impact of remedies on the
 ability of an individual to carry out their duties in IETF management
 positions, but this should not dissuade the Ombudsteam from applying
 remedies that they deem appropriate.  Per Section 5, the Ombudsteam
 is expected to apply proportionality and reasonableness, as well as
 to consider the impact of the remedy on the Respondent.  Per
 Section 4.1, the Ombudsteam may communicate with the Respondent in
 order to assess the impact that the remedy might have.
 There may be cases where the Ombudsteam considers that it is
 inappropriate for a Respondent to continue in their IETF management
 position, that is, where the desired remedy is to remove the
 Respondent from their management position.  The Ombudsteam cannot by
 itself remove a Respondent who is in an IETF management position from
 that position.  However, the Ombudsteam can recommend the use of
 existing mechanisms within the IETF process for the removal of people
 from IETF management positions as follows:

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 o  Many IETF management positions are appointed by the NomCom with
    confirmation from the IESG, IAB, or ISOC.  [RFC7437] describes the
    recall procedure for such appointments.  This document updates
    [RFC7437] by allowing the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition on
    its own and without requiring 20 signatories from the community.
    Such a petition shall be treated in all ways like any other recall
    petition as described in [RFC7437]: that is, the fact of the
    petition and its signatories (the Ombudsteam) shall be announced
    to the IETF community, and a Recall Committee Chair shall be
    appointed to complete the Recall Committee process.  It is
    expected that the Recall Committee will receive a briefing from
    the Ombudsteam explaining why recall is considered an appropriate
    remedy.
 o  Other IETF management positions are filled by appointment of the
    IESG, the IAB, the ISOC Board, or the ISOC President.  In such
    cases, the Ombudsteam may recommend to the appointing body that
    the Respondent be removed from their position.
 o  Many IETF management positions are filled through appointment by
    an AD or by the ADs for an IETF Area.  In such cases, the
    Ombudsteam may recommend to those ADs in writing that the
    Respondent be removed from their position.
 o  Some other IETF management positions are filled through
    appointment by WG Chairs.  In such cases, the Ombudsteam may make
    a recommendation in writing to the responsible AD (that is, not
    directly to the WG Chairs) that the Respondent be removed from
    their position.
 In each of the cases listed here, it is expected that the person or
 body responsible for removing someone from an IETF management
 position will take a recommendation from the Ombudsteam extremely
 seriously and that it would be very unusual for them to not act on
 the recommendation.  It is not the intent that the person or body
 attempt to reinvestigate the circumstances of the harassment.  They
 are expected to understand that they are not qualified in evaluating
 or handling issues of harassment.  They must seek to preserve
 confidentiality.  If the person or body feels removal from position
 is not the correct remedy, they must discuss their concern with the
 Ombudsteam.
 In the event that an AD declines to follow the recommendation of the
 Ombudsteam, and if the AD fails to convince the Ombudsteam of the
 reasons for this, the Ombudsteam should raise the issue with the
 whole IESG while continuing to attempt to retain confidentiality.
 The IESG may choose to reorganize the responsibilities for working

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 groups within its own structure so that the AD concerned is no longer
 in the direct management path.
 All such forced removals from management positions must be considered
 by the Ombudsteam as acts of last resort.  That is, before a
 Respondent is recommended for removal, the Ombudsteam should consider
 other possible remedies and should discuss the situation with the
 Respondent, giving them ample opportunity to understand what might
 happen and to step down of their own volition.
 As described in Section 4.1, the Ombudsteam is required to maintain
 the highest degree of confidentiality.  In recommending action as
 described above, the Ombudsteam will clearly have to indicate that
 some event has occurred that led to their recommendation, but it is
 not expected that the Ombudsteam will need to divulge substantially
 more information.  It should be enough that the Ombudsteam explains
 the severity of the situation, that they have considered other lesser
 remedies, and that they deem the recommended remedy to be
 appropriate.
 In removing someone from their position, it may become apparent to
 the IETF community that the removal is a remedy recommended by the
 Ombudsteam.  However, revealing the underlying events should be
 avoided as far as possible.

