Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Ant *** *Draft Minutes – CoC TF Nineteenth Call** * 10 December 15:30 (UTC+1) *Attendees:* Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Niall O’Reilly, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout *Summary:* The CoC TF discussed how to handle disputes over decisions made by the CoC Team, especially disagreements over the consequences given for behaviour violations. Athina explained legal processes regarding necessary evidence and appeals and offered advice on how to incorporate these principles into the CoC Team process. The TF considered whether it was useful to draw from the legal process given the fact that CoC breaches were not typically violations of the law and would often rely on eyewitness and personal accounts rather than hard evidence. It was decided that the legal principles for evidence and appeals could be used for inspiration but that the CoC process itself was not a legal procedure, though the CoC Team did need to have some liability protection. The TF also discussed loss of office, which was one possible consequence of a CoC breach. This was relevant for WG chairs and other community leaders. They noted that loss of office could be an indirect result that arose from other consequences, such as exclusion from mailing lists or meetings. With input from the RIPE Vice Chair, the TF decided that it was not the CoC Team’s role to remove chairs from office, as such procedures already existed. However, it was acceptable to have loss of office as a secondary result of other consequences. The TF agreed to incorporate these conclusions into the working process document ahead of its next meeting. *1. Minutes* The minutes from the last meeting were approved, with one change from Leo to replace the word “punishments” in the summary with “consequences”. *2. Agenda* There were no changes to the agenda. *3. Actions* - (Ongoing) TF to think about how the CoC Team and the WG Chairs would work together to manage discussions on mailing lists. Including tools, e.g. Mattermost channel Leo said this action was still ongoing, with no update on progress. *- (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC.* This action remained ongoing. Leo noted they should produce a working document that could later be revised. *- Leo to draft a working document for Athina and Antony to update for discussion at the next meeting.* Leo marked this action as complete. * **4. Escalation in Progress* Athina discussed how to address disputes about whether a breach had occurred. In a court of law, the burden of proof was on the person making the allegations, who would need to provide evidence. The other party could deny the allegations and make their own, in which case they would also need to produce evidence. The court would then rule based on the evidence that was submitted. If the party that filed the original allegations appealed the court’s decision, they could not bring in new evidence or the case would be dismissed. They would need to start a new proceeding instead. Regarding procedures, Athina said it would be best not to go into too much detail, or people might use the list of rules as guidelines for how to commit violations without being caught. In the RIPE NCC’s arbitration procedure, there was a high-level description of the investigation process, called the submission of information, where the arbiter asked the parties to submit relevant evidence (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-691). Failure to provide evidence would render the allegations invalid. However, the arbitration process had different kinds of evidence than the CoC process, as communication in these cases mostly took place over email. Evidence of behaviour violations would be more varied, including eyewitness, textual and/or video proof, and so there could be different accounts of what happened. The party making the allegations might not have any proof at all, which would make it hard for the CoC Team to impose high-level consequences. The CoC Team must therefore be careful about how it evaluated cases, and it might be a good idea to provide training on this. Leo said the arbitration process was good context but asked for more input about disputes over the levels of consequences, i.e. if someone disagreed with the level of consequences applied to them or to the other party. Brian again suggested a book (https://frameshiftconsulting.com/resources/code-of-conduct-book/) centred around handling reports, as it offered a legalistic framework for the process outside of a court of law. It was important to consider the sorts of reports the CoC TF might receive, which would differ from legal cases and likely rely on first-hand accounts without other evidence. Too much detail might not be useful, but people deserved to have a general list of rules. Athina responded that they should not lay out all the potential allowable evidence. Instead, they could have private guidelines for the team that were vetted by lawyers to ensure fairness. This would demonstrate that the rulings were legally sound. Brian agreed that there should be guidance for the team. However, he did not agree with the notion of legal soundness here as these cases would not necessarily involve someone breaking the law. Someone may have simply pushed CoC boundaries, and these violations might merit them being banned from the community. Athina acknowledged that they were not discussing breaches of the law, but it was still important to have legal principles that made sense and led to fair conclusions. The TF’s decisions would also reflect the community’s standards for behaviour. Leo asked if she knew of other appeals processes for disputes over the appropriate level of consequences. He asked what the steps would be in such a process. Athina said there was an appeals procedure in the legal process in which there were multiple levels of appeals. The law outlined crimes and their associated punishments in detail, with ranges for the severity of the crime. In a court, if someone found their punishment too harsh, they could appeal and ask about the rationale behind that punishment. They could challenge the elements of the case that led to that severe consequence. The appeals court