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