- ICANN CEO’s rejection of lawful proxy voting raises concerns about exclusion of marginalised AFRINIC stakeholders.
- Legal POAs were used to expand participation, but scrutiny over their volume risks reinforcing entrenched power.
Why Lindqvist’s stance jeopardises inclusion
Kurt Lindqvist’s opposition to the use of legal powers of attorney (POAs) in the June 2025 AFRINIC election represents a political posture that could undermine participatory governance. Hundreds of AFRINIC members had relied on proxies to ensure their votes were counted. But in a letter to the Official Receiver, Kurt Lindqvist is questioned the validity of this lawful mechanism, suggesting it might compromise election integrity.
Importantly, no bylaws or legal provisions were cited as being violated. The concern was not legal—it was numerical. The accumulation of proxies was portrayed as a risk, even though the use of POAs is common in shareholder-style governance frameworks across the globe.
This signals discomfort with a shift in participation. Rather than supporting broader enfranchisement, ICANN’s leadership appears wary of what increased involvement from previously marginalised stakeholders might mean. The issue, it seems, is not misuse—but rather, disruption of long-standing hierarchies.
A procedural regime, not faulty POAs
When a court-appointed receiver annulled the election based on a single disputed proxy, the decision rested on procedural grounds—not a rejection of POAs themselves. Yet ICANN’s CEO Kurt Lindqvist swiftly raised compliance concerns, steering the conversation away from inclusiveness and toward regulatory enforcement.
One AFRINIC resource holder noted that POAs offered a legal, trusted means for safe participation. However, leadership messaging cast doubt on their legitimacy—without evidence of widespread abuse. That ambiguity has had a chilling effect on a tool essential for members facing intimidation or limited access.
Also read: AFRINIC election lessons from proxy voting chaos
Also read: AFRINIC’s governance in crisis: Is liquidation the only legal path forward?
Proxy limits threaten equity
AFRINIC’s own bylaws never capped electronic voting or remote proxies—only physical, in-person proxies were previously limited. By shifting scrutiny toward those exercising lawful POA rights, leadership risks entrenching control instead of promoting equity.
Critically, the emphasis on the volume of proxies distracts from more pressing issues—such as intimidation and exclusion tactics long faced by dissenting voices. POAs helped level the playing field. Curtailing their use now reintroduces barriers.
Leadership must prioritise inclusion
ICANN, as a custodian of global internet governance, has a responsibility to enable—not limit—participatory processes. Yet the current posture of its CEO reflects a centralised view of authority, at odds with multistakeholder principles.
Proxy voting is not the problem. The real issue lies in governance systems that have historically excluded marginalised voices. Leadership should address procedural clarity, support minority protection mechanisms, and ensure harassment is tackled—not restrict voting tools with no proven abuse.
For ICANN to uphold its values, it must shift focus: from managing power dynamics to strengthening representation. That means enabling lawful POAs, not undermining them—especially in regions where access and equity are still evolving.
