[policy-announce] [Ticket#2012102901001081] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Addre [...]

Dear Milton,

 > What you need to do to make your argument convincing and meaningful,
Alexey, is to explain
> what harm is done by publishing this information. 
  > Tell me what “safety” issues for example are raised by people knowing that
a transaction took place? 
 
 For Russia better don't open financial information about transfers, while
criminal element will know who just received big amount of money and can e
target for raiders. I think that we have to protect companies if we don't need
to publish unnecessary information.

Milton, why you will publish this information? What you will get from this
statistic? 

-- 
  Alexey Ivanov
 
03.11.2012 21:32 - Dmitry Burkov написал(а):
  
  Milton, 
  When in result your position can become so close to B.Flame dreams I can't
agree with you.
   
  Sorry - you reminded me last discussions on Whois and last years talks about
lea's expectations to minimize their spendings and to get centralized DBs with
personal data on each Internet user or as it named in our country -  personal
authorization in Internet .
   
  Of course - you current talks seems are so far from this-  but what's can be
behind? I hope that you can understand that there are two side of one medal
and the price of free market approach can be so high for us?
   
  Dima
  PS
   
  Sorry - it was not directly about disclosure info on transfers - it is a
part of some of more general issues where this market is just a small part

Sent from my iPhone
  
On 03.11.2012, at 21:06, Milton L Mueller <[1]mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
 

For example, on stock market no one publish who sold and who bought shares. I
think for safety reason. 
[Milton L Mueller] 
One can pick a dozen other resources, ranging from acquisitions of companies
to real estate transactions, where buyer and seller are documented. 
Second, even with stock exchanges, trades made by “insiders” are all
documented, by name. 
Third, “safety reasons” dictate that resources held in rem are best recorded
in a public exchange, so that it is more difficult to deceive anyone in the
public as to who is the rightful owner of resources.
 
What you need to do to make your argument convincing and meaningful, Alexey,
is to explain what harm is done by publishing this information. 
Tell me what “safety” issues for example are raised by people knowing that a
transaction took place? 
 
For analyse enought anonymous statistical information about transfers.
 
-- 
  Alexey Ivanov
LeaderTelecom
 
29.10.2012 20:27 - Emilio Madaio написал(а):

Dear Colleagues,

The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-05 has
been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this
proposal has also been published.

The main changes in the new version are:

-use of a bullet point layout for the proposal text;
-anonymous reports of non-approved transfers.

You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:

    [2]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05
    
and the draft document at:

    [3]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft

We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
to [4]address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 12 November 2012.

Regards

Emilio Madaio
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC



[1] mailto:mueller at syr.edu
[2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05
[3] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft
[4] mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/attachments/20121106/f8c07ad9/attachment.html>