IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures
RFC 7776
| Document | Type |
RFC - Best Current Practice
(March 2016; No errata)
Updated by RFC 8716
Was draft-farrresnickel-harassment (individual in gen area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Pete Resnick , Adrian Farrel | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | Ines Robles | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2015-09-23) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7776 (Best Current Practice) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
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]