Fundamentally - what is more important? Keeping an accurate and usable database
Most of the innacuracy in the database is due to poor processes in the LIRs and laziness. Not because black market transfers are filling it up.
or setting limits to what people can and can not do without enforcement options? (One of the very few sticks the NCC currently has is denying people more allocations - if there's none more to be handed out, what do you expect to happen ?)
When the stick is gone, it is gone. Transfer policies will not change this.
I'm not averse to extra limitations in transferring space, what I DO disagree with is adding them to this current proposal. Time is not on our side.
Neither is science. When the address space is all used up there will be no more free addresses. Transfer policies will not magically create free addresses to be transferred. In your long list of points that you answered you forgot the most important one. IPv6 has lots of free addresses and it is increasingly better supported by vendors. Organizations who are concerned about an address shortage should not put their hope in transfer policies but should instead deploy IPv6 as soon as possible, and put tremendous pressure on vendors to fix the remaining issues. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that ETNO members are opposed to the transfer policy because they've already figured out that it makes more sense to invest in IPv6. But since the value of the network arises from everyone being connected, they want everyone to join the IPv6 party sooner rather than later. --Michael Dillon