[ncc-services-wg] 2013-04 New Policy Proposal (Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members)

s/If/When/g

On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 18:27 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> When the black helicopters force the RIPE NCC to remove a route6:
> object, the (former) owner of this object will have issues with his
> prefix as well...

[ remove / change / reroute / issue ROAs / whatever ] 

On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 15:57 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
>When the Dutch legal system gets so bad that they require
>disproportional measures to be taken by the RIPE NCC then I think we
>have bigger issues and should move the RIPE NCC to a different country.

+1.

Obviously, and not only due to RPKI, a classic deterring safe-guard is
required:
 a) Define what "disproportional" is -- think long and hard about this
and cover all ground with clear definitions -- minimize what's left up
to interpretation towards zero.
 b) Create a stand-by infrastructure which will take over when the
current system has failed on a).

Then communicate to the power-abusers and enemies of a free and open
Internet, resilient against centralized censorship flaws:
  - "This is what will happen. Your attack will fail. We continuously
invest resources into research to furthering our guard against your
attacks and it will be hugely disproportionately counter-productive of
you to even try it."

It doesn't get much more bottom-up than this. :-)

Best,
Martin