Summary

  • RIPE NCC’s 27 July procedure adds a route for EU authorities to order provision or preservation of electronic evidence in criminal matters. Its Section 3 says members cannot be notified of orders under that route.
  • In 2025 RIPE NCC received 99 law-enforcement requests; eight binding requests for non-public information came from Dutch authorities and two non-binding non-Dutch requests were refused. Those are pre-change figures, not a count of the new EU orders.

RIPE NCC’s 2025 law-enforcement report is a ledger with a gate. It records 99 requests, eight binding Dutch demands for non-public information that the registry obeyed, and two non-binding demands from outside the Netherlands that it rejected. A foreign investigator seeking confidential member data faced the Dutch-order and mutual-assistance route. The registry’s published practice was to tell a member about requests for its data unless law or a court order forbade notice.

The gate acquired another door in 2026. RIPE-865, published on 27 July, lets EU law-enforcement or judicial authorities use the eEvidence Regulation to order RIPE NCC to provide or preserve electronic evidence for a criminal investigation or prosecution. The Board’s 194th meeting minutes say authorities outside the Netherlands can send such orders directly and that RIPE NCC expected to comply from August. The Board approved the procedure change unanimously. A question about Dutch implementation of the related Directive was raised in the room; RIPE NCC’s legal officer said the Regulation’s obligation would apply regardless.

The new door has its own notice rule. Sections 1 and 2 of RIPE-865 still state the ordinary policy of notifying members about information requests and specific-action orders unless a legal bar applies. Section 3 says confidentiality rules apply to eEvidence orders, so RIPE NCC cannot notify members of any orders it receives under that procedure. The registry also says it will assess each order and challenge one that fails the Regulation’s requirements. Those are separate acts: screening the command at the registry, complying with a valid one, and leaving the affected member uninformed.

Scope matters. Section 3 names production and preservation of electronic evidence. A request to alter an Internet number registration has a separate section and decision path. The old 2025 counts show what the desk handled before this EU channel; they establish no volume or outcome for orders after August 2026. The first post-change transparency report is the missing measurement. Until then, the written shift is plain: a cross-border EU authority can reach the registry through a direct evidence procedure while the member who owns the relevant account receives no notice from RIPE NCC on that route.

Sources