"Competition law claims would be mainly addressed to LIRs that could be seen as coordinating in stockpiling and applying discriminatory practices."
That's a feature, not a bug. :-) I'd much rather have LIRs that would engage in stockpiling and applying discriminatory practices in breach of competition laws *not* be able to defend themselves with <don't look at us, the RIPE NCC said it was OK!>
MM: Exactly my point! The existence of a needs assessment, which gives RIPE-NCC's imprimatur to the outcome, is much more likely to entangle the NCC in these things than its absence. The staff's legal assessment needs to be re-thought. Addressing also Nigel Titley's argument, it's unfortunate that he has seized on the existence of a single phrase ("it seems obvious to me"), a phrase not at all essential to the point being made, to avoid the real discussion. Take that phrase out and the same refutations apply to your lawyers' statement. They need to explain a) whether there is any REAL litigation in which the existence of needs assessment has actually shielded RIPE-NCC from a claim; b) how the use of needs assessments make any less likely claims made purely for "publicity" purposes; c) why RIPE-NCC's involvement in allocations of a highly scarce and increasingly contested resource via needs assessment wouldn't make it _more_ likely to be entangled in litigation