Trends
IP address portability essential to ensure fair, open internet says LARUS CEO
Lu Heng, CEO of Hong Kong-based LARUS Ltd and founder of the LARUS Foundation, has accused the RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) of acting like a cartel and violating European anti-trust laws following its refusal to accept his company’s sponsorship for the RIPE 90 meeting in Lisbon. In an…
Headline
Lu Heng, CEO of Hong Kong-based LARUS Ltd and founder of the LARUS Foundation, has accused the RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) of acting like a cartel and violating European anti-trust laws following its refusal to accept his company’s sponsorship for the RIPE 90…
Context
Lu Heng, CEO of Hong Kong-based LARUS Ltd and founder of the LARUS Foundation, has accused the RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) of acting like a cartel and violating European anti-trust laws following its refusal to accept his company’s sponsorship for the RIPE 90 meeting in Lisbon. In an exclusive interview at the event, Heng described the decision as a “monopolistic” move by the RIPE NCC, the secretariat that administers IP number resources in Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia. Heng alleges the sponsorship was declined due to LARUS’s ongoing dispute with another Regional Internet Registry (RIR) in a different continent—an issue he argues is irrelevant to RIPE NCC’s operations.
Evidence
Pending intelligence enrichment.
Analysis
“LARUS is a member of RIPE NCC and has supported the community for many years,” Heng said. “Refusing our sponsorship because of a separate legal issue with another RIR, which has no relationship with RIPE, sounds very much like cartel and monopolistic behavior.” To support his claim, Heng said his company has engaged top anti-trust legal experts in the Netherlands. “Our legal counsel stated that RIPE NCC, being the monopoly for number registration in this region, is potentially in violation of European competition law,” he explained. “Users have no number portability—if they’re unhappy, they cannot legally move to another registry. This lack of choice creates a choke point in the internet ecosystem.” The controversy has reignited debate around IP address number portability—a concept Heng likens to telecom practices in Europe. “Just like consumers can take their phone number to a new provider, internet service providers should be able to switch registry providers,” he said. “This would prevent centralized powers like RIPE NCC from dictating how the internet functions.” While Heng has not yet initiated legal proceedings, he warned that litigation remains an option. “Suing RIPE NCC would be the last resort,” he stated. “What we want is for the RIPE community to recognize the problem and push for reform. If RIPE NCC embraces portability and respects member rights, there will be no need for a lawsuit.”
Key Points
- Lu Heng claims RIPE NCC’s refusal to accept sponsorship constitutes cartel-like behavior and breaches EU anti-trust laws.
- He calls for number portability to prevent monopolistic control and ensure fairness for RIPE NCC members.
Actions
Pending intelligence enrichment.
