If I understand this right, you're opposing this proposal because you are afraid of speculators?
No. I'm opposed to this because I believe it is not necessary. RIPE already has mechanisms to transfer addresses between LIRs. One LIR gives extra addresses to RIPE. Then RIPE allocates them to the next LIR in the queue with a demonstrated need. Also, I believe that an IPv4 address market is completely unpredictable. It could make things a little bit better during IPv4 exhaustion but it could also make things a lot worse. There is less risk in leaving the system unchanged.
Given that speculators could do this right away (open a startup company, claim ridiculously large customers, let the company sleep for a few years, and then sell the company including the address space for a nice markup) - why do you assume it would become worse with 2007-08?
Because if the company is sleeping, then RIPE could reclaim the addresses. The basis of RIPE allocations is that the LIR demonstrates a technical need for the addresses. Note that ARIN is currently discussing how to handle review and reclamation procedures. I believe that it would be better for RIPE to reject all transfer policies and to focus our effort on review and reclamation policies.
Can we realistically assume that there will not be any address trading if 2007-08 is withdrawn? Or won't it be just the same sort of trading - but without a RIR that keeps track of who can claim rights to what?
If we reject transfer policies, we still have a RIPE database that records who has the rights to an address block. If somebody wants to try to buy those rights secretly, they risk losing the address block when RIPE reviews it and reclaims it. Since the LIR has no right to sell the rights, it means that the buyer has paid money in return for nothing.
(If, OTOH, you're right and everbody will go to IPv6 right away, then I don't see why 2007-08 would do *harm*)
2007-08 is the first step to treating IP addresss as freehold assets which can be bought and sold. If RIPE changes the status of IPv4 addresses, then IPv6 addresses will also become assets which must be accounted for on the balance sheet. I think that a court would decide that 2007-08 and any future transfer policies override the statement on freehold status in the IPv6 policy. And I also believe that the people who are backing 2007-08 have not really thought through all the implications of enabling a market for IPv4 addresses. Or if they have, they have not really explained it on the list. --Michael Dillon