Improving Identification of RIPE NCC Members and Independent Resource Holders by Publishing Company Registration Numbers
Dear colleagues, Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type. Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons: 1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult. Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities. Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries. Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope. Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome. Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
Hi, On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 12:01:02PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
From my limited point of view (*), this sounds a useful information to add. It's public anyway, for registered companies, so GDPR concerns should not arise. (*) "company view in germany", other views might differ Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Marco, Thanks for working on this proposal. On 17 Nov 2025, at 12:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities.
Will this have some kind of scope to a country/registry? If I see a number, how do I know where to look it up? It might even be ambiguous without scope, as the same number might be used in different company registries. I don't know if all countries have a single registry.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
So for sole proprietorships where, at least in NL, the person is the company, no new numbers will be published, right? Sasha
Hello Sasha, Thank you for your questions. On 17/11/2025 12:18, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hi Marco,
Thanks for working on this proposal.
On 17 Nov 2025, at 12:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. Will this have some kind of scope to a country/registry? If I see a number, how do I know where to look it up? It might even be ambiguous without scope, as the same number might be used in different company registries. I don't know if all countries have a single registry. For countries with multiple regional company registries, such as Germany or the USA, we would specify which registry contains the legal entity’s record. For countries with a single national registry, the existing attribute with country code of legal registration together with the new company registration number attribute should be sufficient to identify the resource holder. Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope. So for sole proprietorships where, at least in NL, the person is the company, no new numbers will be published, right? Yes, that is correct. In the case of sole proprietorships no registration number will be published. The new attribute will apply only to legal entities.
Sasha
I hope this clarifies. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE NCC
On 17 Nov 2025, at 13:48, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote: [..] On 17/11/2025 12:18, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hi Marco,
Thanks for working on this proposal.
On 17 Nov 2025, at 12:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. Will this have some kind of scope to a country/registry? If I see a number, how do I know where to look it up? It might even be ambiguous without scope, as the same number might be used in different company registries. I don't know if all countries have a single registry. For countries with multiple regional company registries, such as Germany or the USA, we would specify which registry contains the legal entity’s record. For countries with a single national registry, the existing attribute with country code of legal registration together with the new company registration number attribute should be sufficient to identify the resource holder.
This sounds like a good thing to have. Can we get that in WHOIS and then also have that as a dump for easy ingestion? An example WHOIS entry on how this could look like could be a good example. I think having both the URL of the company register (so that one does not have to figure out what it is), be that a link to a contact address that one has to call to get details, or that has a public lookup interface can help a lot. Eg Switzerland has https://zefix.admin.ch <https://zefix.admin.ch/> enter the name and one can see what is behind the company and if that looks like something that is legal or barely legal. At least, it will solve the big problem of companies claiming to have a POBox in one country and then having their "company" registered in the fun countries that do not seem to have any legal process or escalation paths whatsoever. Unfortunately there are many of those. One additional thing would be as it is not GPDR sensitive, that this information is also exposed in a DB dump, so that one can easily take such a dump, and mark prefixes as 'fun traffic'. This will help with scoring in various locations to what extent traffic might actually just be anonymous / disrespecting of the law or not. And yes, it sucks then for entities that are actually located in those countries, they are trying to get by and sucked into that too :(... Greets, Jeroen
Hello Jeroen, Thanks for your suggestions,
On 17 Nov 2025, at 14:47, Jeroen Massar via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 17 Nov 2025, at 13:48, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote: [..] On 17/11/2025 12:18, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hi Marco,
Thanks for working on this proposal.
On 17 Nov 2025, at 12:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. Will this have some kind of scope to a country/registry? If I see a number, how do I know where to look it up? It might even be ambiguous without scope, as the same number might be used in different company registries. I don't know if all countries have a single registry. For countries with multiple regional company registries, such as Germany or the USA, we would specify which registry contains the legal entity’s record. For countries with a single national registry, the existing attribute with country code of legal registration together with the new company registration number attribute should be sufficient to identify the resource holder.
This sounds like a good thing to have.
Can we get that in WHOIS and then also have that as a dump for easy ingestion?
We plan to include the reg-nr: attribute in the daily Whois dump and split files.
