    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]