[LACNIC/Politicas] LACNIC Verification Policies

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <4b469860-25c0-83b2-8f27-35f19fb281b6 at lacnic.net>, 
"Sergio Rojas. . ." <sergio at lacnic.net> wrote:

>Ragarding what you comment about improving existing policies, everyone 
>in the community can modify an existing policy or propose a new one.

I *think* that I might like to do that, however even that is not so
clear, because I'm unsure about the -existing- LACNIC policies.  So
if I may, let me ask a few simple and obvious questions that arise
directly from this whole HostSailor case.  (Note:  I do not direct
these questions to you specifically, Mr. Rojas.  I hope that anyone
on this policy mailing list who knows the answers to these policy
questions will respond.)

   1)  Do existing LACNIC policies either permit or require LACNIC staff
       to accept documents which purport to be evidence of the legal
       incorporation of an entity, somewhere within the LACNIC region,
       as adequate or acceptable "proof" of the existance of such
       purported legal incorporations, EVEN IN THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY
       OTHER OR ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION OR EVIDENCE?

   2)  Do existing LACNIC policies either permit or require LACNIC staff
       to accept documents which purport to be evidence of the legal
       relationship between an individual (who claims to be an "officer"
       or legal representative of a company) and that company as adequate
       and acceptable "proof" of the existance of such a legal relationship,
       EVEN IN THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER OR ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING
       DOCUMENTATION OR EVIDENCE?

   3)  Has LACNIC ever terminated its relationship with any legal entities
       on the basis of LACNIC's inability to verify as genuine either the
       legal status of the legal entity or on the basis of its inability
       to verify the legal relationship between a purported legal
       representative and the actual legal entity in question?  If so,
       on how many occasions has this occured?

The answers to questions (1) and (2) above should be most enlightening.

I confess that I do have trouble understanding how LACNIC is able to
verify even so much as the actual legal existance of companies that are
alleged to have been legally created within such jurisdictions as Belize,
The Cayman Islands, The British Virgin Islands, and The Bahamas.  Certainly,
wherever steps LACNIC takes to even just verify the actual legal incorporation
of such companies cannot, it seems, be done either quickly or easily, because
none of these jurisdictions operates any sort of online searchable data
base of registered company names.

So how does LACNIC actually verify even the real existance of such companies?

Separately and additionally, it seems obvious that before LACNIC allocates
any resources to an entity, there must first be a request which is sent
from the entity to LACNIC.  In cases where such requests for resources
come to LACNIC from any kind of non-person legal entity, it also seems
obvious that such requests should not be treated as being valid unless
the specific human being who is making the request is a legitimate and
legally-empowered representative of the company.  But it remains a dark
mystery how LACNIC is able to verify any such alleged officer/company
relationship, in particular in cases involving companies that have been
created in Belize, The Cayman Islands, The British Virgin Islands, and
The Bahamas, because these countries simply do not divulge to *any*
outsiders who the actual officers of their companies are.

All of these policy issues seem to be shrouded in mystery.  But perhaps
I am just ignorant.  I will await answers to the above questions before
commenting further.


Regards,
rfg