Internet Engineering Task Force P. Resnick
Internet-Draft Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
BCP: 25 A. Farrel
Updates: 2418 (if approved) Juniper Networks
Intended status: Best Current Practice March 3, 2014
Expires: September 4, 2014
IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures
draft-farrresnickel-harassment-01
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 version of this document is provided as a continued point for
discussion and does not represent the firm opinions of the authors.
Furthermore, the ideas presented in this document have not been fully
discussed and reviewed by the IESG.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Ombudsperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Appointing the Ombudsperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Qualifications and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Term of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Recompense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Disputes with the IETF Chair regarding the Ombudsperson . 5
4. Handling Reports of Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Disputes with the Ombudsperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
8.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The IETF has general policies for managing disruptive behavior in the
context of IETF activities. In particular, [RFC3184] 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, often more interpersonal,
behavior 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 on an "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy" [1], 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.
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
Nothing in this document should be taken to interfere with the due
process of law for the legal system under the jurisdiction of which
any harassment takes place.
2. Definitions
The following terms are used in this document:
Reporter: An IETF participant who reports potential harassment to
the Ombudsperson.
Respondent: An IETF participant who is claimed to have engaged in
harassing behavior.
Ombudsperson: The person who is selected to take reports of
potential harassment, evaluate them, and impose appropriate
actions and/or remedies to address the circumstance. This word is
used in the singular throughout this document although multiple
ombudspersons might serve at any one time.
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 [2] defines harassment as "unwelcome
hostile or intimidating behavior, in particular speech and behavior
that is sexually aggressive or intimidates based on attributes like
race, gender, religion, age, color, national origin, ancestry,
disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity." This document
adopts that definition and does not attempt to further precisely
define behavior that falls under the set of procedures identified
here. 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 that is interpersonal is more easily handled by the
procedures described here. However, there are certainly 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 in the end the final decision will
involve judgment and the guidance of the Ombudsperson.
3. The Ombudsperson
This section describes the role of the Ombudsperson in terms of their
appointment, qualifications and training, the length of the term of
service, any recompense for their service, and how they may be
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
removed from service. The general operational procedures for the
Ombudsperson are described in Section 4, Section 5, and
Section 6.Detailed processes for the handling and evaluation of
harassment reports are to be defined and maintained by Ombudsperson.
3.1. Appointing the Ombudsperson
The Ombudsperson is appointed by the IETF Chair. The appointment is
solely the responsibility of the IETF Chair although the Chair may
choose to consult with the IESG, the IAB, and with ISOC.
Furthermore, the IETF Chair may take opinion from the 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 how many people are needed to
fill the role of Ombudsperson. This may depend on the skillsets
available, the work load, and the opinions of the seated
Ombudsperson. Furthermore, the IETF Chair may consider elements of
diversity in making this decision.
3.2. 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 an appointment, the IETF is
committed to provide funding for necessary training for an appointed
Ombudsperson. In determining the appropriate training, the IETF
chair and Ombudsperson shall take professional advice.
3.3. 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 3.5.
It is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair whether a serving
Ombudsperson is reappointed at the end of their term.
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
3.4. Recompense
An Ombudsperson shall receive no recompense for their services. This
includes, but is not limited to:
IETF meeting fees
Remuneration for time spent
Out-of-pocket expenses (such as telephone charges)
Travel or accommodation expenses
The IETF will, however, meet the costs of training when agreed to by
the IETF Chair as described in Section 3.2.
3.5. Removal
The IETF Chair may remove a serving Ombudsperson before the end of
their term without explanation to the community. Such an action
shall not be appealable. See also Section 6.
3.6. Disputes with the IETF Chair regarding the Ombudsperson
If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IETF
Chair regarding the appointment, removal, or management of the
Ombudsperson, 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 or other IETF
participants have been harassed or may have been harassed may bring
the concern to the attention of the Ombudsperson. This can be done
by email to "ombudsperson@ietf.org" [3], or can be done directly to
the Ombudsperson. Direct contact information for the Ombudsperson,
including the email addresses to which "ombudsperson@ietf.org" is
forwarded, can be found at https://www.ietf.org/ombudsperson .
The Ombudsperson is expected to be present at the majority of IETF
meetings and to be available for face-to-face discussions.
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
All information brought to the Ombudsperson shall be kept in strict
confidence. Any electronic information (such as email messages) that
needs to be archived shall be encrypted before it is stored.