5.2. Purpose of Remedies

 The purpose of the anti-harassment policy is to prevent all incidents
 of harassment in the IETF.  The set of procedures documented here
 serves to provide a mechanism whereby any harassment that occurs can
 be reported and handled both sympathetically and effectively.  The
 policy also sends a clear message that the IETF does not tolerate
 harassment in any form.
 However, any remedy is imposed to try to make sure that the incident
 does not escalate and to ensure that a similar situation is unlikely
 to occur with the same Respondent in the future.
 Because the handling of incidents of harassment (including the
 imposition of remedies) is confidential, an imposed remedy cannot
 itself serve as a deterrent to others, nor can it be used to "teach"
 the community how to behave.  ([RFC7154] gives guidelines for conduct
 in the IETF.)  Furthermore, a remedy is not to be imposed for the
 purposes of retribution.  However, the knowledge of the existence of
 a range of remedies and of processes by which they can be applied
 serves both as a statement of the IETF's seriousness in this matter
 and as a deterrent to potential offenders.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 13] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 The Ombudsteam is expected to apply the above considerations, as well
 as proportionality and reasonableness, in selecting a remedy.  They
 are asked to consider the impact of the remedy on the Respondent as
 well as on the Subject.

6. Disputes with the Ombudsteam

 If either the Subject (or the Reporter if there is no individual
 Subject) or the Respondent is dissatisfied with the decision of the
 Ombudsteam, the dissatisfied party should first contact the Lead
 Ombudsperson and discuss the situation.  If the issue cannot be
 resolved through discussion with the Lead Ombudsperson, the issue may
 be raised with the IETF Chair.
 If necessary, the IETF Chair may recuse themself from any part of
 this process (see Section 7) and request the IESG to select another
 of its members to serve in this role.  This IESG member is known as
 the "delegated IESG member".
 The IETF Chair (or the delegated IESG member if the Chair is recused)
 will attempt to resolve the issue in discussion with the dissatisfied
 party and the Lead Ombudsperson.  If this further discussion does not
 bring a satisfactory resolution, the Ombudsteam's decision may be
 formally appealed.  The appeal is strictly on the issue of whether
 the Ombudsteam exercised due diligence both in their decision as to
 whether harassment had taken place as well as in their determination
 of any appropriate remedy that was imposed.  In particular, the
 purpose of the appeal is not to re-investigate the circumstances of
 the incident or to negotiate the severity of the remedy.
 All elements of the appeal, including the fact of the appeal, will be
 held in confidence but will be recorded and held securely for future
 reference.
 The appeal will be evaluated by the IETF Chair (or the delegated IESG
 member) and two other members of the IESG selected by the IETF Chair
 (or the delegated IESG member) and confirmed by the appellant.  This
 Appeals Group shall convene as quickly as possible to evaluate and
 determine the appeal.  Where the impacts are immediate and related to
 participation in an ongoing meeting, this shall happen in no more
 than 24 hours after receiving the appeal.  The Appeals Group may ask
 the appellant and the Lead Ombudsperson for statements or other
 information to consider.  If the Appeals Group concludes that due
 diligence was exercised by the Ombudsteam, this shall be reported to
 the appellant, and the matter is concluded.  If the Appeals Group
 finds that due diligence was not exercised, the Appeals Group shall
 report this to the Ombudsteam and consult with the Ombudsteam on how
 to complete the due diligence.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 14] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 Because of the need to keep the information regarding these matters
 as confidential as possible, the Appeals Group's decision is final
 with respect to the question of whether the Ombudsteam has used due
 diligence in their decision.  The only further recourse available is
 to claim that the procedures themselves (i.e., the procedures
 described in this document) are inadequate or insufficient to the
 protection of the rights of all parties.  Such a claim may be made in
 an appeal to the Internet Society Board of Trustees, as described in
 Section 6.5.3 of [RFC2026].  Again, even in this circumstance, the
 particulars of the incident at hand will be held in confidence.

