diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7776.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc7776.txt | 1011 |
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] + |