In message <CAFV686eMtz+rYPwbNZ90N-WhK-Q9auHTkN5AKTXBXvhj_HyQ1w@mail.gmail.com>
Jacob Slater <jacob@rezero.org> wrote:

>Prior to an ASN or PI space being assigned by the NCC, the NCC goes through
>and checks the organization info.

Right.  Got it.  For some value of "checks".

What would be the best way for a mere mortal, such as myself, to obtain
some elaboration on the meaning of the word "checks" in this context?

Not to digress too much from that one question, but to be frank, this
whole notion of RIRs "checking" the organizations that they register
has puzzled me for some time.  Let me explain.

In every one of the five regions there are national or local jurisdictions
that are well known as corporate "secrecy" jurisdictions.  I could easily
rattle off the names of several of these for each of the five regions,
but I'll spare you all and just assume you are all familiar with their
names also.

In each of the five regions, there are jurisdictions that allow for so-called
"nominee" officers, i.e. people whose names get attached to the corporate
registrations but who have neither any ownership of nor any day-to-day
control over the operations of the company.

In each of the five regions, there are jurisdictions that will not reveal
the names of the actual "beneficial owners" of any given corporate entity
registered in that jurisdiction, i.e. in the absence of a lawsuit and/or
a court order to do so.

In each of the five regions, there are jurisdictions that do not even
-collect- information about the names of the actual "beneficial owners"
of any given corporate entity registered in that jurisdiction.

In each of the five regions, there are jurisdictions that DO collect
information about the names of the (alleged) "beneficial owners" of each
corporate entity registered within that jurisdiction, but where it is
well and widely known that nobody ever checks any of this information
due to an alleged lack of funding to do so (e.g. UK).

In each of the five regions, there are jurisdictions that do not and will
not reveal any information about -either- "beneficial owners" or even
nominee officers in the absence of a lawsuit and/or a court order to do so.

In each of the five regions, there are jurisdictions that do not operate
-any- publicly accessible registry list of the corporate entities that
-are- in fact legally incorporated in that jurisdiction.

In each of the five regions, there are jurisdictions that do not, as a
matter of either law or policy, divulge even the nanes of the corporate
entities that are duly registered as legal entities within that jurisdiction,
let alone any other or additional information about corporate entities,
and these jurisdictions will not release even this minimal kind of yes/no,
exists / doesn't exist kind of information on cororate entities in the
absence of of a lawsuit and/or a court order to do so.

In each of the five regions, there are jurisdictions that respect only their
own local court rulings while utterly ignoring everyone else's (e.g. Nevis),
and some of these jurisdictions go one step further and also make it both
exceptrionally difficult and exceptionally expensive for outsiders to avail
themselves of whatever passes for "justice" in these jurisdictions.

In light of the final two paragraphs above, I am, have been, and remain
in a state of ceaseless wonderment when it comes to this notion of RIRs
vetting "all" entities that are resource holders in the various regions.
The plain facts of the case would logically seem to render even the most
minimal kind of *independent* vetting inherently and provably impossible,
even in the best of conditions, at least with respect to those corpprate
entities that have been formed within one of these maximally discreet
corporate secrecy jurisdictions that litter the globe in every region.

Am I wrong?  Or should I just accept this self-evident logical quandary
as yet another one of the eternal, mystical, and insoluable mysteries of
the Universe, like what happened before the Big Bang and where single
socks go when they somehow escape, apparently of their own volition, from
the dryer, never to be seen or heard from again?


Regards,
rfg