> I liked the proposal initialy - but I do not buy the initial argument that since we have run

> out, conservation is not important. Since we have run out of unused addresses conservation

> is in many ways  more important - unless we belive v6 can take over. 

I don’t understand why people confuse the elimination of needs assessment with the elimination of conservation. Market prices are the most systemically powerful and efficient conservation mechanism ever devised. Needs assessments are a very primitive conservation mechanism: 10,000 people can all prove that they “need” as resource but that isn’t helpful when only 10 of them can have it. Let’s not continue this confusion.