So a highly specific problem couched in terms of the legal obligations of the registry. But,you ignore the other dimension of WHY a legal authority might require a registry to act.

Do you honestly think the world would be better if there was no international law, or legal constraints on ISPs? Do you think BGP operators are somehow supra legal?

The registry system we live in has operated for almost 3 decades now, an inheritance of a prior informal arrangement. It's a mutuality. If you want to change it, get involved in it's policy process.

The internet is supposed to be a decentralized network.

I don’t think that one country should get to unilaterally decide whether another country gets internet, no.

You do understand that the hypothetical threat actor here is one who openly disregards international law?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...

>Do you honestly think the world would be better if there was no international law, or legal constraints on ISPs? Do you think BGP operators are somehow supra legal?

Yes. It was the vision of the internet to continue on outside of the whatever political whims some tiny slice of western governments.

It’s just too ripe for abuse.

You can make whatever “whatabout” arguments on DNS, etc but none of those are required to get connectivity (DHT, p2p hosts, tor names, etc).

Any centralization around the narrow middle IP layer of the internet should be treated with extreme skepticism and pushback.

This is what happens when someone wants to regulate the crap outta everything. what a dumb ass take.