We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE Hostmaster
The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation. Greg Lloyd Smith uk.firstnetonline [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] Good morning Greg, [uk.firstnetonline writes] "FirstNET Online PLC" <webmaster@gb-host.com> writes: * Thank you for your continued discussion on this matter.... What you could * have done, was determined whether or not RIPE needed (yet) another LIR, and * base that decision on the same factors I was presented with in Greece... * That is.. Could they have obtained their IP addresses from their up line * connectivity provider, and was there another member using the name FirstNET * or something similar... These were the questions I was asked when I applied * to RIPE. I am very distressed by the fact that about a week ago there was * no other member of RIPE using our name and now there is and (most * important), there is no connection between our companies. [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] Yes we did all that. Its standard procedure as written in ripe-160. [uk.firstnetonline writes] * I would point out for the record that of the 20 companies I own two of them * (FirstNET Online Management Limited and FirstNET Online PLC), and that only * three of them are purporting to be ISP's and therefore the change of 20 of * them asking you for membership would be limited to the company about which * we are complaining and our own 2 companies. * * I would therefore ask that we be allowed to appeal to someone within the * RIPE organisation to have their membership revoked or repealed since it * should not have been granted in the first place. I was vetted and I suspect * that if there had been a company in Greece using the name Firstnet, you * would have rejected my application. Why was their application approved? [RIPE NCC Hostmaster writes] If your argument is that FirstNet Services should not have been allowed to become a Local IR because they partly use the same name as you then you have no agreement according to current policy. We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR, only recommend them to go elsewhere for their address space. But if you feel strongly about it why don't you write to the LIR working group mailing list, <lir-wg@ripe.net>, and state your case there. Policy is brought about here by the community, not by us.
The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation.
To the best of my understanding, the general public have *very* little knowledge of LIRs. They go to ISPs, buy services and obtain IP addresses as part of that service. They won't, on the whole, fill out a 141 or usually have any idea that such a thing even exists. Certainly the only place I ever see an LIR name used is in the 'X-NCC-RegID' header, which I'm sure isn't seen by customers. How are similar LIR names going to confuse the general public when they never see them? Or are you suggesting that because another company has a similar name to yours, RIPE should attempt to cripple their entry into the ISP market? RIPE should only be interested in technical factors; if a company will be making assignments of blocks of IP addresses to their customers in sufficient quantities, and is capable of following all the allocation / documentation procedures, surely they have a strong case for becoming an LIR? Regards, Tim. -- Tim Franklin Email: tim@colt.net Project Engineer Phone: +44 20 7390 7848 COLT Internet Fax: +44 20 7863 5876
At 10:03 9-05-00 +0100, you wrote:
The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation.
Greg Lloyd Smith uk.firstnetonline
Greg, what general public are you talking about. There is no general public looking at the RIPE database to look for company names. If you are pissed that somebody founded a company with a similar name as one of your companies, and want to take action, there are other means to do that. I do not think it is right to try to use RIPE to make somebody elses live problematic. Niek Rijnbout. Knoware.
The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation.
Hm, this seems like a strange request. The point of contest here seems to be the trading name used by the company who is now a (newly established) LIR, not that organization's ability to become a LIR. I don't see how the RIPE NCC can be concerned about the use of a trading name by an applicant for LIR status, and the possible infringement on someone else's rights to that name or the potential for resulting market confusion. This issue should instead be brought before the apporpriate authority, which I assume would be some part of the legal system in the UK. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I even don't play one on the net, but thus just seemed too obvious... - Håvard
participants (4)
-
Greg Lloyd Smith -
Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no -
Niek Rijnbout -
Tim Franklin