I still oppose this proposal.
Rationale:
1) It creates yet another class of address space when the
goal should be to have only one class.
2) It is potentially harmful to the interests of both the RIPE
community and the RIPE NCC by forcing the establishment of an
IPv4 "black market", something that the "last /8" policy was
*specifically* supposed to prevent. This has direct implications
for the quality of registry records, particularly with regard to
who *actually* controls a resource.
3) The impact on IPv4 resource consumption is determined by the
NCC Impact statement to be "small". This small reduction comes at
the price of increased bureaucracy and cost for the businesses
that make up the membership.
4) The proposal establishes, as the overriding goal of IP(v4)
policy, the conservation of IPv4 resources. This should not be
the case, the overriding goal should instead be a transition to
IPv6 as quickly as possible. (Re-arranging the deck chairs will
not prevent the ship from sinking)
rgds,
Sascha Luck
