Dear Address Policy WG, Thanks for all the feedback so far. We're responding to everything in this one message, which we hope is useful. We're happy to adjust the text to require the publication of a documented routing policy for ASNs assigned without a needs assessment. There are two drivers for this proposal. One is to reduce administration and the other is to encourage honesty. The first driver meant we agreed to limit the scope to addresses issued by the RIPE NCC as they have to check that the legitimacy of addresses issued by other registries anyway and at that point you're already in a manual process. And while we're not personally aware of many ASN requests being rejected by the RIPE NCC, we want to remove a policy requirement that might have encouraged some organisations to lie. We believe that there's real value in reinforcing the expectation of honesty. We agree that there is a risk that an entity controlling other entities could use this policy to try to get multiple ASNs. To some extent that risk already exists with the current policy. The key difference is the extra administrative friction. We expect the RIPE NCC would notice this kind of issue and report back to the community on this list or at their regular slot during RIPE meetings. The community could then advise the RIPE NCC on its implementation desires or choose to propose an amendment to address a specific issue. We're not trying to tell product and business managers what offers they should develop. But we recognise that fewer constraints on innovation are likely to unleash new products. We probably won't propose this policy elsewhere. It's possible that it could be copied by people active in other communities. A part of making the proposal is allowing indefinite publication and waiving some rights. People active in other RIR communities are free to copy this proposal if they'd like to. Best wishes, Urban and Leo