Hello Michael,
The point is that if RIPE changes the policy, it has to do so in a way that does not convert the bad luck of running out of IPv4, into selective discrimination.
Which is why I proposed to reserve address space for initial allocations. Existing LIRs already have their initial allocation, new LIRs can get a (much smaller) initial allocation. And because by that time there will be no IPv4 addresses for subsequent allocations everybody will have to deal with the shortage. New LIRs will never get as much addresses as existing LIRs, but I think this is as fair as we can make it: at least give new LIRs an opportunity to participate in the IPv4 internet. What I find discriminating is for existing LIRs to use up all IPv4 addresses, which forces new LIRs to but IPv4 address space or services from them. Reserving address space for those initial allocations won't make a real difference for existing LIRs (RIPE NCC allocates about 3 / 8's a year, so if we set aside (for example) a /12 for initial allocations that would mean we run out one week earlier). It will however give new LIRs the possibility to participate in the IPv4 internet, show to regulators that we are not anti-competitive, etc. Just to be clear: I don't want to make it 'easy' for new LIRs to get address space. Everybody will suffer equally when we run out of IPv4. Giving a /24 as initial allocation is still 8 times as small as the current minimum allocation size so it won't be easy for new LIRs. They will never get a /21 minimum allocation as we are used to currently, but at least they have some address space to work with. That way it will just be hard for them, instead of impossible. - Sander