Nice work Ron

Thu Jan 21 18:57:01 UTC 2021

In my recent ( last 24 months) dealings with LACNIC, they were very
thorough in validating information and enforcing documentation requirements
as we needed to modify some things after some corporate changes.  Obviously
that may not be representative of all their operations, but they were quite
on the ball in making sure we (still) were who we said we were.

I think it's a tricky argument to say what LACNIC *should* or *should not*
have done. We don't know all the facts. But we all know that
fraudulent business records are used all over the world for things like
this all the time. Calling for a complete audit of LACNIC feels quite
extreme absent a pattern of issues, which doesn't seem to have been
presented.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:37 PM Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com> wrote:

> Peace,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:29 PM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>
>>  am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
>>> block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
>>> urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
>>> so that this doesn't look like selective enforcement?
>>>
>>
>> LACNIC received a complaint, they investigated that complaint, found it
>> warranted, and took appropriate action. "Selective enforcement" would imply
>> there have been other complaints filed with LACNIC that have been ignored.
>>
>
> I've got a strong feeling though that Ronald Guilmette had been doing the
> job LACNIC should've done, possibly long ago.
>
> Once you define a policy, you shouldn't depend on independent
> investigators to figure out the violations.  You need to ensure the
> execution.
>
> --
> Töma
>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210121/06a45b51/attachment.html>