Hi Sylvain, Sascha already responded to some of your points, so I'll leave those at that, but I wanted to respond to this one in particular:
Because it is a good placement to survive, when you can get the ressource and others can't, they die and you survive. Being a CEO the survival of my company and its ability to have necessary ressources during scarcity periods is a main concern. Fortunately enough my business is not using much IP ressource. Several of my clients do however, and some would be glad to get a /22 to be more "in confidence", while they can hardly justify a /24.
You, as an LIR hostmaster, are completely free to tell this client of yours «No, you cannot get more than you need, therefore I will only be assigning you a /24 for now. Come back later when you need more.» 2013-03 does not disenfranchise you in any way from doing so. As for what reason to give to the client if he insists on being assigned the /22, the most obvious one you pointed out yourself - being conservative and restrictive about your LIR's remaining IPv4 inventory is essential for your company's future ability to take on new customers and thus its long-term ability to survive. Your survival is in your client's best interest too; his continued use of the addresses you assign him, however many, depends on it. However, you can also point to the address policy when declining the request, by telling your client something along the lines of: «Giving you a /22 you do not need would be unfair to my future would-be customers, as I would have then have nothing to assign to them. The RIPE address policy mandates that the assignments I make are done fairly, thus I am not at liberty to assign you the /22 you are asking for». While the fairness requirement in question is a subjective value judgement you will have to make for yourself, your prior messages to this list leaves me with the impression that the above explanation would be fully compatible with your value judgement on what fairness in assignments looks like. Best regards, Tore Anderson