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@gmail.com> wrote:
Peace,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:29 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@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