to summarise the arguments against opening up the name space:

registrars might make a profit

or 

registrants might make a profit.

I am seeing an obvious pattern here. I respectfully submit that profit
in the proposal is not a bug but a feature.

further there is a very clear precedent set by the auda board in regard
to unlocking market value of a name that did not require a policy panel.

it would be rather peculiar if what is good for the regulator is not
permited for the members, registrars or registrants.

I would respectfully submit that there would be somewhat disengenous if the
board accepts  that auda itself is allowed to auction names at market rates
or ballot names at well above market rates when it suits its purposes to
unlock inherent value and therefor could not possibly consider prohibiting registrars or
registrants from doing so.

given this precedent already clearly exists within the board records I
see no reason even to require a policy panel to examine the issue. it
didnt require a panel the first time around, I see no reason now that it
might require a panel now. it shouldnt even require a new board vote
since it has presumably in effect already been voted on. 

the only question remaining really is one of implementation timing.

Vic