You would do well to take some lessons in debate culture yourself. You're -not even too veiledly- accusing another member of abuse, something we have heard altogether too much of lately.
In my humble opinion I did not. I admit that I may have cut it close, though. However, it is really difficult making an argument in this discussion without mentioning the case of abuse against the intention of the last /8 policy. I think it's a pretty well established fact that the M&A loophole has been used to ... perform actions with resources in the last /8 which are counter to the intention of the last /8 policy. For brevity I label this as "abuse" or as "abuse against the intention of the last /8 policy". It should also be pretty obvious that the various IP brokers have a business self-interest in maintaining the restriction-free M&A loophole, perhaps even though they only gain business as facilitators of the transfers resulting from the actions described.
As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M&A under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no business doing.
Please educate me why the community has no business doing this. I would have thought that was well within scope for the address policy. Best regards, - Håvard