This candidate list of requirements is for route sources that North American Operators should trust to propagate long prefix routes, nothing more, nothing less.
All operators already have some kind of criteria which they use to decide whether or not to trust a particular source of routes whether long prefixes or short. You are suggesting that these operators should give up this role to a trusted third party so that al North American network operators share fate in terms of BGP trust relationships. It seems that you feel this is an improvement since some network operators have very lax policies and trust people that they shouldn't. In that case, I wonder whether these operators would even bother joining such a shared-fate arrangement. But the big downside is for the operators who have carefully honed filtering policies and who are careful about who they trust. For them there is no upside to joining a shared-fate arrangement, and a potential downside if management decides that their internal BGP filtering practices can now be made more lax. And, of course, the shared fate arrangement is now a single point of failure and a very juicy target for bad guys to attack. The real solution to the YouTube issue is for people to pressure other network operators to raise their game and pay attention to how they manage their BGP trust relationships and filter announcements. In addition, more people need to get involved in information sharing arrangements like Routing Registries, MyASN, alert services and so on. None of these things create a single point of failure and some of them would be useful even if your Super AS is created. Because all of this activity is done by humans, even your Super AS can make mistakes so it would be bad for people to trust it just because it is big. Alert services, RRs, MyASN, etc., can protect against human failures whether in the Super AS or Pakistan Telecom.
Perhaps you might like to propose criteria you would find useful in setting a level of trust, or some alternative method to avoid a recurrence of a site that is widely visited being black holed through another ISP advertising a more specific route?
Haven't you noticed that the definition of "widely visited site" changes regularly, and often quite abruptly? How much traffic did YouTube get 3 years ago? Facebook? MySpace? There is no shortcut for eternal vigilance, i.e. manage your BGP relationships don't just configure and forget.
Item 2: in this context, is specific to the needs of North American Network Operators accepting long prefix routes. I am not advocating not accepting routes from the ROW, just not very specific ones. It's entirely possible for North American Operators to rely on law enforcement in say, the EU and Australia.
In case you hadn't noticed, there is no North American law enforcement agency and no North American courts and no North American laws outside of NAFTA. So I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Do you want to reopen NAFTA negotiations to include Internet peering?
I think it would be better to propose some constructive ideas as to how we can avoid what happened today from recurring, and also deal with the issue of hijacked IP space in general.
The tools and techniques are out there. All that is needed is for people to follow best practices. Seems to me that educational activity would be more productive than building castles in the sky. --Michael Dillon