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.
(...)

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.