The "easy" part is to document "need" enough to get an *allocation* from
the NCC. "Need" for allocations comes from one thing only: Intent to
make assignments. If you can document an intent to make a valid
assignment for one (1) IPv4 address, you have a valid need for an
allocation. Following the implementation of the last /8 policy, there is
only one size allocation the NCC can delegate to its members (/22).
Thus, by submitting a ripe-583 form documenting an intended assignment
of 1 IPv4 address (or a /32 if you prefer), you have also automatically
qualified for your initial and final /22 allocation. Anyone can do that,
it is not heavy bureaucracy at all.
Good, then there is no need to change this in the policy for allocations.
And to better address the need based concerns objecting your proposal, I think you could consider taking the "intent" you mentioned above one step further and have it explained to the RIPE NCC.
Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:
3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.
replacing what you proposed:
3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation
As described above, this is not being removed. Since an assignment must
be sized at least 1 address (or larger), a check-box requiring the
requesting LIR to confirm assignments will be made from the allocation
is functionally identical to today's current practise.
Confirming to make assignments on its own is not enough in my belief.
But I would support a more explicit need-justification requirement as above.
Filiz