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 April 29, 2014
Expires: October 31, 2014
IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures
draft-farrresnickel-harassment-02
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 October 31, 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 October 31, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 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 Ombudsteam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Size of the Ombudsteam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Appointing the Ombudsteam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Professional Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Qualifications and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Term of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Recompense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.7. Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.8. Disputes with the IETF Chair regarding the Ombudsperson . 6
4. Handling Reports of Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Ombudsteam Operating Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Remedy is Not Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Disputes with the Ombudsteam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Conflicts of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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, 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
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
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 for the legal system under the jurisdiction of which
any harassment takes place. 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:
Reporter: An IETF participant who reports potential harassment to
an Ombudsperson.
Respondent: An IETF participant who is claimed to have engaged in
harassing behavior.
Ombudsteam: A group of people who have been selected to take
reports of potential harassement, evaluate them, and impose
appropriate actions and/or remedies to address the circumstance.
Ombudsperson: A member of the Ombudsteam.
Lead Ombudsperson: The Ombudsperson assigned to be the primary
contact person for a particular report of potential harassment.
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 except to note that it may be targeted at an individual,
directed at a specific group of people, or more generally impacting a
broader class of people. 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
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
harassing behavior that is interpersonal is more easily 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.
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 recompense for their service, and
how they may be removed from service. The general operational
procedures for the Ombudsteam are described in Section 4, Section 5,
and Section 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 although the Chair may
choose to consult with the IESG, the IAB, and with the ISOC Board of
Trustees. Furthermore, the IETF Chair may take opinion from the
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 skillsets
available, the work load, and the opinions of the seated Ombudsteam.
Furthermore, the IETF Chair may consider elements of diversity in
making this decision.
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
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 is committed to funding
such advice on an "as needed" basis.
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 an appointment, the IETF is
committed to provide funding for necessary training for appointed
Ombudspersons. In determining the appropriate training, the IETF
chair and Ombudsteam shall take professional advice.
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.
It is entirely at the discretion of the IETF Chair whether a serving
Ombudsperson is reappointed at the end of their term.
3.6. 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 3.4.
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
3.7. Removal
The IETF Chair may remove a serving Ombudsperson before the end of
their term without explanation to the community. Such an action
shall be appealable as described in Section 6.
An Ombudsperson shall not be removed from service, even if their term
has expired, if the IETF Chair is recused as described in Section 7.
3.8. 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 any serving Ombudsperson. This can
be done by email to "ombudsteam@ietf.org" [3], or can be done
directly to a chosen Ombudsperson. Direct contact information for
the Ombudsteam, including the email addresses to which
"ombudsteam@ietf.org" is forwarded, can be found at https://
www.ietf.org/ombudsteam .
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
mutually agreed between the Reporter and that Ombudsperson.
The Lead Ombudsperson may share any 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, they should make this known to the Lead
Ombudsperson as soon as possible.
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
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
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 detailed investigation of the matter, and may
subsequently impose a remedy as described in Section 5.
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 objection to the
processes that are not addressed should result in an RFC 2026
Section 6.5.3 appeal and/or a recall petition against the IETF Chair
(and the rest of the IESG if appropriate) if they do not address the
concern.
The practices must include at least the following high-level
components:
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.
All information brought to the Ombudsteam 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
using tools similar to those used by NomCom.
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 Respondent is not obliged to cooperate, but the Ombudsteam may
consider failure to cooperate when determining a remedy
(Section 5).
The Ombudsteam shall endeavor to complete its investigation in a
timely manner.
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
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
the investigation, once completed, shows no harassment occurred.
Anti-retaliation is noted here to alleviate concerns individuals
may have with reference to reporting an incident they feel should
be reviewed.
In all cases the Ombudsteam will strive to maintain
confidentiality for all parties including the very fact of contact
with the Ombudsteam.
When investigating reports 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.
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 working group chair or IESG member who can deal with the
incident.
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.
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.
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
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.
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 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.
5.1. Remedy is Not Punishment
It is understood that the purpose of a remedy is not punishment.
That is, the remedy is imposed in order to rectify the situation (to
"put things right"), 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.
A remedy is not to be imposed for the purposes of retribution or as a
deterrent to others. It is also not intended to teach the community
how to behave - there is RFC 7154 for that. The Ombudsteam are
expected to apply considerations of proportionality and
reasonableness in selecting a remedy, and 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.
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
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
the Ombudsteam 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 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.
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 Obmudsteam, member of the Appeals Group, IETF Chair,
etc.) is expected to recuse themselves.
A conflict of interest may arise is 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.
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
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, therefore, 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 and the IESG will select
a single person to take the Chair's role in the appeal process.
8. 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
9. References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC3934] Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
October 2004.
[RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54, RFC
7154, March 2014.
9.2. 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:ombudsteam@ietf.org
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
Appendix A. 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, Spencer Dawkins, and
Michael StJohns. The authors would like to express their gratitude.
Appendix B. Open Issues
This Appendix to be removed before publication as an RFC.
This Appendix is used to track issues that have been raised for
discussion, but which the authors have not yet addressed.
Timescales. A suggestion was made that specific time limits
should be defined for the periods event-to-report, report-to-
contact-Respondent, report-to-remedy. The authors do not consider
this practical as events and circumstances will vary considerably.
Deletion of Emails. There was good debate about the potential for
deletion of offensive emails from the archive. The authors
believe this is not an issue to be addressed in this document
although it might be a remedy directed by the Ombudsteam. The
authors also believe that the IESG should make a statement
covering this point exactly as was done for the deletion of
Internet-Drafts under exceptional circumstances.
Details of Specific or Example Remedies. A suggestion was made to
include more specific and example of remedies. The authors
consider that it is not helpful for this document to attempt to
list all possible remedies: these are a matter for the Ombudsteam
to determine.
Who Imposes Remedies? Can the Ombudsteam impose/effect remedies,
or can they only make recommendations to the IESG?
A Closed Incident is Closed. There has been some private
discussion with the authors about how to indicate that once a
remedy has been determined and applied, the incident is closed.
That was intended to cover the issue of a continued trickle of
remedies applied for a single incident, and also to prevent an
Ombudsperson carrying knowledge of the incident into future
interactions if they find themselves in an IETF management
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Anti-Harassment Procedures April 2014
position. The authors found not words to cover what they felt to
be a self-evident fact.
Term Limits. A view was expressed that there should be a maximum
term limit for an Ombudsperson to ensure that they do not become
institutionalised or jaded. The authors need more opinions on
this topic.
Removal from IETF Management Position. We were questioned about
whether the Ombudsteam can impose a remedy that removes an
individual from an IETF position. We do not believe that this
remedy is available, but we need further comments, and need to
decide whether this should be explicitly stated in this document.
Recognition of this Process. It may be necessary for the "Note
Well" type of participation documentation to mention this document
and state that participants agree to be bound by it.
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
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Resnick & Farrel Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 13]