Calls grow for a clean break in APNIC governance

Calls grow for a clean break in APNIC governance is profiled by BTW Media because published evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• Lu Heng argues APNIC’s governance structure has long concentrated power and undermined member accountability
• He urges leadership change and a fundamental reset rather than incremental reform

Lu Heng is the chief executive of LARUS Limited and founder of the LARUS Foundation, with experience across internet infrastructure, IP address markets and global internet governance.

Lu Heng challenges APNIC’s governance foundations

In his analysis, Lu Heng focuses on APNIC’s historical governance arrangements, particularly the concentration of legal and operational power in the role of the Director General. He notes that for many years, APNIC operated under a structure in which a single individual effectively held ownership-like authority, a setup Lu describes as incompatible with the principles of a member-based, bottom-up organisation.

According to Lu, this concentration of power weakened internal checks and balances and reduced meaningful oversight by the broader membership. While APNIC has since announced governance changes intended to separate executive authority from legal control, Lu argues these steps came too late and fail to address the loss of trust accumulated over years of opaque decision-making.

Lu also questions the accountability of those who designed, defended or benefited from the previous structure. He contends that genuine reform requires not only new rules but also leadership responsibility, warning that allowing the same figures to remain in control risks repeating past failures under a different framework.

Beyond leadership, Lu highlights structural barriers faced by APNIC members across the region. He points to Australia’s legal and geographic setting as limiting accessibility for many members, particularly those from developing economies, citing visa restrictions, travel costs and legal complexity. In contrast, he suggests jurisdictions such as Singapore may better support a truly member-driven non-profit model.

Also read: APNIC 60 brings internet governance and policy reform to Da Nang in September
Also read: APNIC 60 workshops kick off in Da Nang

Governance legitimacy underpins internet stability

Lu Heng’s critique goes beyond APNIC itself, touching on broader concerns about legitimacy within the global internet governance system. Regional Internet Registries play a critical role in managing IP address resources that underpin global connectivity. When trust in their governance erodes, the consequences extend to operators, policymakers and end users.

Lu warns that incremental reform risks normalising flawed governance rather than correcting it. Without a decisive break from past structures, he argues, APNIC may struggle to rebuild confidence among members who increasingly question whether their voices influence decision-making.

His call for a clean break reflects a wider frustration within technical communities about accountability in institutions that exercise significant power but operate with limited external scrutiny. As debates over registry governance intensify globally, Lu’s intervention underscores the growing demand for transparency, regional fairness and genuine member control.

Whether APNIC responds with deeper reform or maintains its current course, Lu Heng’s critique adds pressure to an already sensitive governance debate, one that may shape how authority and trust are defined in internet infrastructure organisations in the years ahead.