- In June 2025, AFRINIC’s board election was annulled, undermining governance and triggering legal disputes.
- Cloud Innovation has demanded AFRINIC’s wind-up, while a new document from Kurt Lindqvist intensifies debate.
Election overturned and governance breakdown
In June 2025, the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), Africa’s regional internet registry responsible for managing IP address resources, abruptly announced the suspension and annulment of its board election. While the official explanation framed this as a procedural safeguard, members viewed it as a severe breach of trust. The election was meant to restore credibility after years of governance paralysis, but its cancellation instead confirmed the perception of a registry in collapse. For many, this was not simply a technical adjustment, but a direct rejection of members’ democratic rights.
The annulment also occurred against a backdrop of financial distress and judicial intervention. Court-appointed receivers had already become entangled in AFRINIC’s operations, raising concerns that a member-driven institution had been reduced to one dictated by politics and legal wrangling. For an organisation accredited under global Number Resource Organization (NRO) standards, such developments highlighted a governance breakdown that many consider irreparable.
Cloud Innovation’s response and demands
As AFRINIC’s third-largest member, Cloud Innovation Ltd. quickly responded to the election crisis with a public call for dissolution. In July, the company filed for AFRINIC’s formal wind-up, arguing that the registry’s dysfunction had reached a point where it could no longer be trusted to manage Africa’s IP resources. Their position stressed that this was not about private disputes, but about safeguarding regional internet stability from the consequences of failed governance.
Alongside its petition, Cloud Innovation urged the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the NRO to immediately recognise or establish a successor regional registry. The company insisted that continuity of IP allocation is critical for operators, enterprises, and governments across the continent. In presenting itself both as a victim of AFRINIC’s failures and as a reform advocate, Cloud Innovation positioned its intervention as a necessary reset to protect Africa’s internet future.
Also Read: AFRINIC community raises concern over Smart Africa data breach
Also Read: Who really controls AFRINIC? Exploring stakeholder influence
Lindqvist and the new governance document
Amid the fallout, ICANN’s chief executive Kurt Lindqvist — a long-standing figure in global internet governance — became a lightning rod for controversy. He issued letters to AFRINIC’s receivers raising compliance concerns and pointing to the possibility that AFRINIC could lose recognition under ICP-2 criteria. Many within the community viewed this as an extraordinary intervention, questioning whether an external figure should wield such influence while African stakeholders remained deeply divided.
The controversy grew sharper when Lindqvist introduced a new document related to ICP-2 that effectively gave ICANN broader powers to de-recognise regional internet registries. Critics argued that such a shift went far beyond ICANN’s traditional neutral role, granting it the authority to override regional autonomy. For African internet governance, the timing of this move was particularly sensitive, feeding into anxieties that local decision-making was being steadily eroded by external agendas.
Africa’s governance crossroads
With the annulled election, the petition for dissolution, and Lindqvist’s intervention, AFRINIC’s future has been thrust into uncertainty. Supporters of Cloud Innovation insist that the registry is beyond repair and must be wound up to preserve integrity. Others argue that dissolution would set a dangerous precedent, and that only strict adherence to law and membership decisions can prevent chaos. The community now faces a deep internal split that threatens to paralyse regional governance.
Legal proceedings in Mauritius are ongoing, with courts expected to weigh in on AFRINIC’s fate in the months ahead. Yet even with judicial clarity, the broader dilemma remains unresolved: how to ensure the lawful management of Africa’s IP resources without undermining sovereignty and trust. The stakes are far-reaching, touching not only infrastructure and connectivity, but also the principle of bottom-up governance that underpins the global internet model. Whatever the outcome, Africa’s internet ecosystem will bear the lasting scars of this crisis.