7. Conflicts of Interest

 In the event of any conflict of interest, the conflicted person
 (member of the Ombudsteam, member of the Appeals Group, IETF Chair,
 etc.) is expected to recuse themselves.
 A conflict of interest may arise if someone involved in the process
 of handling a harassment report is in the role of Reporter,
 Respondent, or Subject.  Furthermore, a conflict of interest arises
 if the person involved in the process of handling a harassment report
 is closely associated personally or through affiliation with any of
 the Reporter, Respondent, or Subject.
 For the avoidance of doubt, recusal in this context means completely
 stepping out of any advisory or decision-making part of any process
 associated with handling a harassment report, remedy arising from a
 harassment report, or appeal into the handling of a harassment
 report.  That means that a recused person has no more right to
 participate in or witness the process than any other person from the
 community in the same situation.  For example, an Ombudsperson
 subject to a complaint of harassment shall not be privy to the
 deliberations of another Ombudsperson handling the report.  Nor would
 an IESG member who was party to an appeal be able to witness the
 discussions of the Appeals Group.
 In the event that there is an appeal and the IETF Chair is somehow
 involved, the Chair will immediately recuse themself, and the IESG
 will select a single person to take the Chair's role in the appeal
 process as described in Section 6.

8. Confidentiality

 Throughout this document, there are mentions of requirements to keep
 information confidential.  This section summarizes those requirements
 for clarity.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 15] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 The Ombudsteam is expected to strive for confidentiality.
 Confidentiality protects the Reporter, Subject, and Respondent in any
 case of alleged harassment.  It also protects witnesses or others
 consulted by the Ombudsteam during their investigation.
 The Ombudsteam will keep its email and other archival records in a
 secure system and will not discuss details of any case beyond what is
 necessary for executing a thorough investigation.
 Third-party receivers of output from the Ombudsteam (for example, ADs
 or the IETF Secretariat who are asked to take action) are required to
 keep such output confidential.
 Participants in an investigation (Reporters, Subjects, Respondents,
 and anyone interviewed by the Ombudsteam during an investigation) are
 requested to keep the details of the events and investigation
 confidential.
 It is likely that members of the community will want to know more
 when they have become aware of some details of a case of harassment.
 The community is asked to show restraint and to trust the Ombudsteam.
 This process is designed to provide remedies not punishment, as
 described in Section 5.2, and public discussion of the events or
 remedies does not form part of this process.

9. Security Considerations

 "Human beings the world over need freedom and security that they may
 be able to realize their full potential." -- Aung San Suu Kyi

10. References

10.1. Normative References

 [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
            3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
 [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
            Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
            September 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.
 [RFC3934]  Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
            Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3934, October 2004,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3934>.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

 [RFC7154]  Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
            RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.
 [RFC7437]  Kucherawy, M., Ed., "IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection,
            Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the
            Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 7437,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7437, January 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7437>.

10.2. Informative References

 [OmbudsteamPages]
            IESG, "Reporting Potential Harassment",
            <https://www.ietf.org/ombudsteam>.
 [Policy]   IESG, "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy",
            <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/
            ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html>.

Acknowledgements

 The text in this document benefited from the lively discussion on the
 ietf@ietf.org mailing list.  Thanks to everyone who participated.
 Specific changes to this document resulted from comments by
 Abdussalam Baryun, Alessandro Vesely, S. Moonesamy, Timothy
 B. Terriberry, John Levine, Andrea Glorioso, Dave Crocker, John
 Leslie, Linda Klieforth, Brian Carpenter, Mary Barnes, Richard
 Barnes, Spencer Dawkins, Michael StJohns, Alissa Cooper, James
 Woodyatt, Tom Taylor, Sam Hartman, Stewart Bryant, Stephen Farrell,
 Nico Williams, Mark Nottingham, and Jari Arkko.  The authors would
 like to express their gratitude.
 A design team comprising Linda Klieforth, Allison Mankin, Suresh
 Krishnan, Pete Resnick, and Adrian Farrel was convened by the IETF
 Chair (Jari Arkko) to address the issue of "Remedies for Respondents
 in IETF Positions" and the text in Section 5.1.
 The authors would like to thank Ines Robles for diligent shepherding
 of this document and for tracking the many issues raised in and after
 IETF last call.
 Thanks to Greg Kapfer at ISOC, Ray Pelletier (the IAD), Scott Bradner
 and Lou Berger on the IAOC, and Scott Young and David Wilson of
 Thompson Hine for considering the legal and insurance implications.

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 17] RFC 7776 Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2016

Authors' Addresses

 Pete Resnick
 Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
 5775 Morehouse Drive
 San Diego, CA  92121
 United States
 Phone: +1 858 651 4478
 Email: presnick@qti.qualcomm.com
 Adrian Farrel
 Juniper Networks
 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

Resnick & Farrel Best Current Practice [Page 18]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7776.txt · Last modified: 2016/03/03 19:44 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki