[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)

Sascha,

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:59 PM, <lists-ripe at c4inet.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 05:29:19PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> You are considering a policy change for the Whois, not for transfers
>> transparency. Please don't confuse the two.
>>
>
> Please do not accuse me of something *you* brought into this
> discussion. I admit fault for falling into your trolling net though.
>
> I am not sure I got what you mean.


> Anyway, as long as all information like personal names, phone numbers,
> addresses and email are removed from these publications, I consider them
> suitably anonymised for the purposes of this policy.
>
> I share Milton's view that a name (etc) of a person acting in business is
not personal  only, however, a business ID, what is public information.
This is the rule in my country which is not in the US and won't be.

What you said: sometimes purely personal data also included in the whois
database. Milton and I understood this argument, and Milton answer was:
this is a "whois problem". I would say, this is problem of keeping the
address allocation process transparent while allowing hiding individual
only information, Milton's and my approach may be the same.

>
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>

There is a trade-off: I vote for the trancparency of the address allocation
(and any change in the address allocated).

Thanks,

Géza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120905/3285af00/attachment.html>