<div><div dir="auto">Malcolm raises some issues in his email to the ripe-list.</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How can theese be addressed?</div><div dir="auto">Even under the current CoC with trusted contacts this is not defined.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I personally does not have an answer to how to handle this.</div><div dir="auto">There was an incident in 2016 that may be used as a case study to better understand the complexity:</div><div dir="auto"><div><a href="https://omblog.icann.org/">https://omblog.icann.org/</a></div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <strong class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Malcolm Hutty</strong> <span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:Malcolm@linx.net">Malcolm@linx.net</a>></span><br>Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 14:25<br>Subject: [ripe-list] Code of Conduct 3.0<br>To: <a href="mailto:ripe-list@ripe.net">ripe-list@ripe.net</a> <<a href="mailto:ripe-list@ripe.net">ripe-list@ripe.net</a>><br></div><br><br>Dear all,<br> <br> I understand that on Thursday afternoon the RIPE Plenary will be invited<br> to adopt “Code of Conduct v3.0”. Unfortunately I must leave Rotterdam at<br> lunchtime, so I am writing to share with you my reasons for believing it<br> should not be approved.<br> <br> Code of Conduct v3.0 proposes the creation of a new entity, the “CoC<br> Team” who will be invested with the power to hear allegations of breach<br> of the Code of Conduct and decide what sanctions, if any, to apply to<br> the community member in violation.<br> <br> Planned sanctions include, amongst other things,<br> 1. Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or<br> other RIPE community spaces, for a set period or an indefinite period<br> 2. A public reprimand<br> 3. Requiring that a public apology is made<br> <br> Denying someone the opportunity to participate in RIPE is clearly a<br> serious step. Issuing a public reprimand, or requiring a public apology<br> (i.e. admission of guilt) is potentially seriously damaging to a<br> person’s reputation. Since a public reprimand might make reference to<br> the purposes of the Code, including the prevention of sexual harassment<br> and racist abuse, and assert that the person was found to have violated<br> the Code, but not necessarily say what the individual is alleged to have<br> actually done, a public reprimand from the CoC team could have lasting<br> impact on a person’s career prospects.<br> <br> It is therefore a matter of great importance to every member of this<br> community that if such sanctions are ever applied, the most scrupulous<br> process is used.<br> <br> Unfortunately, in my view the process set out in Code of Conduct 3.0 is<br> very far from fit for purpose.<br> <br> For a start, given the gravity of the intended sanctions, I am stunned<br> to see that the Code neither requires nor suggests that the CoC Team<br> should attempt to speak to the accused individual to get their side of<br> the story. Indeed, there is no requirement that the accused person is<br> even informed of the details of the allegation against them. A public<br> reprimand could be the first the subject hears of the matter.<br> <br> The right to be heard before being punished is not an obscure legalistic<br> procedural device. It is fundamental to basic fairness.<br> <br> Granted, a right of appeal has been added to the Code (thank you Daniel<br> Karrenberg for your urgent intervention!), but I do not think appeal<br> after the fact is sufficient correction to a basically abusive process.<br> <br> Although the most egregious, that is far from the only flaw with Code of<br> Conduct 3.0. It positively encourages anonymous complaints. Complaints<br> are also encouraged not only from alleged “victims”, but also from<br> “witnesses”<br> <br> The Code promises that the identity of the complainant will not be<br> disclosed to the subject of the complaint, potentially making it<br> impossible to understand the circumstances or provide an explanation.<br> The person submitting a complaint is not disqualified under the Code<br> from sitting as a member of the CoC Team adjudicating the complaint.<br> Given that the Code also invites witness reports and assures witnesses<br> that their reports will not be viewed less favourably because they have<br> made multiple reports, it would be entirely consistent with the Code for<br> the CoC Team to also act as as a Code of Conduct patrol, making reports<br> of violations and then sitting in judgement on their own allegations.<br> <br> Thanks to anonymity, nobody outside the CoC team would even know if this<br> were occurring.<br> <br> There are other problems, but this message is already too long.<br> <br> Throughout the Code, the emphasis is consistently on the CoC Team’s<br> responsibility to the reporter. There is no such recognition of a<br> responsibility to the person ‘under investigation’ – by which I mean,<br> the person who is the subject of the complaint; there is actually no<br> expectation set in the Code that the CoC Team would actually conduct an<br> investigation, rather than proceeding directly to judgement on the basis<br> solely of the information contained in the allegation.<br> <br> I have described some serious flaws, but in my view, it is not worth<br> trying to rescue this proposal with patches to each of them. The<br> document as a whole is riddled with bias, and should be abandoned. The<br> Diversity Taskforce has demonstrated that it is not an appropriate body<br> to be undertaking this work.<br> <br> Any serious attempt to create a process for enforcement of a Code of<br> Conduct should be predicated on the basis that a grievance and<br> disciplinary process (which is what this is) owes a serious duty of<br> fairness to all parties, not only to one side.<br> <br> Malcolm.<br> <br> -- <br> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br> Head of Public Affairs | web: <a href="http://www.linx.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.linx.net</a><br> London Internet Exchange |<br> <br> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br> <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Monument+Place,+24+Monument+Street+London+EC3R+8AJ?entry=gmail&source=g">Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ</a><br> <br> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br> </div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"> -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | <a href="mailto:hph@oslo.net">hph@oslo.net</a> | <a href="http://hph.oslo.net">http://hph.oslo.net</a> </div>