[anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002

I wrote:

>Ignoring the legal non-issue of squatting, there is still the possibility
>of prosecutable fraud.

I just realized that this raises yet another question...

In the case of the contracts that RIPE enters into with parties that
request AS number assignments, do these contracts routinely include
any clause or provision which legally binds the entity in question to
only announce routes to IP space which has been formally registered
to that entity, or to one of that entity's customers, by one of the
Regional Internet Registries, i.e. ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, or AFRINIC?

If not, why not?

Perhaps there is/are some technical reasons (that I don't know about)
why that sort of contractual provision would be technically unworkable.
But if not, then this would seem to be a reasonable obligation to include
in such contracts, perhaps along with some language that makes it clear
that _willful_ violations will be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law (as contract fraud).

(Obviously it would be silly for RIPE to go around suing people for
foolish, inadvertant, unintentional, and short-lived ``fat finger''
incidents, and I would expect that RIPE would never actually do so.
But it would be helpful, I think, when situations like this one with
AS201640 come up, for RIPE to at least have the clear legal option
to come down hard on a party that is enjoying the many benefits of
RIPE membership... e.g the ability for formally register their own
AS number... even as they flagrantly violate the well-accepted norms
of the community, e.g. by announcing and maintaining, over an extended
period of time, routes to IP space that isn't their's to route.)


Regards,
rfg