An example WHOIS entry on how this could look like could be a good example.
I think having both the URL of the company register (so that one does not have to figure out what it is), be that a link to a contact address that one has to call to get details, or that has a public lookup interface can help a lot. Eg Switzerland has https://zefix.admin.ch <https://zefix.admin.ch/> enter the name and one can see what is behind the company and if that looks like something that is legal or barely legal.
We plan to include a URL to the company register on the database web query page, where possible (based on the number format and the legal country: attribute value). However I'd prefer not to encode the number as a URL in the reg-nr: attribute itself. Making a link for interactive users to click is convenient but makes it harder for client programs to parse (there's no standard URL format for registration numbers that I'm aware of). Also we may not be able to identify a URL for all types of registration numbers (it depends on the registry). And if a URL ever changes, it's easier to update the web application than re-synchronise all affected registration numbers to the RIPE database.
At least, it will solve the big problem of companies claiming to have a POBox in one country and then having their "company" registered in the fun countries that do not seem to have any legal process or escalation paths whatsoever. Unfortunately there are many of those.
Correct, in addition to the legal country attribute, the aim is to make it easier to identify the resource holder.
One additional thing would be as it is not GPDR sensitive, that this information is also exposed in a DB dump, so that one can easily take such a dump, and mark prefixes as 'fun traffic'. This will help with scoring in various locations to what extent traffic might actually just be anonymous / disrespecting of the law or not. And yes, it sucks then for entities that are actually located in those countries, they are trying to get by and sucked into that too :(...
If I understand correctly, this is already possible using the country: attribute which identifies the legal address of the resource holder organisation. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
On 17 Nov 2025, at 15:52, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> wrote: [..]
An example WHOIS entry on how this could look like could be a good example.
I think having both the URL of the company register (so that one does not have to figure out what it is), be that a link to a contact address that one has to call to get details, or that has a public lookup interface can help a lot. Eg Switzerland has https://zefix.admin.ch <https://zefix.admin.ch/> enter the name and one can see what is behind the company and if that looks like something that is legal or barely legal.
We plan to include a URL to the company register on the database web query page, where possible (based on the number format and the legal country: attribute value).
However I'd prefer not to encode the number as a URL in the reg-nr: attribute itself. Making a link for interactive users to click is convenient but makes it harder for client programs to parse (there's no standard URL format for registration numbers that I'm aware of). Also we may not be able to identify a URL for all types of registration numbers (it depends on the registry). And if a URL ever changes, it's easier to update the web application than re-synchronise all affected registration numbers to the RIPE database.
Agree, a separate attribute, eg "reg-url" would be the way to go indeed. Maybe a "reg-country" option separately to indicate the country could be useful (e.g. in the case of Germany as one example), while the "reg-url" could point directly to the registration entity's site. It would also allow easily grouping which registry each comes from, thus per URL, similar to 'source'. To then automate or so automatic fetching would be something the user can do. though most of these sites do not allow automation and require payment, but that is then upto the client to handle, RIPE NCC should not be bothered with that.
At least, it will solve the big problem of companies claiming to have a POBox in one country and then having their "company" registered in the fun countries that do not seem to have any legal process or escalation paths whatsoever. Unfortunately there are many of those.
Correct, in addition to the legal country attribute, the aim is to make it easier to identify the resource holder.
One additional thing would be as it is not GPDR sensitive, that this information is also exposed in a DB dump, so that one can easily take such a dump, and mark prefixes as 'fun traffic'. This will help with scoring in various locations to what extent traffic might actually just be anonymous / disrespecting of the law or not. And yes, it sucks then for entities that are actually located in those countries, they are trying to get by and sucked into that too :(...
If I understand correctly, this is already possible using the country: attribute which identifies the legal address of the resource holder organisation.
Not for quite a few who have "POBoxes" in countries other than the registry is claimed to be a "registered company". These additions will make all that much more visible though, thanks! Greets, Jeroen
Hello Jeroen,
On 17 Nov 2025, at 16:13, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@massar.ch> wrote:
On 17 Nov 2025, at 15:52, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> wrote: [..]
An example WHOIS entry on how this could look like could be a good example.
