Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
Hi all, Firstly, thank you to all who worked on this. It looks good to me. In reply to Sander and Sasha: currently the CoC says the reporting party, and not the CoC Team, is responsible, if they wish, to make a report to the relevant authorities. It also says the CoC could do so, if they think it is reasonable. If the authorities cannot do anything with this report without a victim (this is the case in some (most?) jurisdictions), then it is up to the authorities to handle this further - they could choose to contact the victim etc. It's out of our hands, so why debate it? Also, I think a CoC cannot preclude a party (whether it is a victim or not) from filing a report with the authorities. It just doesn't have that power. Lastly, I second other people on this list's confusion about why the PC should have anything to do with the approval/applicability of the CoC, in events where there is a PC. Why would they want to have this responsibility? As far as I know it is not currently in any of their Charters. I'd be curious to hear what they think about this. I support other's suggestion to leave that part out. Cheers, Gergana On 24/03/2021 15:18, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi Sasha,
On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 14:09 +0100, Sasha Romijn wrote:
I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities.
Absolutely Sander
I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many countries, if you (either citizen or organization) know about a possible illegal action, you must report it, otherwise may be liable of covering-up an illegal activity. Why Netherlands? Because the RIPE activities, mail exploders, etc., etc., are hosted by RIPE NCC, which is a Dutch organization, so bound to Dutch laws. So, in the scope of RIPE, if a victim or somebody else, has knowledge of such illegal activity and they decide not to report it, they may be liable but can't be prosecuted (different countries, maybe every outside EU, etc.). However, if the RIPE NCC has knowledge of that (simply because "the thing" happens in a meeting or mailing list, and the staff is reading it, or somebody, including the CoC Team informs the staff, etc.), then it must be reported. Ideally the victim should be encouraged to report it directly, but there is no way for the RIPE NCC to ignore it. In more and more countries, even if victims deny reporting, or decide not to speak with the police about the happening (for example in cases of family violence), others have the obligation to report and the police/courts must prosecute it. Obviously, this must be checked by the NCC counsel to make sure that we are in-sync with applicable laws. Also, if whatever is happening in a meeting, not in a mailing list, all this may depend on the country hosting the meeting, but RIPE NCC, as organizer, is probably also liable in case of not reporting. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 24/3/21 16:41, "ripe-list en nombre de Gergana Petrova" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gpetrova@ripe.net> escribió: Hi all, Firstly, thank you to all who worked on this. It looks good to me. In reply to Sander and Sasha: currently the CoC says the reporting party, and not the CoC Team, is responsible, if they wish, to make a report to the relevant authorities. It also says the CoC could do so, if they think it is reasonable. If the authorities cannot do anything with this report without a victim (this is the case in some (most?) jurisdictions), then it is up to the authorities to handle this further - they could choose to contact the victim etc. It's out of our hands, so why debate it? Also, I think a CoC cannot preclude a party (whether it is a victim or not) from filing a report with the authorities. It just doesn't have that power. Lastly, I second other people on this list's confusion about why the PC should have anything to do with the approval/applicability of the CoC, in events where there is a PC. Why would they want to have this responsibility? As far as I know it is not currently in any of their Charters. I'd be curious to hear what they think about this. I support other's suggestion to leave that part out. Cheers, Gergana On 24/03/2021 15:18, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 14:09 +0100, Sasha Romijn wrote: >> I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by >> an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities. > > Absolutely > Sander > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, I’ve wondered whether to reply to this, but I feel I should to confirm the role of the Trusted Contacts as they (we) currently stand.
I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many countries, if you (either citizen or organization) know about a possible illegal action, you must report it, otherwise may be liable of covering-up an illegal activity.
I am, obviously, not a lawyer. I do not play one on TV. On a good day I barely even manage to design a network. However, the training for the role as a Trusted Contact was heavily based on what is known as a ‘vertrouwenspersoon’ in Dutch (apologies if I have mis-spelled that, Google suggests one translation as a “confidential advisor"). There is, as I understand it, no legal requirement for a third person to report a crime to the authorities in The Netherlands (or, as far as I am aware the UK or the US). The reason I want to point this out, is to stress that people can contact the Trusted Contacts in complete confidence. We will listen to what you have to say, and in doing so there is no requirement for others to know what is being said to us. Now, as I said at the start, I am not a lawyer, and this may well be different across other parts of the region the RIPE NCC operates, and even meets, in. This is also *my* understanding. It is a very interesting point to discuss, as I wonder if our obligations might be different if we were once again to meet face-to-face in another country — a day I very much look forward to. Cheers, Rob
On 24 Mar 2021, at 17:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many countries, if you (either citizen or organization) know about a possible illegal action, you must report it, otherwise may be liable of covering-up an illegal activity. …
This is a myth. In modern legal systems the obligation to report crimes is very, very limited. Typically one must only report crimes against human life and similarly severe crimes. Very often this obligation is also limited to the time when the crime can still be prevented. Often the obligation to report can be met by informing the potential victim instead of law enforcement. More general obligations to report crimes are one of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I am not familiar with every jurisdiction in this solar system. ;-) Daniel References: NL: Artikel 160 Sv DE: § 138 StGB
I don't think this is the case. What happens is that if nobody reports (or the LEA don't discover) that it was not reported by someone that had the knowledge of it, nothing is going to happen against the "lack of reporting". As said, not being a lawyer, the right thing here is to ensure that it is verified by the legal counsel, as well as the complete CoC, to ensure that we aren't trying to enforce something that may create problems at some point. El 25/3/21 11:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de dfk@ripe.net> escribió: On 24 Mar 2021, at 17:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many > countries, if you (either citizen or organization) know about a > possible illegal action, you must report it, otherwise may be liable > of covering-up an illegal activity. … This is a myth. In modern legal systems the obligation to report crimes is very, very limited. Typically one must only report crimes against human life and similarly severe crimes. Very often this obligation is also limited to the time when the crime can still be prevented. Often the obligation to report can be met by informing the potential victim instead of law enforcement. More general obligations to report crimes are one of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I am not familiar with every jurisdiction in this solar system. ;-) Daniel References: NL: Artikel 160 Sv DE: § 138 StGB ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi, I fail to see what 'crime' was committed by not including you in the TF (except you overloading my mailbox again). There is no law against choosing one person and not choosing an other person -as long- as this is not based on pigmentation, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc. If the choice is made based on those selection criteria we call it discrimination and it *might* be against the law. So please explain how 'you not being included in the TF' constitutes discrimination?-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Thu, 25-03-2021 12h 22min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
I don't think this is the case. What happens is that if nobody reports (or the LEA don't discover) that it was not reported by someone that had the knowledge of it, nothing is going to happen against the "lack of reporting".
