Summary

  • AFRINIC's second consultation on its proposed amended Constitution runs from 4 August to 21 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC; the draft is not operative.
  • Draft Article 8.2 retains the present open-ended ground allowing the Board, acting reasonably and in good faith, to determine another event or ground for terminating Resource Membership.
  • Article 8.6 would add material safeguards: written delegation, continuing Board accountability, a published process, notice and response where applicable, an impartial appeal and a public decision register.
  • The draft nevertheless says an independent external legal opinion is still awaited on the Board's authority to terminate membership.
  • It specifies neither an independent appeal body nor a fixed review clock, automatic stay, restoration rule or deadline for publishing a termination decision.

The unresolved sentence sits beneath Article 8

AFRINIC is asking members to comment on a termination system before its own draft has closed the legal question at the system's foundation.

The Bylaws Review Committee's second constitutional consultation opened on 4 August. The proposed Article 8 carries a rationale promising a clearer, fairer and more transparent framework. Directly below that rationale, however, the document says an independent external legal opinion is “presently awaited” on the Board's authority to terminate membership and that the explanation will be updated after the advice is received and considered.

That note is not a minor editorial placeholder. Termination is the switch between institutional status and practical consequence. Draft Article 8.5 says a Resource Member, on termination, must return resources allocated to it in accordance with the applicable Registration Services Agreement. The draft therefore connects the disputed authority to a contractual pathway affecting the recognition on which networks build operations.

The document is not in force. AFRINIC says the Committee will review comments, arrange an independent external legal review and send recommendations to the Board. Only a Board-approved proposal would then go to members at a Special General Members Meeting. Consultation describes a route to a future text; it does not itself settle who lawfully holds the power under examination.

The open-ended ground is old, not new

Accuracy requires an uncomfortable comparison. Draft Article 8.2 does not invent the broadest termination ground.

The current Constitution already says Resource Membership terminates upon another event or ground that the Board, acting reasonably and in good faith, determines from time to time. It also already lists loss of admission or policy compliance, failure to follow the Constitution or a Board rule, and sums left unpaid for three months. Current Article 8.5 already requires resources to be returned on termination.

The draft carries those grounds forward. It refines Article 8.5 by making the return subject to the terms of the RSA. That makes the exact signed agreement important: AFRINIC's live member guidance says Resource Membership is governed by the RSA and Constitution, while NRS's POA Start Pack tells counsel to examine the binding version, the triggers, remedy and continuity timing. No single unverified public form should be treated as every member's contract.

Reporting this as a newly created resource-return power would be false. Reporting it as a settled, modernised termination code would also be premature. The real news is a retained open-ended ground surrounded by new procedure while legal authority remains under review.

The safeguards are real

Proposed Article 8.6 is substantially more specific than the present constitutional text. A delegation to the chief executive or another officer would have to be written and could not cover termination of a Registered Member. The Board would set limitations, conditions, procedures, reporting and oversight, but would retain ultimate responsibility for lawful, fair and proper exercise.

AFRINIC would also have to publish an accessible process identifying the grounds, procedural steps and decision-maker. The process must include notice and an opportunity to respond where applicable, plus a fair, impartial and timely appeal. A public register would identify the member, effective date, governing provision and concise grounds, with lawful protections for court restrictions, confidentiality and personal data.

These are not cosmetic additions. Written delegation can expose who exercises the power. A named decision-maker reduces institutional ambiguity. An appeal creates a route beyond explanation. A decision register makes patterns visible. Any serious critique must credit all four.

Sources

Further reading