I think having both the URL of the company register (so that one does not have to figure out what it is), be that a link to a contact address that one has to call to get details, or that has a public lookup interface can help a lot. Eg Switzerland has https://zefix.admin.ch <https://zefix.admin.ch/> enter the name and one can see what is behind the company and if that looks like something that is legal or barely legal.
We plan to include a URL to the company register on the database web query page, where possible (based on the number format and the legal country: attribute value).
However I'd prefer not to encode the number as a URL in the reg-nr: attribute itself. Making a link for interactive users to click is convenient but makes it harder for client programs to parse (there's no standard URL format for registration numbers that I'm aware of). Also we may not be able to identify a URL for all types of registration numbers (it depends on the registry). And if a URL ever changes, it's easier to update the web application than re-synchronise all affected registration numbers to the RIPE database.
Agree, a separate attribute, eg "reg-url" would be the way to go indeed.
Maybe a "reg-country" option separately to indicate the country could be useful (e.g. in the case of Germany as one example), while the "reg-url" could point directly to the registration entity's site.
It would also allow easily grouping which registry each comes from, thus per URL, similar to 'source'.
To then automate or so automatic fetching would be something the user can do. though most of these sites do not allow automation and require payment, but that is then upto the client to handle, RIPE NCC should not be bothered with that.
To be clear, we propose to only add the registration number to the RIPE database in a "reg-nr:" attribute. It is for the client to decide how to process the registration number. We will only include a URL to the company register on the database web query results where possible. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
Hi Ed,
On Nov 17, 2025, at 09:52, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> wrote:
We plan to include the reg-nr: attribute in the daily Whois dump and split files.
The possible impact is that today, the contact addresses of inetnums receive spam offers of resource transfer. After implementing this proposal, spammers will knock on their doors with more targeted offers, social engineering attacks, etc. Even removing most of the personal data from dump files didn't prevent them from doing so. Publishing the company reg data will make this task easier. -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
I have been a recorded contact against resources in another RIR, and I have received this class of spam. I was the titular holder/contact of a number of ranges reserved to APNIC Labs amongst other things. I don't personally think this is a good basis to not have information in the public view. The wider community is entitled to have a path to identify who controls and operates this class of asset. The burden of spam cleaning is a cost which. has to be borne by the holder in the public interest. I realise there are other threats in this. I'm not arguing there are no downside risks to PII being associated with address management records, just that I do not think "but you will get spam" is not a strong enough reason to exclude it. (ex RIR staffer now contractor) -G
Hi George,
On Nov 17, 2025, at 10:55, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
I realise there are other threats in this. I'm not arguing there are no downside risks to PII being associated with address management records, just that I do not think "but you will get spam" is not a strong enough reason to exclude it.
This isn't just about spam. Why registration of a domain name won't pose any extra risk for the name holder? And why registration of IPv4/v6/ASN means that you'll receive spam/phishing messages at a minimum? -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
Edward Shryane wrote on 17/11/2025 14:52:
Correct, in addition to the legal country attribute, the aim is to make it easier to identify the resource holder.
Hi Ed, This proposal effectively adds an additional index to the db record. In the case of a conflict between the name of the holder and the registered ID, which of them should be considered canonical? Nick
Hello Jeroen,
On 17 Nov 2025, at 14:47, Jeroen Massar via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 17 Nov 2025, at 13:48, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote: [..] On 17/11/2025 12:18, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hi Marco,
Thanks for working on this proposal.
On 17 Nov 2025, at 12:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. Will this have some kind of scope to a country/registry? If I see a number, how do I know where to look it up? It might even be ambiguous without scope, as the same number might be used in different company registries. I don't know if all countries have a single registry. For countries with multiple regional company registries, such as Germany or the USA, we would specify which registry contains the legal entity’s record. For countries with a single national registry, the existing attribute with country code of legal registration together with the new company registration number attribute should be sufficient to identify the resource holder.
This sounds like a good thing to have.
Can we get that in WHOIS and then also have that as a dump for easy ingestion?
An example WHOIS entry on how this could look like could be a good example.
