Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation

Resource coverage and investigation boundary · Version 2 expressly includes unassigned IP address space and Autonomous System Numbers and limits investigation to suspected hijackers subject to RIPE policies. Version 1 instead expressly makes both parties' location irrelevant. This compares proposed coverage and does not establish present jurisdiction or an adopted enforcement rule.

More explicit exclusions for accidental events · Version 2 develops the distinction between accidental and deliberate conduct: clearly accidental cases are dismissed, BGP leaks are outside scope, and proven third-party manipulation of the alleged hijacker's infrastructure is not treated as intentional. Similar-looking prefixes and parallel legitimate announcements are not sufficient by themselves to prove intent. Version 1 gives general assessment factors without these express safeguards.

Directly affected claimants and six-month evidence limit · Version 2 permits reports only from directly affected networks: legitimate resource holders or networks that received the hijacked route or AS path. It excludes reports by unaffected parties and evidence older than six months at submission. Version 1 relies on external reports without stating these limits; both versions exclude pre-implementation events.

Earlier notice and treatment of connected networks · Version 2 makes reported routes or ASNs public to reduce duplicate reports and notifies identified parties early so they can respond and mitigate harm. It also provides for informational notice to direct upstream or transit providers and investigation of related organisations. Such notice is not a formal warning; experts are separately prohibited from adding accused parties to the case. Version 1 mainly provides notice when the judgement report is sent to the suspected hijacker.

Longer initial assessment with an express dismissal consequence · Version 2 extends the expert judgement deadline from four to six weeks after receipt of the report and expressly requires dismissal if it is missed. The retained Version 1 states the four-week deadline without that dismissal rule.

Defined expert qualifications and eligibility · Version 2 adds an open biennial selection process, suggested BGP experience, support from three networks in three economies under different LIR sponsorships, and a four-consecutive-year service limit followed by a two-year break. Proposal authors and active RIPE working-group chairs cannot serve as experts. Version 1 only requires the RIPE NCC to define a worldwide expert pool.

Multi-expert panels and case-integrity safeguards · Version 2 requires at least three experts per case and phase, with any larger panel having an odd number and the same size used across cases. It adds random assignment, confidential panel identities, impartiality declarations, appeal confidentiality, continuity and replacement rules, legal insurance and a minimum available pool twice the per-case minimum. These replace Version 1's largely unspecified expert arrangement.

Unanimity and procedural independence · Version 2 adds a sufficiency check before assignment, a response opportunity for the suspected hijacker and a joint expert report. An intentional-hijack finding requires unanimity. RIR staff cannot sit on the panel, and neither the RIPE NCC nor claimants may appeal the experts' decisions. These safeguards are not specified in Version 1's short lines-of-action provision.

A separate unanimous panel for appeals · Version 2 replaces review by an alternative expert with a different panel of at least three experts. All reviewing experts must agree to maintain an intentional-hijack finding; otherwise the case is dismissed. The maximum two-week appeal-filing and four-week review periods remain, with finality after review.

Ratification moves from the board to the experts · Version 2 replaces RIPE NCC Executive Board ratification with unanimous ratification by all experts involved, after a two-week public consultation. Without unanimity the report is archived, and experts may decline ratification on the basis of undisclosed information or consultation input. Ratification still waits for an appeal to finish.

Transition arrangements and existing bogons · Version 2 adds six months of warning-only treatment for non-malicious announcements of unassigned resources and excludes bogons already present when implementation begins. Version 1 states only that eligible hijacks must occur after implementation. These are proposed transition protections, not evidence that an implementation date was reached.

Protection of legacy and uninvolved PI resource holders · Version 2 expressly preserves legacy registration, while allowing possible restrictions on other RIPE NCC services in the repeated-violation circumstances described later. Uninvolved PI holders are protected from deregistration and may change sponsoring LIRs; sponsorship alone does not make the LIR responsible for a customer's hijack. Version 1 has no comparable resource-holder safeguards.

Repeated violations rather than a single violation for closure · Version 2 expressly links possible closure procedures to regular and repeated hijacking and says a single policy violation is not a basis it endorses for initiating LIR closure. Version 1 discusses refusing or ending contractual relationships in its rationale without stating this repeated-conduct threshold. This does not make closure automatic.