Just because you asked nicely :)..

Thanks :)

I am not going to go through a very detailed word smithing or referencing, sorry, in my case I do not believe this will be helpful.

But I will try to put my point of view in a different way again, using some different words and then I will stop because I feel I am repeating myself and some of the members of this list may already feel overwhelmed about the discussion.

Here it is my main point:

"Justification for need" and "evaluation of justification for need" are two different things.

First one, "Justification for need", is perfectly a policy matter and I believe IPv4 policy should still mention this, as long as RIPE NCC continues allocating space to its members and the last /8 is totally exhausted. Say something along the lines, "LIRs requesting address space from the RIPE NCC should have a need for the requested space for a network of their own or their customer".

So that we at least put a barrier in front of those who would just ask for an allocation to immediately turn it into an asset.

That barrier is a paper tiger, unfortunately.

But those who really are in need are primarily highlighted by the policy.

Current policy has the following text:
"Members can receive an initial IPv4 allocation when they have demonstrated a need for IPv4 address space."

Tore's proposal is removing this totally and I do not agree with it.

The latter, "evaluation of justification for need" is totally an operational matter that is performed by the RIPE NCC.
Neither the current policy nor Tore's proposal has any significant text on this but this is one of his arguments for his proposal.

In my opinion, real solution to this procedural problem of evaluation is on procedural level, not on the policy level.
RIPE NCC may be asked to change their evaluation tools/systems/mechanisms.
This does not require to remove the entire "need" notion from the policy text.

So, in essence, what you state is that:

a) There is no need to change or remove the "need" statement in the policy.

b) The RIPE NCC should decide how "need" is determined as a matter of procedure.

Given what appears to be the majority view here, the NCC may just as well decide to interpret the community's view on "need" as something that does not need to be documented in itself, other than placing a request for a network block.

Altering this particular part of the policy document as Tore suggests will change very little in practice and procedure.

The way I see it, if you want for this to be a barrier, you should propose new wording in the relevant policy documents, which stresses that a need should be present, that there should be a justification for it, and _what justification_ is sufficient.

I'm aware of organizations becoming LIRs because of a claimed need for IP addresses for end users, just to ensure that they get IPv4 space they may not _actually_ need – and that this happened just because of the current policies. The "need" is fictional and/or hypothetical, and there is little way for the RIPE NCC and the community to know whether this is the case or not.

Speaking as someone working for someone who currently uses both IPv4 and IPv6, the "need" requirement always seemed a bit out of place. If it is to have a place, it needs a clear policy for that.