doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1011 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7776.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7776.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..91ad302
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7776.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1011 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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]
+