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