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.
>

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 at colt.net
Project Engineer       Phone: +44 20 7390 7848
COLT Internet          Fax: +44 20 7863 5876