<div dir="auto">Peace,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:29 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> 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?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I've got a strong feeling though that Ronald Guilmette had been doing the job LACNIC should've done, possibly long ago.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Once you define a policy, you shouldn't depend on independent investigators to figure out the violations.  You need to ensure the execution.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">--</div><div dir="auto">Töma</div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>