Here is an example for the RIPE NCC itself, adding a reg-nr: attribute : organisation: ORG-RIEN1-RIPE org-name: Reseaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) country: NL org-type: LIR descr: RIPE NCC Operations address: P.O. Box 10096 address: 1001 EB address: Amsterdam address: NETHERLANDS reg-nr: 40539632 # added registration number phone: +31205354444 fax-no: +31205354445 admin-c: MENN1-RIPE admin-c: MDIR-RIPE abuse-c: ops4-ripe mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-MNT created: 2012-03-09T13:21:52Z last-modified: 2023-12-05T13:40:03Z source: RIPE # Filtered The country: code is NL, so the registry is the KvK : Go to https://www.kvk.nl/en/search/ and enter "40539632". Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
On 18 Nov 2025, at 09:43, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> wrote: [..] Here is an example for the RIPE NCC itself, adding a reg-nr: attribute :
organisation: ORG-RIEN1-RIPE org-name: Reseaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) country: NL org-type: LIR descr: RIPE NCC Operations address: P.O. Box 10096 address: 1001 EB address: Amsterdam address: NETHERLANDS reg-nr: 40539632 # added registration number
[..] The country: code is NL, so the registry is the KvK : Go to https://www.kvk.nl/en/search/ and enter "40539632".
TLDR of below: - reg-nr needs a reg-location with details of where that number belongs to - reg-nr might be 'natural person' to indicate that situation - then no 'reg-nr' indicates an unmaintained/not-updated object - next to reg-nr - even with those details shady "companies" will remain shady as long as it is acceptable to register them as such. But, that requires one knowing that the "KVK" is the commercial registry, if you are not Dutch one will not know this. Without the context of the registry URL that number is pretty futile to list similar to having: 8<---- organisation: ORG-PLI2-RIPE org-name: Private Layer INC country: PA org-type: LIR address: Panama City address: 00000 address: Panama address: PANAMA ---->8 Which as a good old example used to be a Swiss POBox, for a "Panamanian" company; right... such useless information for an entity that operates worldwide but likely has nothing in that postal office building. Read: if law enforcement has to serve a court order, one cannot, and the real people behind it stay shielded, likely far away from Panama themselves. And what is the point of having information if it is futile except for finding accidental coincidences when multiple things register at the same email/location etc etc. Noting that the front page of https://privatelayer.com/ still reads "Secure Swiss Hosting".... not Panama... it is only the other side of the world ;) And of course, as the NCC is very well aware, PA, SC and such countries are a lot of fun. Apparently totally and completely following the rules though. Then again dummy and shell corporations are the joy of anything shady. At least IPv4 space has run out much faster with the help of those constructions. But there are GOOD things in this proposal, as legit companies do not have to hide and would have valid public details. And for those it can be beneficial to list their details, it also makes it easy to see they are more legit. As Gert is in this thread (CC'd also just in case), I'll use another example for SpaceNet AG, fortunately Germany requires an Impressum page (https://www.space.net/impressum/) thus easy to find and is public. For their case, including just "reg-nr: 136055" would be almost useless information, without the context of knowing that one has to look at the "Amtsgericht München", though that is not the business registry, it is the Gewerbeamt: https://stadt.muenchen.de/service/en-GB/info/gewerbeamt/10423771/ As such, IMHO, one really has to include extra information about the context of such number. thus either: 8<------ reg-nr: 136055 reg-country: DE reg-url: https://stadt.muenchen.de/service/en-GB/info/gewerbeamt/10423771/ ------>8 Which still would give you the phone number to contact for information at least. Though URLs change, thus maybe "reg-org: Germany, Munchen, Gewerbeamt" or similar might be a better format. also, for individuals/persons, and to indicate that the information is not just missing, but is established, possibly have a 'reg-nr: natural person' option? That makes it clear that the NCC indicates this is a natural person, not an organisation of which the object is not updated yet. In the end, as the above shows though, as long as RIPE NCC allows LIR registrations in 'funny' countries, it all does not matter, and organisations can be as intransparent as one can be. At least, one can then score that as "LIR is registered in a fun country, we only see bad traffic, lets rate limit or just drop that" and other such techniques... The reg-* info will thus be another indicator for that. Just really sucks for the business that really exist in those countries that fall into the same holes :( Regards, Jeroen
Hi, On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 11:15:16AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
As Gert is in this thread (CC'd also just in case), I'll use another example for SpaceNet AG, fortunately Germany requires an Impressum page (https://www.space.net/impressum/) thus easy to find and is public.
