Periods of armed conflict often lead to renewed scrutiny of how the Internet functions and of the organisations involved in its coordination. In such moments, simplified or incorrect narratives that can frame technical coordination roles as political choices, or assign responsibilities to coordination bodies that fall outside their mandate, can quickly develop and gain traction. In these circumstances, it is imperative that trust in Internet coordination is sustained through consistent stewardship of a clearly defined role and predictable, transparent action.
Over time, the RIPE NCC has seen recurring claims during times of war suggesting that registry data should be altered, withdrawn, or otherwise used as a policy instrument. These claims are often framed as responses to genuine concern, but they reflect a misunderstanding of how Internet coordination works and of the role registries play within it.
This article aims to clarify why neutrality in registry operations matters, and why actions taken without an understanding of Internet coordination risk producing unintended consequences.
Internet coordination and the RIPE NCC’s role
The Internet is a network of networks whose operation depends on shared coordination rather than central control. In its capacity as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia, the RIPE NCC has a limited and clearly defined role: to maintain an accurate registry of Internet number resources so that networks can interconnect reliably.
This role is deliberately narrow. It is concerned with accuracy, consistency, and predictability in a shared coordination system. It does not involve controlling traffic, judging what content is served, or how networks are used, nor does it decide when connectivity should or should not exist.
Why neutrality matters in practice
The RIPE Registry serves as a common point of reference for network operators. Its value lies in the trust placed in its accuracy and in the expectation that entries are maintained consistently and according to agreed processes.
When that trust is undermined, whether through error, discretionary modification, or political pressure, the effects are operational and immediate. Uncertainty about who is responsible for which Internet number resources creates instability and, over time, encourages alternative points of coordination to emerge.
Once that happens, fragmentation becomes a real risk: different parts of the Internet relying on different sources of truth, making reliable interconnection harder to achieve. This is not a theoretical concern, nor is it limited to areas experiencing conflict. It affects the Internet as a whole.
For this reason, neutrality in registry operations is not a political stance. It is a practical requirement for maintaining a single, interoperable Internet.
Expectations during times of conflict
Armed conflict understandably raises difficult questions about the use and misuse of networks. Similar questions arise when states impose Internet shutdowns or other restrictions on connectivity. These actions have significant social and economic consequences, and they are widely debated in political, legal, and human rights contexts.
However, they do not fall within the remit of Internet registries. Shutdowns and access restrictions are implemented through network operations, service regulation, or state authority. They do not involve changes to the registration of Internet number resources. As such, they sit outside the RIPE NCC’s mandate, which is focused on coordination and registration rather than enforcement or policy advocacy.
Taking positions on such measures would require the RIPE NCC to move beyond its coordination role, undermining the neutrality and trust on which that role depends.
Stability and responsibility
Where binding legal obligations apply, the RIPE NCC acts accordingly. For example, when competent authorities issue binding legal instructions, the RIPE NCC implements them. When sanctions apply, the transfer of Internet number resources is restricted in accordance with applicable law. These actions are grounded in legal obligations not discretionary judgment.
This approach provides predictability for network operators across a diverse service region and helps avoid actions that could unintentionally disrupt connectivity for those who depend on it, particularly during periods of instability.
On mandate and scope
None of this is to suggest that concerns about the misuse of the Internet during conflict are misplaced, or that broader political and societal debates about connectivity are unimportant. Those discussions are necessary, and they belong in the appropriate forums.
Nor is this an argument that Internet coordination exists in isolation from the world around it. The Internet is embedded in social, economic, and political contexts, and coordination bodies operate within those realities.
It is, however, an argument for keeping coordination functions clearly defined. Expecting registries to deliver political outcomes, or to act as instruments of policy enforcement, risks undermining the very mechanisms that allow the Internet to function reliably in the first place.
Fulfilling our mandate
In times of war, the pressure to act can be intense. But actions that compromise shared coordination mechanisms can have consequences that extend well beyond any conflict or war.
The RIPE NCC will continue to fulfil its mandate by maintaining the accuracy of the RIPE Registry, complying with applicable law, and supporting the coordination functions that allow the Internet to remain a shared, interoperable network in periods of stability and in times of crisis alike.
Comments 0