* Tore Anderson
So in summary, while I would have preferred to see sections 2.4 and 2.5 be removed completely, I consider the proposal as a whole to provide a net benefit. Therefore: Support.
Replying to myself because I forgot to mention something yesterday: I fail to see the point in having sections 2.1 and 2.2 as two separate options. They describe essentially the same option - where the legacy holder is (in the end) a RIPE NCC member. In my opinion it goes without saying that if the legacy holder opts for this option, then a) if he is not already a RIPE NCC member, then he would need to first join; or conversely, b) if he is already a RIPE NCC member, he would not need to (re-)join. Describing this as a single option would IMHO have made the policy more concise and easily understood. But fixing this would just be the icing on the cake - I still support the adoption of the proposal as-is («perfect is the enemy of good»). This particular imperfection, and the other things I mentioned yesterday, can be cleaned up later if someone cares enough to do so. Tore