For their case, including just "reg-nr: 136055" would be almost useless information, without the context of knowing that one has to look at the "Amtsgericht München", though that is not the business registry, it is the Gewerbeamt: https://stadt.muenchen.de/service/en-GB/info/gewerbeamt/10423771/
The full registry is "HRB: 136 055 (Amtsgericht München)", so not only the number but also the "HRB" (because there is also HRA for other types of businesses). Indeed, there is national variety galore... (TBH, I'm not sure what the "formal registry" is in this case, I always *thought* it's the "Amtsgericht" - lower court - for everything that is not a single-person company. For the latter, Gewerbeamt, and you do not get a HRA/HRB number...) ((As a side note, by business rules, the HRB number has to be named in any formal communication, and e-mail is considered as such - so it's in the signature...)) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- even with those details shady "companies" will remain shady as long as it is acceptable to register them as such.
yes, baddies are gona bad, but this is an incremental improvement i agree with your point about the registry context being needed randy
Hello Jeroen,
On 18 Nov 2025, at 11:15, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@massar.ch> wrote:
On 18 Nov 2025, at 09:43, Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net> wrote: [..] Here is an example for the RIPE NCC itself, adding a reg-nr: attribute :
organisation: ORG-RIEN1-RIPE org-name: Reseaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) country: NL org-type: LIR descr: RIPE NCC Operations address: P.O. Box 10096 address: 1001 EB address: Amsterdam address: NETHERLANDS reg-nr: 40539632 # added registration number
[..] The country: code is NL, so the registry is the KvK : Go to https://www.kvk.nl/en/search/ and enter "40539632".
TLDR of below: - reg-nr needs a reg-location with details of where that number belongs to - reg-nr might be 'natural person' to indicate that situation - then no 'reg-nr' indicates an unmaintained/not-updated object - next to reg-nr - even with those details shady "companies" will remain shady as long as it is acceptable to register them as such.
Thank you for the examples. We propose to only include the registration number, in addition to the existing country code. We should not link to registry websites as they are external to the RIPE database and subject to change. Every registry website is different, and some do not allow linking directly to an organisation or may require registration. This can be better done by the database client for regions of interest to the user. The organisation object already contains the country code from the legal address, so this does not need to be repeated in the reg-nr attribute. However we can include the region for countries where this is necessary and where we have the information internally (e.g. Hamburg HRA12345). We will review this as part of the impact analysis. Information about natural persons is out of scope of this proposal. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote: [...]
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
This seems like a good idea. Thanks, Leo
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:20, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
[...]
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
This seems like a good idea.
Oh, and it would be good if support from this extra piece of data is also available via RDAP and not just whois. In general, users should get the same data back however they query the database. Thanks, Leo
Hello Leo,
On 17 Nov 2025, at 15:05, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:20, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
[...]
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
This seems like a good idea.
Oh, and it would be good if support from this extra piece of data is also available via RDAP and not just whois.
The Database team intends to extend RDAP to include the registration number. We will publish an implementation plan separately.
In general, users should get the same data back however they query the database.
I agree! Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
This seems sensible. Nick Marco Schmidt wrote on 17/11/2025 11:01:
Dear colleagues,
Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type.
Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons:
1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult.
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi Marco,
Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
What is the main goal for making this information publicly available? -- Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov
On Nov 17, 2025, at 06:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type.
Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons:
1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult.
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hey Marco, I would find this proposal particularly useful for things like KYC and sanctions screening. So a +1 from me, having this added would be a nice quality of life improvement On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type.
Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons:
1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult.
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hello, This info is very sesible, but for goverments there are no additional information, but many scammers will find this info very useful. I'm very against this idea. 17.11.2025 19:15, Ben Cartwright-Cox via db-wg пишет:
Hey Marco,
I would find this proposal particularly useful for things like KYC and sanctions screening.
So a +1 from me, having this added would be a nice quality of life improvement
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:01, Marco Schmidt<mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type.
Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons:
1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult.