might then reduce the punishment or reject the appeal, but it could not give a harsher penalty. Then, either party could again appeal regarding the consequence given and its rationale. On the other hand, the arbitration process did not have an appeals process. Instead, the next step for that process was the national courts. So if the CoC TF were to draw up an appeals process, they should look to the legal process for inspiration, but that might be difficult because the CoC TF had not explicitly outlined consequences for specific violations. Salam said these were ethical, not legal rules, and the worst consequence would be exclusion from community events and mailing lists. She said people should be expected to abide by the TF’s rulings and not escalate matters to the legal system. She asked whether it was possible that people might sue over the TF’s rulings. Athina said there was a risk of being sued but they had taken legal steps to reduce the TF’s liability. For instance, they had added a clause to the terms and conditions for meetings in which participants agreed to abide by the CoC and to waive liability in the case of CoC breaches. There was no way to prevent legal escalation completely, but the CoC Team needed to be able to demonstrate the soundness of their decisions. Brian said that being excluded from meetings could affect people’s livelihoods, as well as their reputations. Leo said this related to the next agenda item. *5. Loss of Office* Leo said he had discussed this item with Mirjam and Niall, as it affected the RIPE community as well. He asked Niall to share his thoughts. Niall said that some consequences, such as exclusion from MLs, would already preclude someone from being a WG chair because they would not be able to carry out their duties. Therefore, loss of office would not need to be a specific consequence because it would be a side effect of other consequences. If necessary, the RIPE Chair could speak to WG chairs about resigning if they could no longer carry out their duties or could even remove them if needed. If the RIPE Chair needed to be removed, the existing recall process would have to be carried out by the community. He asked for Athina’s thoughts on this approach. Athina said as long as there was a process outlined beforehand, they could feel confident in following it. There were already processes for dismissing EB members and arbiters, for instance. She asked if there was already a process for dismissing WG chairs that outlined why a chair could be dismissed as well as how. Brian said there was a process for removing WG chairs. But if the WG chair did not comply, the RIPE Chair team could get involved. There might however be many instances of minor behaviour violations that could merit the WG removing the chair. The TF should not legislate these in too much detail because any consequences the CoC Team had given should indicate to the WG or community that the chair was no longer suitable for their office. The community or WG should then decide to remove the chair using those pre-existing procedures. Niall said the CoC TF was not the right place to describe the process of removing WG chairs but rather to outline expectations for chairs regarding the CoC. This would include mentioning that a chair incurring consequences such as exclusion from MLs, etc., might be a situation whether they should resign or expect to be removed. The TF should connect expectations to the roles rather than to the process. Athina said they should include a description of the role, the selection process and the dismissal process in one document. But it was important to consider how confidentiality could be preserved in the case of loss of office. A community procedure for removing someone from office would not maintain confidentiality. Instead, the procedure would need to be high-level so that the removal from office could be explained by other causes, not just a CoC breach. The RIPE Chair might also need to be responsible for dismissing a WG chair. Salam agreed with Athina’s point. The role of the CoC Team was just to decide if there was a breach of the CoC, not to dismiss WG chairs. Removing chairs from office should be a separate process. Brian referenced the Anti-Abuse WG chair removal policy that covered loss of office and the reasons for it. This supported Athina’s point as well. Other roles’ descriptions, such as PC members, also already contained language about what should happen if members were unable to carry out their roles. Regarding confidentiality, it would be hard to fully maintain given the size of the community, but deposed chairs would not need to share the reasons behind their removal. Niall asked whether this document would outline consequences for breaches. Leo said it would and listed some examples, such as exclusion from posting on a ML or being asked to leave a meeting. Niall said they should consider if loss of office was really separate from these consequences if it could occur as a secondary result of them. These consequences could be used by the community as proxies for removing someone from office. But perhaps they could just keep removal from office in the descriptions of roles. Brian said the TF could not decide this themselves and they needed the WG chairs’ input. But if someone did something resulting in severe consequences, they were likely not fit to be in office regardless. The RIPE Chair would also be involved if it came to this point. Leo said he did not want to recommend anything without the rule of law behind it, particularly regarding equal application of the CoC to all members of the community. If the consequences for a WG chair were different from those for other members, that would be unfair. *6. Working Draft* There was not enough time for this agenda item. *7. AOB* Leo asked the TF members to send a message to the ML if the meeting times would be an issue with their schedules in the new year. Denesh asked if there would be a meeting on 17 December. Leo said this would be the last meeting of the year, as too many people would be unavailable on 17 December. *8. Actions* * **- RIPE NCC to determine what changes were needed in the working draft and to supply any other relevant community documents, such as WG chair descriptions.*