- AFRINIC members may seek international arbitration to challenge the annulled 2025 board elections.
- Arbitration could pressure ICANN and the NRO to act, reinforcing the need for a trusted new registry for Africa.
Why is arbitration being considered
The contested 2025 AFRINIC elections represent more than an internal governance dispute — they may now trigger international arbitration mechanisms, as a region’s critical IP registry descends into institutional failure. With AFRINIC already a failed registry wracked by governance crisis and eroded trust, those wronged — especially members with large number resources — may seek recourse beyond national courts to assert rights and push for a necessary reset in Africa’s IP ecosystem.
It is not automatic that an election within a nonprofit association can be submitted to international arbitration — but under certain conditions, there is a plausible legal path. International arbitration experts, including practitioners under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), note that corporate and governance disputes are increasingly being handled through arbitration when parties consent.
Also read: The case for community representation on AFRINIC’s Board
Legal basis and global standards
Arbitration is fundamentally consensual. For an AFRINIC election to be challengeable by arbitration, there must be a pre‑existing clause in AFRINIC’s bylaws, membership agreements, or contracts providing for arbitration of internal governance or election disputes, or a post‑dispute agreement (compromis) between the parties to submit that specific dispute to arbitration.
Without such provisions, tribunals may refuse jurisdiction, but membership agreements are often drafted under Mauritian law, which recognizes arbitration clauses under its International Arbitration Act. Even with consent, some legal systems draw a line between public regulatory obligations and private disputes. However, arbitration specialists point out that shareholder and board election disputes have been successfully arbitrated in commercial contexts, and AFRINIC’s case, involving cross‑border digital infrastructure, could fit this model.
Mauritius is a recognized hub for international arbitration and a signatory to the New York Convention, which facilitates the global enforcement of arbitral awards. This means that any resulting decision could be enforceable internationally, a key factor in pressuring AFRINIC and its court-appointed receiver. While no RIR election has been arbitrated, there is precedent for arbitration in internet governance disputes. ICANN has faced Independent Review Processes (IRPs) where panels found it acted inconsistently with its bylaws, setting a strong benchmark for external accountability. Such precedents show that governance failures can be tested before neutral, international panels.
Also read: AFRINIC election: Voter fraud uncovered as ECom member threatens to resign
Strategic implications for Africa’s internet future
For example, AFRINIC’s biggest members have a credible claim of direct injury from the flawed elections, including invalid vote discarding and unverified proxy disputes. Arbitration would allow them to argue for a remedy — from a recount to a binding order for a new election — under neutral oversight. The annulment of the 2025 vote and the discarding of valid ballots can be framed as breaches of AFRINIC’s bylaws and membership rights, supporting the argument that the dispute is commercial in nature and thus arbitrable.
ICANN’s recent compliance review and its push for AFRINIC to conduct “credible elections” can be presented as overreach. Arbitration could become a forum for contesting ICANN’s influence and reinforcing the principle of bottom‑up governance, a cornerstone of global internet policy.
Seeking international arbitration would signal to the global internet governance community that AFRINIC’s governance system is irreparably broken. It would pressure ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) to act and consider appointing a new regional internet registry to protect Africa’s IP resources. It would also establish a precedent for independent review of registry elections worldwide, enhancing transparency and trust. Pursuing arbitration is not only legally possible but strategically powerful. It underscores the severity of AFRINIC’s governance crisis and could catalyze the creation of a new, trusted registry for Africa. Even if tribunals or courts ultimately resist, the very act of filing would highlight the untenable situation — strengthening the call for AFRINIC’s dissolution and the urgent appointment of a replacement registry.