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ --
*С уважением, Мусин Александр* alexmusin@contell.ru +7 (495) 481-25-30 +7 (800) 775-04-23 г. Москва, ул. Научный пр., дом 20, стр. 2 www.contell.ru <https://contell.ru>
Hey Alexander, Do you mean that this registration number field would not be useful for governments or that there are certain governments (I can imagine there being a offshore tax haven that doesn't necessarily have particularly good company identification numbers) don't have company identifiers, and that may cause scammers to create org's in that location? Assuming the latter, even if there is a government that does not have a particularly good company identification system, I still think there is significant value in having the number for most other countries available, as this would greatly speed up certain customer provisioning/verification activities. Regards Ben On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 16:24, Александр Мусин <am@contell.ru> wrote:
Hello,
This info is very sesible, but for goverments there are no additional information, but many scammers will find this info very useful.
I'm very against this idea.
17.11.2025 19:15, Ben Cartwright-Cox via db-wg пишет:
Hey Marco,
I would find this proposal particularly useful for things like KYC and sanctions screening.
So a +1 from me, having this added would be a nice quality of life improvement
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:01, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type.
Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons:
1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult.
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
--
С уважением, Мусин Александр
alexmusin@contell.ru +7 (495) 481-25-30 +7 (800) 775-04-23 г. Москва, ул. Научный пр., дом 20, стр. 2 www.contell.ru
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hey Ben, All governments can find organization with their tax registration number or so, but there is many other ways to identification of IP users/owners in their country. In my opinion that for clear information there will be more useful some interaction RIPE with governments officials to provide this information, not make it public. 17.11.2025 19:32, Ben Cartwright-Cox via db-wg пишет:
Hey Alexander,
Do you mean that this registration number field would not be useful for governments or that there are certain governments (I can imagine there being a offshore tax haven that doesn't necessarily have particularly good company identification numbers) don't have company identifiers, and that may cause scammers to create org's in that location?
Assuming the latter, even if there is a government that does not have a particularly good company identification system, I still think there is significant value in having the number for most other countries available, as this would greatly speed up certain customer provisioning/verification activities.
Regards Ben
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 16:24, Александр Мусин<am@contell.ru> wrote:
Hello,
This info is very sesible, but for goverments there are no additional information, but many scammers will find this info very useful.
I'm very against this idea.
17.11.2025 19:15, Ben Cartwright-Cox via db-wg пишет:
Hey Marco,
I would find this proposal particularly useful for things like KYC and sanctions screening.
So a +1 from me, having this added would be a nice quality of life improvement
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 11:01, Marco Schmidt<mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type.
Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons:
1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult.
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
--
С уважением, Мусин Александр
alexmusin@contell.ru +7 (495) 481-25-30 +7 (800) 775-04-23 г. Москва, ул. Научный пр., дом 20, стр. 2 www.contell.ru
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ --
Alex Musin wrote on 17/11/2025 16:40:
In my opinion that for clear information there will be more useful some interaction RIPE with governments officials to provide this information, not make it public.
Alex, The legal name of the registrant is already public in the RIPE whois db. The registered number of legal companies is a matter of public record in most countries, i.e. it's designed to be public. Nick
Hello, On Mon, 2025-11-17 at 12:01 +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
(...) Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
On the big picture, I think this is a reasonable idea. However, there are so many registration authorities over all the RIPE service region, that it seems quite a cosmetic measure to me. Additionnaly: Some legal entities do not have registration number (some non-for-profit organizations, in France, for example, have one, some do not have any). I am unsure that having to make it publicly available (and maintained over time) would be simplifying stuffs for the database's maintainers (LIRs, end-users, or NCC). Regards, Clément Cavadore
