- ICANN’s intervention in the AFRINIC dispute has raised concerns over whether it safeguards openness or is aiming for control, against the Mauritian Constitution.
- ICANN’s stances is risks undermining judicial independence and the multistakeholder model.
ICANN under scrutiny
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which manages the global coordination of domain names and IP addresses, is under fire for its involvement in the crisis in the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC). ICANN has long presented as a defender of openness and transparency, but its conduct in the dispute is now viewed as a move to control rather than support inclusive governance.
As the June 2025 elections neared, more unrest broke out when one validity of a power of attorney was challenged, resulting in the cancellation of the entire election. ICANN’s correspondence with the Supreme Court–appointed receiver has been met with sharp criticism. CEO Kurtis Lindqvist threatened to initiate a formal inquiry into AFRINIC’s governance, suggesting that the organisation could be derecognised as Africa’s internet registry. Such moves were perceived as undermining the court’s authority and aligning ICANN with political forces in Mauritius, raising concerns that the independence of regional internet governance could be sacrificed to external pressure.
Also Read: How AFRINIC’s board elections became a political battlefield
Also Read: Why AFRINIC’s fallout has global implications for internet governance
Judicial oversight vs executive authority
Mauritius now finds itself at the centre of a constitutional clash. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed the authority to supervise the registry’s operations, including mandating transparent elections and correcting irregular memberships. However, the Mauritian government, backed by executive orders from the President’s office, has sought to bring AFRINIC under tighter oversight while ICANN’s stance has added fuel to the fire as well.
Letters from ICANN’s CEO, Kurtis Lindqvist, to the official receiver have not only pressed for clarification on membership questions but also threatened inquiries that could result in AFRINIC losing recognition as Africa’s regional registry. To critics, this amounts to ICANN aligning itself with executive interests rather than respecting judicial oversight.
The real issue is not about internet numbers, but about the separation of powers,When ICANN supports executive interference against the court, it undermines democracy itself.
ICANN’s interventions represent a departure from its stated commitment to the multistakeholder model. By implying that AFRINIC could be derecognised if the receiver follows the court rather than ICANN’s direction, the organisation risks setting a precedent that centralises control in California rather than empowering local communities. The accusation of overreach is not limited to AFRINIC. ICANN’s accountability structures give disproportionate power to its board and executives. The AFRINIC case, however, has made those concerns visible in real time.
Also read: AFRINIC launches voter onboarding ahead of board election
Also read: AFRINIC election: 2nd attempt to delay voting fails
A global governance warning
The crisis has implications beyond Africa. Regional internet registries are designed to reflect local needs while contributing to a stable global system. If AFRINIC’s independence is eroded, critics warn, other registries could also find themselves subject to external pressure.
This is a constitutional test case for the internet. If a court’s authority can be overridden by political alliances and international lobbying, then the entire multistakeholder model loses credibility.
For ICANN, the stakes are equally high. Its reputation depends on demonstrating neutrality and respect for community-led governance. If it is perceived as prioritising expediency and executive partnerships over the rule of law, it risks alienating not only African stakeholders but also the broader global internet community.
What comes next
For ICANN, the question is whether it will recalibrate its approach. Will it reinforce the role as the steward of openness, or will it entrench perceptions of centralised control? The coming months are likely to determine whether AFRINIC can be a functional, community-led registry—or a greater consolidation of internet governance power.
