From my perspective it does add “red tape”

How do you determine whether v4 numbers are “fairly distributed to end users operating networks” unless you do a needs assessment? I like Malcolm’s idea better: Add a disclaimer at the end that says if it doesn’t work or causes unforeseen problems, we will change it.

From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jan Ingvoldstad
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:48 AM
To: RIPE Address Policy WG
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

Having slept on it, I have a suggestion that hopefully will make us
reach common ground. How about, instead of removing the old Conservation
goal completely, we rewrite it as follows:

«Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the
End Users operating networks.»

That looks sensible enough to me, it doesn't appear to add red tape. :)
--
Jan