Summary

  • AFRINIC's second consultation on its proposed amended Constitution opened on 4 August and closes on 21 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC; the draft is not operative.
  • Article 9.8 would let at least two-thirds of all directors then in office revoke the Nomination Committee for a material failure that has compromised, or is likely to compromise, an election.
  • Revocation would stop NomCom immediately, require the Board to appoint a replacement and cancel and recommence the entire election unless a competent court orders otherwise.
  • The draft requires written allegations, a reasonable response opportunity, consideration of the response, stated reasons and prompt publication. Those are real safeguards.
  • It does not specify independent approval before cancellation takes effect, an automatic stay, a member review route, fixed restart deadlines, preservation of completed election work or liability for an erroneous restart.

One resolution would pull three levers at once

The most consequential sentence in AFRINIC's new election design is not about a ballot. It is about who may erase one.

Article 9.8 of the Constitution draft published for consultation on 4 August would give the Board an express power to revoke the Nomination Committee. The threshold is at least two-thirds of all directors then in office. The Board must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that NomCom materially failed to follow the Constitution or Election Process in a way that compromised, or is likely to compromise, the integrity, fairness or lawfulness of an election.

The result is automatic and broad. NomCom stops work immediately. The Board appoints a new committee as soon as reasonably practicable. The election is cancelled and recommenced in its entirety, unless a competent court orders otherwise.

That bundles three powers into one vote: judging the gatekeeper, removing it and resetting the contest through which members choose directors. No use is reported because the draft has not taken effect.

Due process appears, but the judge remains the interested Board

The draft is not a blank cheque. Before acting, the Board must send written allegations to NomCom, allow a reasonable opportunity to respond and consider its representations. The resolution must explain the reasons and the Company must publish it promptly, subject to lawful confidentiality and data-protection redactions. Elsewhere, the draft says NomCom is independent in nomination and election matters even though it is administratively accountable to the Board for budget and support.

Those provisions are meaningful improvements over an unwritten dismissal. The operative 2020 Constitution says NomCom reports to the Board and works under Board-prescribed guidelines. It contains no comparable collective-revocation clause, no two-thirds threshold and no automatic restart rule. The draft also limits candidate assessment to listed criteria rather than preserving an unlimited ability to invent new qualifications.

But notice and a response are not the same as independent adjudication. Under Article 9.8, the Board frames the allegation, evaluates the reply, votes on whether the threshold is met, removes the committee it appointed and receives the power to appoint the replacement. The institution whose composition depends on elections would control the switch that discards an election.

That conflict does not prove abuse. It shows why an external brake is needed before the reset.

The court exception arrives after the cancellation trigger

The phrase “unless a court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise” is an important safeguard. It recognises that the Board's conclusion is not beyond legal review. It also leaves unanswered how the safeguard becomes usable at election speed.

The clause does not identify who may apply, what evidence the Board must lodge, how quickly a court challenge must be heard or whether cancellation pauses automatically while a candidate, NomCom member or member organisation seeks relief. It does not allocate legal costs. Without a stay, the old committee can be out, the election cancelled and a replacement process moving while a challenger is still arranging representation.

The same timing gap appears after revocation. “As soon as reasonably practicable” sets no date for a new NomCom. The draft gives no deadline for the restarted election to begin or finish. Nor does it say which nominations, eligibility findings, voter registrations, audit logs, fees or ballot work survive a command to recommence “in its entirety.”

These are not drafting ornaments. They decide whether court review can prevent harm or merely describe it later.

Sources

Further reading