People sending comments to this list with the clear intention of supporting the adoption of new policy should take their responsibilities as stewards of the Internet's resources a little more seriously in my opinion.
I think that we all take these responsibilities seriously, however we do not all have such narrow interpretations of "resource stewardship" as you seem to have.
Folks need to stop focussing on getting rid of the 200 /48 assignments rule and start focussing on developing good, useful policy for the region.
The fact is that having the number 200 in the existing policy prevents that policy from being either good or useful. The proposed change puts the policy on the path towards being better and more useful. This is sufficient reason to support the policy. Not all ISPs have the same business model. But if an ISP has an IPv4 network and has received an allocation from RIPE, it is highly likely that their plans for IPv6 deployment will also be reasonable within RIPE's understanding of the term. After all, the organization is already a RIPE LIR. I fully support proposal 2006-2 --Michael Dillon