As said, not being a lawyer, the right thing here is to ensure that it is verified by the legal counsel, as well as the complete CoC, to ensure that we aren't trying to enforce something that may create problems at some point.
El 25/3/21 11:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de " target="_blank">dfk@ripe.net> escribió:
On 24 Mar 2021, at 17:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
> I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many > countries, if you (either citizen or organization) know about a > possible illegal action, you must report it, otherwise may be liable > of covering-up an illegal activity. …
This is a myth.
In modern legal systems the obligation to report crimes is very, very limited. Typically one must only report crimes against human life and similarly severe crimes. Very often this obligation is also limited to the time when the crime can still be prevented. Often the obligation to report can be met by informing the potential victim instead of law enforcement.
More general obligations to report crimes are one of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I am not familiar with every jurisdiction in this solar system. ;-)
Daniel
References:
NL: Artikel 160 Sv DE: § 138 StGB
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Alex, I believe you’re mixing things. This discussion is NOT related to having “a” or “b” in the TF. Trust me, it’s not related at all. Despite having been rejected from the TF, without any rationale, this discussion is about making sure that we have a coherent CoC and we can really enforce it, without any possible liability. However, if you want to go to that point, when you setup a Task Force, in a so-called “open” and “inclusive” community, without previous and explicit rules about “who” can participate and “who can’t”, it is a discrimination and against law. We don’t have such explicit rules in this community to allow the chairs to select some folks for a Task Force and not others. I’ve asked where is the document that explains the basis for the selection (or rejection), the response was “silence” (moths since that and still no response). Another theater (as we say in Spain): “transparency”, and even more education. If you made a mistake or make a wrong decision, you say it, and problem solved, but not responding is really showing many things about your responsibility as a chair. We could create such rules, if they’re based on something that doesn’t constate discrimination and that's always debatable, so be it. But we need to do that up-front, not “you don’t participate today, tomorrow we make the rules to explain why you haven’t been admitted in the club”. It is pure theater, to call a group “open” and then don’t allows some folks to participate. It is even worst that this happens in the creation of a Code of Conduct. How we can get bound to a set of rules if the rules have been initially created in a closed group? Even in a private organization such as a bar or restaurant, you can decide to exclude someone to come in, HOWEVER for that you need to 1) Set the rules up-front (for example dressing code), 2) Ensure that those rules aren’t against the law. So yes, it is discrimination. I’ve double checked this specific case with a lawyer and further to that, I’ve been involved in similar situations in the Spanish courts (even the Constitutional Court), against the Spanish government, and I won the cases, and law (or wrong decisions) were changed. But the worst is that chairs are creating their own rules, not the first time it happens. What is next? Someone can’t participate in meetings because he complains about chairs? I’m sorry, but we have rules for how we take decisions in this community, for a good reason, otherwise, we all do whatever we want and we have no respect for anything. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 25/3/21 13:02, "ripe-list en nombre de Alex de Joode" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de alex@idgara.nl> escribió: Hi Jordi, I fail to see what 'crime' was committed by not including you in the TF (except you overloading my mailbox again). There is no law against choosing one person and not choosing an other person -as long- as this is not based on pigmentation, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc. If the choice is made based on those selection criteria we call it discrimination and it *might* be against the law. So please explain how 'you not being included in the TF' constitutes discrimination? -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Thu, 25-03-2021 12h 22min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote: I don't think this is the case. What happens is that if nobody reports (or the LEA don't discover) that it was not reported by someone that had the knowledge of it, nothing is going to happen against the "lack of reporting". As said, not being a lawyer, the right thing here is to ensure that it is verified by the legal counsel, as well as the complete CoC, to ensure that we aren't trying to enforce something that may create problems at some point. El 25/3/21 11:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de dfk@ripe.net> escribió: On 24 Mar 2021, at 17:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many countries, if you (either citizen or organization) know about a possible illegal action, you must report it, otherwise may be liable of covering-up an illegal activity. …
This is a myth. In modern legal systems the obligation to report crimes is very, very limited. Typically one must only report crimes against human life and similarly severe crimes. Very often this obligation is also limited to the time when the crime can still be prevented. Often the obligation to report can be met by informing the potential victim instead of law enforcement. More general obligations to report crimes are one of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I am not familiar with every jurisdiction in this solar system. ;-) Daniel References: NL: Artikel 160 Sv DE: § 138 StGB ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
participants (5)
-
Alex de Joode
-
Daniel Karrenberg
-
Gergana Petrova
-
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
-
Rob Evans