Summary

  • AIS 2026 terms reserve an AFRINIC power to exclude a registrant from the meeting, including chat or other communication channels.
  • The reviewed terms and code page do not name a meeting-specific final decision-maker, reasons record, recusal rule or appeal route.

Article 7.1 of the AIS 2026 Terms and Conditions links expected respectful conduct to an express institutional power. If a registrant does not meet those expectations, AFRINIC says it will apply its Code of Conduct and reserves the right to exclude that person from the meeting, including chat or other forms of communication.

Sources

AFRINIC's public community code material adds important pieces. It tells a person who experiences or witnesses unacceptable behaviour to notify AFRINIC and says event staff can assist. It warns that inappropriate conduct may lead to removal from a meeting or mailing lists. For particular mailing-list contexts, it names enforcement roles: PDWG co-chairs for the RPD list, and the CEO or designated staff for member and community lists.

Those named online roles do not answer every meeting question. Across the two reviewed pages, the AIS 2026 exclusion chain does not identify who makes a final meeting decision, what record of reasons is produced, how a conflict of interest is handled, or whether an affected registrant can seek reconsideration. The pages also do not distinguish an immediate protective step from a final sanction.

This absence is not evidence that anyone has been excluded improperly, that reports are ignored, or that no internal incident procedure exists. A safety response may need to be immediate and confidential. The narrower governance point is that the public rule makes the sanction legible without making its meeting-specific authorization and review path equally legible.

That imbalance affects more than the person reported. Complainants and witnesses need a safe intake and predictable protection. Respondents need to know who decides and on what procedural basis. Other participants need confidence that standards are enforced consistently without turning confidential incidents into public spectacle. Organisers bear the work of documenting a process and managing conflicts, but clearer roles can also reduce improvised decisions.

The smallest remedy is a compact meeting-enforcement protocol. It should name the confidential intake channel, the role authorized to impose interim measures, the role that makes a final decision, the approach to conflicts and recusals, the form of reasons given to affected people, the record retained, and a proportionate reconsideration route. It can protect identities and still publish the procedure.