Hello, Thank you all very much for the feedback. I would like to provide a few clarifications that address the questions and concerns raised and the support expressed. The aim of this proposal is in line with the core purpose of the RIPE Database to enable effective contact between database users (including network operators) and supporting incident response. As Andrejs rightly noted, this is the foundation on which the database was built. However, the environment in which it operates has changed significantly over the past 30+ years. We now have more than 40,000 resource holders from all industries, spread across the entire world. This diversity regularly leads to confusion about who the actual resource holder is. Something the RIPE NCC sees every day when people contact us because they cannot determine the correct point of contact. Publishing the publicly available company registration number for legal entities would help users identify the correct organisation more reliably (and reduce unnecessary workload for the RIPE NCC). This wouldn't turn the RIPE Database into a business registry, a KYC system, or a tool for legal verification. Those roles remain with national registries. The database would simply provide the pointer that allows users to check the appropriate official registry themselves. In this sense, the proposal enhances the operational purpose of the RIPE Database. Regarding the concerns about security and operational risk, as noted before the full validated legal name of every resource holder is already published today. For many organisations, this is enough to identify them. Actors with malicious intentions typically rely on a broader toolkit rather than solely on the RIPE Database to identify their target. Publishing a registration number would not increase their capabilities. However, it does offer significant benefits to the many users who are less familiar with the registry system and often struggle to identify the correct resource holder, especially in cases of identical or very similar organisation names, or difficulties caused by transliteration. This improves both communication and incident response, as it helps ensure that reports reach the correct resource holder rather than an uninvolved third party with a similar name. As Clément mentioned, there are indeed some rare, special types of legal entities that do not have publicly available registration numbers, but the vast majority do. For natural persons, no registration number would be published, and nothing changes for them. I hope this provides clearer context for the motivation and addresses the concerns raised so far. I look forward to continuing the discussion. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE NCC On 17/11/2025 17:20, Clement Cavadore wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, 2025-11-17 at 12:01 +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
(...) Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome. On the big picture, I think this is a reasonable idea. However, there are so many registration authorities over all the RIPE service region, that it seems quite a cosmetic measure to me.
Additionnaly: Some legal entities do not have registration number (some non-for-profit organizations, in France, for example, have one, some do not have any).
I am unsure that having to make it publicly available (and maintained over time) would be simplifying stuffs for the database's maintainers (LIRs, end-users, or NCC).
Regards,
Clément Cavadore
Hi Marco and WG, I am mostly neutral on this proposal, seems like a reasonable thing to do but doubt it changes the situation that much. However I do have some concerns, primarily around the classification of entities and numbers. This change makes it even more important that the NCC correctly classifies entities and their associated registration numbers. I have seen how the NCC has struggled with this, especially in cases that differ depending on jurisdiction. As an example: in Sweden, partnerships (Handelsbolag) and limited partnerships (Kommanditbolag) are both legal entities, separate from the people or entities behind them. Despite this, I have seen Swedish entities being registered as "John Doe trading as Acme Networking Kommanditbolag" despite that being a legal entity with an organisation number. Meanwhile sole proprietorships in Sweden aren't legal entities so instead they are registered with the person's ID number. On top of this, Swedish personal ID numbers and organisation numbers have the same format. For these reasons I don't currently trust that the NCC would publish the number for the partnership but not for the sole proprietor. I assume there are more cases like this in other countries, so I would like the NCC to look through their data and make sure that they have correctly classified entities before they publish their numbers. If there is a list at the NCC with which kinds of organisations are considered legal entities (and possibly which registry registers them) in different countries then I think it would be good if that could be published. My other concern was with organisations having multiple different identification numbers and making sure to publish the correct one. For example: in the US, most (all?) companies have an EIN with the IRS for federal taxes, this number is distinct to the actual company registration number that they might have at the state level which is the one that should actually be published. This case is possibly rather obvious but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more cases like this in other jurisdictions that are not as obvious and that the NCC hasn't caught yet. Here I would also like to see a list with which numbers are used for which kinds of entities if there is such a list (and if not then I think that there probably should be such a list). -Cynthia On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 12:01 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type.
Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons:
1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult.
