flawed. If the net effect of your proposal would be that more than 95% of members would qualify for a /32 allocation it is probably simpler to just make the qualifying criterion being a RIPE NCC member.
Well. Let's do a straw poll...
"who is in favour of doing so?"
Me. I've expressed this opinion lots of times, although Leo's justification for it is characteristically succinct. Messing around with restrictive policies which are just going to end up making LIRs lie about their requirements is both silly and counter- productive. If a LIR applies for IPv6 address space, they are presumably going to use it. If they don't want it, they are not going to apply for it. What's the big issue here? I would like to see something along the lines of: "A LIR is automatically entitled to an initial IPv6 /32 allocation. If the LIR requires a larger initial allocation or subsequently requires further allocations, justification must be provided." Everyone's been tying themselves up in knots about this policy proposal since May last year, and we've really got no-where since Jordi's original document. Meanwhile, LIRs are still lying, and RIPE is still turning a blind eye to this. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie