We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE H ostmaster

Nominet ( the .uk Domain Registrars ) now retain legal advisors due to the
trademark / trading name implications with Domain Names. I'm not sure about
other ccTLD Registrars.

If RIPE-NCC were to perform trademark/trading name checks, they would have
to employ a Trademark Attorney or such specialist legal expert. This would
take time to recruit and would increase costs and extend the LIR set-up
time. However, it is probably inappropriate for RIPE-NCC to do this. 

Whilst I sympathise with your position, I'd recommend no legal significance
be attached to an LIR's name, and would suggest that your concerns about
confusion between the uk.firstnetonlinexxxx is addressed via consultation
with Trademark Attorneys (they do exist :-)).

Regards,

Adrian F Pauling
:-)NEL2C Internet Protocol Manager
acd Information Systems Engineering Technical Architecture
AFP1-RIPE / AFP-ARIN / AFP25-InterNIC
* adrian.pauling at bt.com
* +44 19 2685 1992 / +44 78 0290 4877
	British Telecommunications plc
	Registered Office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no 1800000


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Greg Lloyd Smith [SMTP:greg at askfol.com]
> Sent:	09 May 2000 10:03
> To:	lir-wg
> Subject:	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 at 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 at ripe.net>, and state your case
> there. Policy is brought about here by the community, not by us.
> 
> 
> 
>