When a Reporter brings an incident of potential harassment to the
Ombudsperson's attention to, the 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 and strategies on
how to prevent the issue from arising again. The 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 Ombudsperson
will provide assistance in using the relevant IETF procedures. In
any event, the Ombudsperson will not initiate detailed investigations
or impose a remedy without agreement to proceed from the Subject (or
the Reporter if there is no individual Subject). The Ombudsperson
shall only investigate incidents of harassment reported to them and
will not initiate investigations independently.
When conducting a detailed investigation of the circumstances
regarding the complaint of harassment, the Ombudsperson may contact
the Respondent and request a meeting in person or by a voice call.
The Respondent is not obliged to cooperate, but the Ombudsperson may
consider failure to cooperate when determining a remedy (Section 5).
Anyone who makes a good faith report of harassment or who cooperates
with an investigation shall not be subject to retaliation for
reporting, complaining or cooperating, even if the investigation,
once completed, shows no harassment occurred.
In all cases the Ombudsperson will strive to maintain confidentiality
for all parties including the very fact of contact with the
Ombudsperson.
5. Remedies
After examining the circumstances regarding the complaint of
harassment and determining that harassment has taken place, the
Ombudsperson is expected to choose a remedy that is appropriate to
the circumstance. At one end of the spectrum, the Ombudsperson 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 working group
chair or IESG member who can deal with the incident. The
Ombudsperson might also choose simply 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
Ombudsperson can also help to mediate a conversation between the
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
Respondent and the Subject (or the Reporter if there is no individual
Subject) in order to address the issue. Finally, on the other end of
the spectrum, the Ombudsperson could decide that the Respondent is no
longer permitted to participate in a particular IETF activity,
whether it is a mailing list discussion, virtual meeting, or a face-
to-face activity, up to and including requiring that the Respondent
can no longer attend a face-to-face IETF meeting and its associated
activities, either for the remainder of the present meeting or (in
the extreme) future meetings.
In determining the appropriate remedy, the Ombudsperson may
communicate with the Reporter, Subject, and Respondent in order to
assess the impact that the imposition of a remedy might have on any
of those parties. However, the Ombudsperson has ultimate
responsibility for the choice of remedy.
In all cases, the Ombudsperson informs the Respondent of the decision
and imposes the remedy as appropriate. In cases where the remedy is
removal from IETF activities, the Ombudsperson will confidentially
notify the Secretariat 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.
6. Disputes with the Ombudsperson
If either the Subject (or the Reporter if there is no individual
Subject) or the Respondent is dissatisfied with the decision of the
Ombudsperson, the dissatisfied party should first contact the
Ombudsperson and discuss the situation. If the issue cannot be
resolved through discussion with the Ombudsperson, the issue may be
raised with the IETF Chair.
If necessary, the IETF Chair may recuse themself from any part of
this process and delegate to another member of the IESG.
The IETF Chair will attempt to resolve the issue in discussion with
the dissatisfied party and the Ombudsperson. If this further
discussion does not bring a satisfactory resolution, the
Ombudsperson's decision may be formally appealed. The appeal is
strictly on the issue of whether the Ombudsperson exercised due
diligence in both 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.
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
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 and two other members
of the IESG, selected by the IETF Chair and confirmed by the
appellant. This Appeals Group shall convene as quickly as possible
to evaluate and decide 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 Ombudsperson for statements or
other information to consider. If the Appeals Group concludes that
due diligence was exercised by the Ombudsperson, this shall be
reported to the appellant and the matter is concluded. If they find
that due diligence was not exercised, the Appeals Group shall report
this to the Ombudsperson, and consult with the Ombudsperson on how to
complete the due diligence.
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 Ombudsperson 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 appeals may be made 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.
Note: The authors of this draft chose to use the IETF Chair and
two IESG members as the Appeals Group. Though not completely
arbitrary, there are certainly other plausible choices. The
authors also recognize that this is a different sort of appeals
procedure than normal. However, the normal appeals procedure
contemplates an openness about the process that the
confidentiality issues in these cases simply do not allow.
7. 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
8. References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC3184] Harris, S., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", RFC 3184,
October 2001.
[RFC3934] Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
October 2004.
8.2. URIs
[1] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-
policy.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-
policy.html
[3] mailto:ombudsperson@ietf.org
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The IESG Statement on harassment, which motivated this document, was
contributed to by Alissa Cooper, Russ Housley, Suresh Krishnan,
Allison Mankin, and Kathleen Moriarty. Their contributions are
appreciated.
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,
and Linda Klieforth. The authors would like to express their
gratitude.
Authors' Addresses
Pete Resnick
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
US
Phone: +1 858 6511 4478
Email: presnick@qti.qualcomm.com
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures March 2014
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Resnick & Farrel Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 10]