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Dear Cynthia, all Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting the challenges our Registry teams face when verifying members and independent resource holders worldwide. The distinguishing between legal entities and natural persons is an essential guiding principle. Partnerships are indeed complex, as their legal status differs between countries (and sometimes even within). I took a quick look at the theoretical Swedish example you mentioned but could not find an real example among current resource holders. If you are aware of a real case, please send it to me directly by email. To keep this thread focused on the proposal, I would prefer not to continue the broader discussion on partnerships here. However, if you believe the RIPE NCC’s understanding of the legal status of your specific partnership should be reviewed, please feel free to contact me directly. To reiterate: if this proposal will be accepted, the RIPE NCC would publish registration numbers only for legal entities. Sole proprietorships would therefore not have a number published, even if they appear in some countries in national business registries. You are also correct that some countries assign multiple identification numbers. Our Registry teams have built quite some experience in determining which number is most appropriate to record. If this proposal is accepted, the implementation will include a review of existing data to ensure consistency and completeness, particularly for countries that have multiple business registries. Thank you to everyone who shared suggestions on this topic, including ideas about publishing supporting information on registration numbers. We will take these into account when assessing feasibility and implementation effort. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE NCC On 21/11/2025 11:45, Cynthia Revström wrote:
Hi Marco and WG,
I am mostly neutral on this proposal, seems like a reasonable thing to do but doubt it changes the situation that much.
However I do have some concerns, primarily around the classification of entities and numbers.
This change makes it even more important that the NCC correctly classifies entities and their associated registration numbers. I have seen how the NCC has struggled with this, especially in cases that differ depending on jurisdiction.
As an example: in Sweden, partnerships (Handelsbolag) and limited partnerships (Kommanditbolag) are both legal entities, separate from the people or entities behind them. Despite this, I have seen Swedish entities being registered as "John Doe trading as Acme Networking Kommanditbolag" despite that being a legal entity with an organisation number. Meanwhile sole proprietorships in Sweden aren't legal entities so instead they are registered with the person's ID number. On top of this, Swedish personal ID numbers and organisation numbers have the same format. For these reasons I don't currently trust that the NCC would publish the number for the partnership but not for the sole proprietor.
I assume there are more cases like this in other countries, so I would like the NCC to look through their data and make sure that they have correctly classified entities before they publish their numbers. If there is a list at the NCC with which kinds of organisations are considered legal entities (and possibly which registry registers them) in different countries then I think it would be good if that could be published.
My other concern was with organisations having multiple different identification numbers and making sure to publish the correct one. For example: in the US, most (all?) companies have an EIN with the IRS for federal taxes, this number is distinct to the actual company registration number that they might have at the state level which is the one that should actually be published. This case is possibly rather obvious but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more cases like this in other jurisdictions that are not as obvious and that the NCC hasn't caught yet. Here I would also like to see a list with which numbers are used for which kinds of entities if there is such a list (and if not then I think that there probably should be such a list).
-Cynthia
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 12:01 PM Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type.
Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons:
1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult.
Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities.
Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries.
Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope.
Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome.
Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/db-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
On 25 Nov 2025, at 11:51, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote: [..] To reiterate: if this proposal will be accepted, the RIPE NCC would publish registration numbers only for legal entities. Sole proprietorships would therefore not have a number published, even if they appear in some countries in national business registries.
Could one then at least mark them as 'other' or similar? Possibly a 'reg-type: company' 'reg-type: personal' would be one way to do that, possibly with other variants like 'reg-type: foundation', though then it becomes a big free text field likely ;) Adding that demonstrates that that object does not have a direct "company registry number" but still shows that the object is up-to-date to the latest standards and not an object that has been forgotten and does not get updated. Regards, Jeroen
Hello Jeroen, Thank you for your suggestion. We will keep it in mind as we plan the implementation. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE NCC On 25/11/2025 12:03, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 25 Nov 2025, at 11:51, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote: [..] To reiterate: if this proposal will be accepted, the RIPE NCC would publish registration numbers only for legal entities. Sole proprietorships would therefore not have a number published, even if they appear in some countries in national business registries. Could one then at least mark them as 'other' or similar? Possibly a 'reg-type: company' 'reg-type: personal' would be one way to do that, possibly with other variants like 'reg-type: foundation', though then it becomes a big free text field likely ;)
Adding that demonstrates that that object does not have a direct "company registry number" but still shows that the object is up-to-date to the latest standards and not an object that has been forgotten and does not get updated.
Regards, Jeroen
participants (15)
-
Alex Musin -
Ben Cartwright-Cox -
Clement Cavadore -
Cynthia Revström -
Edward Shryane -
George Michaelson -
Gert Doering -
Jeroen Massar -
Leo Vegoda -
Marco Schmidt -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
Sasha Romijn -
Sergey Myasoedov -
Александр Мусин