Summary

  • AFRINIC's second consultation was advertised as a provision-by-provision review of the existing text, proposed amendment and rationale, open until 21 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC.
  • The 53-page draft linked after that deadline still left Article 24.1 empty except for a note that a governing-law and dispute-resolution insertion and rationale would follow external legal advice.
  • Any material Article 24 text added now needs a dated redline, a reasoned disposition of comments and focused visibility before Board approval and a member vote. Consultation, legal advice, approval and authorization are four different acts.

The only operative word was Note

The gap is unusually easy to verify.

The consultation announcement preserved by ZANOG says participants could compare, section by section, the existing constitutional provision, the corresponding proposed amendment and the rationale, then comment on each provision. It links the complete proposed amended Constitution and sets the window from 4 August to 21 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC.

The file still linked on 22 August was a 581,242-byte, 53-page PDF last modified on 4 August. On page 43, Article 24 is headed GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Article 24.1 contains no proposed governing law, court, arbitration route or procedure. It contains a bracketed note saying external legal opinion and advice have been sought and that the proposed insertion and rationale will be updated after that advice is received and considered. The rationale section on page 53 repeats that it will be updated.

That is not a small missing footnote. It is a missing proposition. A participant could comment on the fact that Article 24 was blank, but could not comment on words that did not yet exist in the public draft.

No evidence reviewed for this article establishes what the advice will say. It may recommend Mauritius law, courts, arbitration, a staged process or something else. A revised clause may already exist outside the linked file. The verified finding is narrower: the announced comment deadline passed while the public artifact offered for clause-level review still had no operative Article 24 text.

Law and forum are not one choice

The heading compresses several decisions.

A 2026 Fasken drafting note explains the general distinction: governing law determines the substantive law applied to rights and obligations, while the seat of arbitration determines the procedural law of an arbitration. The two need not name the same jurisdiction.

AFRINIC's constitution is not the commercial agreement discussed in that note, and the note supplies no AFRINIC-specific answer. It helps identify the questions hidden by the blank page. Which law interprets the constitution? Which court or tribunal hears which dispute? Is arbitration mandatory or optional? What is its seat and procedure? Can a party seek urgent interim relief? Which disputes remain with ordinary courts? What happens to registry records and services while a case is unresolved?

Each answer changes cost, timing, available remedies and the ability to preserve the last reliable state. None can be inferred from the title Dispute Resolution.

The draft now changes custody four times

The announced next steps are not one approval process. They are four distinct custody transfers.

First, the Bylaws Review Committee considers comments and decides which revisions it regards as appropriate. Second, the final draft undergoes an independent external legal review. Third, the Committee submits recommendations to the AFRINIC Board, whose approval is a condition for moving forward. Fourth, AFRINIC members consider the proposed Constitution at a Special General Members Meeting.

CADE's independent account records the same sequence. It also confirms that the consultation interface was meant to expose the existing provision, amendment and rationale for individual comment.

Those roles should not be merged. The Committee drafts and disposes of input. A legal reviewer advises on legal effect and risk. The Board decides whether to present the package. Members supply the corporate authorization if the required resolution passes. A useful opinion is not a vote. A Board decision is not a member decision. Broad participation is not the same thing as the authority to alter the company's constitution.

Heng Lu's Multi-Stakeholder Mirage gives the distinction a precise name: a stakeholder is affected by a decision; a principal authorizes one. Consultation can improve evidence, expose defects and change drafting. It should not be described as adoption.

A new clause needs a new comparison

The repair is procedural and small.

When Article 24 text is ready, publish the complete clause with a version date and a redline against the blank consulted draft. Publish a clause-specific rationale that identifies governing law, forum, scope, procedure, interim relief and the treatment of pending cases. State whether the legal reviewer recommended changes and how the final language responds without disclosing privileged advice that cannot lawfully be published.

Then provide a focused period in which members and affected operators can comment on the actual insertion. The issue is not whether every late edit requires a new general consultation. Article 24 is different because the consultation artifact contained no operative text at all. Showing the first real clause is not repeating the second consultation; it is completing the comparison the consultation promised.

A disposition register would finish the chain. For every material comment, record whether the draft accepted it, rejected it, partly adopted it or treated it as outside scope, with a short reason. That register need not expose personal data. It needs to show how input crossed from the platform into the proposal placed before decision-makers.

The current constitution does not vanish during drafting

The missing clause does not create a legal vacuum by itself.

BTW's long-form review, AFRINIC's Bylaws Before and After Crisis, establishes the temporal baseline: the 2020 constitution remains the operative public text until a lawful replacement is adopted and its effect can be proved. A draft is evidence of proposed change, not of current power.

The same separation applies to technical continuity. Heng Lu's Registry Continuity Fallacy argues that number uniqueness, accurate records, RDAP, Whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and dispute isolation must survive institutional conflict. Preserving those functions does not require treating an unfinished constitutional clause as operative or shielding a corporate decision from review.

Article 24 can strengthen continuity if it identifies a forum without turning a dispute into a service interruption. A case may justify freezing a conflicting alteration while the last verified registry state, valid security objects and unrelated member services continue. The exact design remains to be written. The continuity objective can already be stated.

The deadline produced a measurable next question

The consultation may still have generated useful evidence. The public record reviewed here does not disclose the number, distribution or content of Article 24 comments, so no conclusion about participation or consensus is justified.

The next test is documentary. Does the next public draft contain a complete Article 24? Does it carry a rationale? Can readers see what changed after the 21 August artifact? Is there a disposition record? Did independent legal review occur before the Board saw the package? Is the same reviewed text the one members receive?

If those answers are published, the blank clause becomes a visible drafting stage rather than a hidden mandate transfer. If the first operative version appears only in a Board or meeting package, members will be asked to authorize a provision that the advertised clause-by-clause consultation never contained.

The 21 August deadline did not settle AFRINIC's governing law or dispute route. It made the unfinished part impossible to miss. Article 24 now needs words, reasons, custody and a vote—in that order.

Sources