Hi Randy,
indeed, this strategy was considered and discarded by both ripe andarin. american (and probably many others') idiom: you can lead a horseto water but you can not make it drink.And RIPE discarded it because it would have seen members getting a higher bill had it proceeded.not as i remember. perhaps sander or gert will comment. my memory(which is known to be horribly faulty) is that the proposal that failedtook care of that. it seem to have failed because it was seen that handing out resources that someone had not asked for and was not going to use was silly.
My memory isn't very good either, so I asked Gert :)Although there were a few voices that did support the RIPE 2008-02 proposal, the RIPE community did not accept it mainly because getting IPv6 addresses was considered to be so easy that the community saw no need to create a new policy to give IPv6 addresses to those who did not ask for them. The conclusion was that such a policy would be a solution to a problem that does not exist.
There were some suggestions that promoting IPv6 deployment is good, but that such a policy would be the wrong way to do it.
Sander Steffann RIPE Address Policy WG co-chair