- Observers question whether the governance model at AFRINIC truly reflects community control or has concentrated power in a small group
- Broader concerns about governance and legitimacy at AFRINIC raise questions about accountability and the future stability of Africa’s internet resource management
“Over time, policies and procedures have grown so complex and opaque that they primarily benefit a small circle of insiders who understand how to navigate—and shape—the system.”
——Lu Heng, CEO at Cloud Innovation, CEO at LARUS Ltd, Founder of LARUS Foundation.
Governance disputes and legal turmoil deepen concerns over AFRINIC’s accountability
The African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), one of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) responsible for allocating Internet number resources in Africa, has become emblematic of broader criticisms about how internet governance operates in practice.
In a detailed commentary, Lu Heng, a figure with direct experience in RIR governance, argues that the widely accepted notion of “community ownership” in RIRs has in reality enabled a concentration of power among a small circle of insiders rather than genuine broad-based engagement from the community. According to Heng, policy and governance processes have become complex and opaque, benefiting those who can navigate the system while leaving many ordinary members disengaged and unaware of their voting rights or influence.
These concerns over governance at AFRINIC have coincided with a series of institutional crises that have shaken confidence in its operations. The registry has faced multiple legal challenges, including protracted disputes with Cloud Innovation Ltd dating back to 2020 over IPv4 address allocations.
These disputes ultimately led to the dissolution of AFRINIC’s board by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in 2022 and operation under court-appointed receivership. A planned election in June 2025 was annulled amid allegations of procedural irregularities, including contested ballots and questions about electoral integrity, further undermining trust in AFRINIC’s ability to self-govern.
Also Read: Data sovereignty’s practical reality: Why law matters more than localisation
Also Read: Breaking the centralised choke point: Why IP addresses must be decentralised
ICANN and peers raise concerns as doubts grow over AFRINIC governance
External actors have also raised concerns. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which recognises AFRINIC as the RIR for Africa, warned in mid-2025 that serious governance issues could prompt a compliance review and potentially jeopardise its recognition if dysfunctions are not resolved. The Number Resource Organization (NRO), which encompasses all five RIRs, has echoed the need for transparent and accountable election processes, emphasising that upholding trust in governance is crucial for the stability of the global internet number resource system.
Heng’s critique goes further, questioning whether the rhetoric of community-driven governance hides a deeper philosophical flaw. The idea that no single entity owns IP addresses and that all stakeholders collectively steward them is, in theory, meant to distribute authority across a wide network of operators. In practice, however, this model may mask centralised decision-making by a narrow group of participants and staff, leaving many resource holders without meaningful influence.
Lessons from AFRINIC highlight risks in the RIR governance model
The issues at AFRINIC matter beyond the organisation itself because Functional, accountable governance of internet number resources underpins the stability of digital infrastructure across Africa. If community governance processes are seen as inaccessible or controlled by insiders, confidence in the system may erode, potentially impacting network operators who depend on fair and transparent resource allocation.
The debate also raises broader questions about the “community ownership” model used by all RIRs. Is it genuinely inclusive and participatory, or does it simply provide a veneer of democracy that conceals concentrated control? Heng calls for structural reforms that would strengthen the rights of member organisations and ensure that governance is not merely procedural theatre.
Furthermore, AFRINIC’s struggles have drawn attention from global internet governance bodies, which underscores how regional governance failures can have international implications for internet number resource management. ICANN’s warnings and the NRO’s statements illustrate that when one RIR’s internal mechanisms falter, the effects ripple through the wider system, affecting trust and operational continuity.
