[address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:10:16PM +0000, ripedenis--- via address-policy-wg wrote:
> It is not only address policy they can veto. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I understood they can veto any policy they don't like. The internet is critical infrastructure that impacts the lives of almost every human on the planet (and non human lives). It is an essential tool but cyberspace is also a dangerous world. We should not have a group of untouchables in a system based on cooperation and consensus.
>

Aside from the argumentum ad passiones fallacy, the fact of the
matter is that the NCC can't force any organisation it does not
have a contract with to do anything. It's a question of "how many
divisions does the RIPE NCC have?".

>This attitude will not work indefinitely. At some point legislators will step in. When you have the power to impose rules you don't need a time machine.

I'm getting somewhat tired of this argument cropping up in
*every* policy proposal discussion lately. This is a) FUD and b)
intervention in advance of evidence. 
If legislators want to make law, they'll make law, regardless of
what RIPE does. That battle will have to be fought when it is
joined, no precautionary obedience will change anything.

rgds,
Sascha Luck