On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:59 PM, <lists-ripe@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