This is my first post to the APNIC region. Hopefully, this makes sense.
After reading through prop-050 I wanted to offer an interpretation. It sounds like the intent is to accommodate IPv4 requirements in a post IPv4/IANA depleted environment. My concern is this provides a means to bypass current policies before the pool is depleted. I am referring to the requirement, "The recipient entity must be a current APNIC account holder."
Say I am an organization and I want my own allocation, but do not qualify under the initial allocation requirements of the RIR. I can however, request an ASN. That would make me an account holder. I can then secure a transfer of address space from another organization, and bypass the RIR.
This may not be a bad thing to some, but it does bypass the purpose of initial allocation requirements, and work against the principles of aggregation. Adding an "and" to the requirement, might be a good addition to the phrase. It could read something like, "The recipient entity must be a current APNIC holder of address resources." or "The recipient entity must be a current APNIC account holder and meet the requirements of the initial allocation policies".
Just a thought.