Hi Scott,I'm pretty sure that what I was saying was not working for you, and maybe rephrasing my thoughts might possibly help.
What I'm trying to say is that attempting to place the registry on a course of saving the Internet from all kinds of dire perils in routing, address speculation, unfairness, and such, with only a registry function to work with to achieve this is pretty high risk path to take, in my opinion.
[Press delete now if you're already drowning with the volume on the ppml list! The rest of this note just expands upon this argument.]
When there are no more allocations to be made there is no de facto monopoly of the RIRs. The registry function is not one that is the unique prerogative of the RIRs to operate - quite the opposite, and, as we've already seen with the proliferation of IRRs, when you don't like the policies or practices associated with using one registry you can always use another! Yes, I appreciate that these are heretical thoughts. It would be good to believe that the RIRs will continue to have some enforcement authority in this space that could allow the inclusion of a broader agenda related to mitigating some of the worst risks in address transfers and markets, but, frankly, I personally don't find such assertions of enforcement authority at all comforting or even credible.
If access to the registry has onerous constraints and conditions, the registry runs the risk of annoying the registry's customers. And while the address allocation function is a de facto monopoly, registries are not. Registries can come and go in the blink of an eye. If a registry manages to alienate its customers then the most obvious response is that other registries, with more neutral stances, will emerge and at that point address chaos is only a short step further down that track.
thanks, Geoff Disclaimer: These are all my opinions, totally.