Christina, First of all, I owe you an apology for the last paragraph of my email to this list on May 26th of this year. This email was written in some haste and I didn't read EC097 thoroughly before posting it. Secondly, there is no need to be sorry to contribute to this discussion. This is an open forum and your contributions are welcome. Indeed, as it's an open forum on internet policy, it is quite normal to see a certain quantity of discussion which could be loosely described as peanut-gallery contribution. Probably it is more useful to ignore this rather get annoyed by it. I'm also glad to see that ETNO will be contributing their thoughts to v3 of this policy proposal. In doing so, could I suggest that you consider the following issues: 1. There is already an IPv4 address trading market. 2007-08 does not propose to create this; merely to regulate it and in doing so, to attempt to bring the bring the behind-the-scenes horse-trading which you describe in 3.2 of EC097 out into the open a little more. I cannot see how it is useful to state that there shouldn't be a market in future when there is serious demand for IPv4 address space, when such a market already exists. 2. I don't believe for a moment in the future world of RIR ipv4 address exhaustion, that if a shortage of IPv4 addresses were to get in the way of new customer acquisition for any ETNO member, they would stay from an IPv4 address market. Regardless of individual ETNO members' contributions to EC097 right now, if any one of them were to seriously in future suggest that their employers refuse to acquire new IPv4 addresses through whatever legitimate means possible (whether through some variant of 2007-08, a grey market, ISP skeletons, or whatever), then the decision power to acquire new IP address space in order to facilitate the continued growth of the company will be taken away from any address market nay-sayers and moved elsewhere in the business to whatever level is required to override the "no markets" policy - whether that level be a regular Business Development unit within the company or right up to board level. This is an important point, so let's restate it: if ETNO thinks that the current "no markets" principle is going to override its members' future business continuity, then ETNO is deluding itself. Nick Hilliard