Forgive me if this is paraphrasing, but the main argument I've heard in favour of this proposal is "a market is coming anyway so we should act now to create one that RIPE NCC has control over". OK, maybe "control" is too strong but the sentiment is there. Examining the last part in more detail, as far as I can see, the only genuine elements of control this policy proposal gives RIPE NCC over a transfer market are the following: * The RIPE community gets to choose when the market starts. But given that this is a reactive measure this isn't much. * Policy control on allocations is enforced. But then the only policy constraint is that addresses assigned to users can be sold. I can't see that as being particularly important, after all people are selling addresses not customers. So what was a minimal policy is actually non-existent. * Addresses are only sold to existing LIRs not just anyone. * Transfers are registered with RIPE NCC (I'll put aside my scepticism on this one for now). * The receiving LIR must follow RIPE NCC policy for the addresses received. Is that really it? In which case let's call this policy change for what it really is - it is scrapping the allocation policy in order to protect the usage policy. It is not giving RIPE NCC any control over the market. All it does is retain RIPE NCC control over the use of addresses after they have left the market and go into use. Jay