Summary

  • AFRINIC's SGMM notice proposed only that the 2021 audited statements be “received and noted” and expressly said no approval was required under section 115(5) of Mauritius's Companies Act.
  • The later eight-page draft minutes say the chair asked members to “receive, note and adopt” the accounts. They report 99% Yes and 1% No.
  • The draft gives no raw Yes, No, abstention, invalid-ballot, turnout or eligible-voter totals. Its 191-name attendance annex is not a ballot ledger.
  • The document remains marked DRAFT. AFRINIC later proposed approving it at the 25 June AGMM, but the frozen public record contains no result of that resolution.
  • Even a valid adoption of accounts would not, by itself, establish transaction-specific authority for the underlying US$633,807 legal-fee line or the separately reported US$1,000-per-hour engagement.

The decisive word appeared after notice

AFRINIC told members exactly what its 14 April Special General Members' Meeting was for. The 23 March notice allotted ten minutes to the 2021 audited financial statements. Proposed Resolution #1 said the statements, directors' report and auditor's report would be “received and noted.”

Note 5 was more explicit: section 115(5) required no approval in the circumstances; attendees would receive and note the accounts “for procedural purposes.” The current Mauritius Companies Act supports that narrow description. Where financial statements fail at an annual meeting, section 115(5) says they shall be presented at a further special meeting called by the Board. It does not say the second meeting must approve them.

The draft record of what happened is materially different. It says the Board chair requested a resolution to “receive, note and adopt” the 2021 statements. Resolution SGMM202604.01 repeats the added term. Mark Elkins of Posix Systems proposed it, Rashida Njobdi Umar of Access and Content seconded it, and the draft says 99% of poll participants voted Yes while 1% voted No.

“Adopted” is not typographical decoration. AFRINIC's own bylaws give Registered and Resource Members the right to adopt financial statements by ordinary resolution. Moving from receipt to adoption therefore changed the institutional claim carried by the meeting.

The available packet does not establish when the word was added, who first proposed the change, what legal advice supported it or whether voters objected to the difference. Nor does it establish that the change was unlawful. Section 115(5) requires presentation; it does not expressly prohibit other properly notified business. But a meeting notice designed to let members form a reasoned judgment cannot be treated as equivalent to a materially broader resolution without publishing how that change occurred.

A percentage without its denominator

The contrast with 2022 is stark. The draft minutes of that year's AGMM record 39 Yes votes and 41 No votes on the same accounts. They say the resolution failed after members called previous answers wholly unsatisfactory and raised concerns about the financial figures.

The 2026 draft supplies only percentages. It does not report the number of eligible voting members, credentials issued, poll participants, ballots cast, abstentions, invalid ballots or raw Yes and No votes. Its attendance annex names 191 Resource Members and designated representatives, but attendance does not show eligibility, participation in the poll or a one-member-one-vote result. Several representatives also appear beside multiple organisations.

AFRINIC's bylaws say that when a poll is taken each eligible member has one vote. A reproducible result should therefore expose the member-level denominator. “99%” may accurately describe the votes cast; the frozen evidence contains no basis to say otherwise. It also cannot reveal whether the electorate was 100, 191 or some other number.

Heng Lu's Note 73 supplies the governing test: attendance is not mandate. A percentage becomes evidence of internal authorisation only when the principals, eligibility rule and ballots can be audited. A landslide headline without those elements asks the number to do constitutional work the record cannot support.

The minutes are still a draft

The eight-page PDF is visibly watermarked DRAFT. Its chair and secretary signature lines are blank and undated. It says the meeting opened at 10:12 UTC after counsel confirmed the minimum quorum and closed at 10:52. It records the resolution, proposer, seconder and percentage.

AFRINIC's bylaws say minutes approved by the meeting chair and verified by the Board are prima facie evidence of proceedings. The frozen packet contains no completed signature date or separate verification instrument. AFRINIC's 3 June AGMM notice linked the PDF as “Draft Minutes” and placed their approval in proposed Ordinary Resolution II for 25 June. No published result of that resolution appears in this fact pack.

The correct news verb is therefore “records,” not “proves.” The draft records that an adoption vote occurred. It is not evidence here that the minutes later became final.

Adoption is not a transaction-level acquittal

The SGMM page republishes the questions members raised in 2022. One concerned the difference between US$554,529 in Q4 legal fees and US$633,807 in the audited accounts. AFRINIC's reconciliation assigns US$104,159 of the difference to contingency and US$1,179 to legal fees.

That explains an accounting allocation. It does not identify the engagement, lawyer, hours, rate, invoice, approver, payment authority, proceeding, procurement route or result. A financial statement tells readers how a transaction was reported. It does not automatically prove that the person who commissioned or paid it possessed lawful corporate authority.

NRS made that distinction in its June member action on the 2022-2025 accounts. It argued that members should not allow an accounting vote to become retrospective ratification of disputed engagements, invoices or payments and demanded a transaction-by-transaction authority chain. That is NRS's legal position, not a judgment in this packet.

The distinction is concrete. NRS and BTW separately report a publicly disclosed October 2021 C&A Law engagement letter stating US$1,000 per hour, excluding VAT and disbursements. This briefing does not find that the April resolution validated, ratified or made that engagement lawful. The packet contains no basis for that leap. It shows why the purported current Board and Receiver should expressly disclaim it and publish the underlying approval trail.

Who controls closure

The current authority structure controls every stage of this record: the Board called the SGMM and issued the proposed text; its chair requested the operative resolution; the company produced the draft; and chair approval plus Board verification form part of the bylaws' evidential pathway. The Board and Receiver had already said in October 2025 that they were working closely while the Board reviewed the appropriate SGMM course.

That concentration does not prove abuse. It does make independent records essential. Note 41 directs attention behind voting ceremony to control over capital and procedure. Note 32 identifies the agency problem when institutional actors can spend member money without bearing the downside. Note 52 requires liability, remedy and external discipline wherever registry decisions carry consequential risk.

Here the danger is institutional closure by vocabulary. “Adopted” can be repeated later as though it settled the arguments beneath the accounts. It did not. At most, the draft says poll participants adopted the financial statements. It does not adjudicate each legal engagement, waive a breach, establish value for money or release any director, officer, Receiver, adviser or payee.

LARUS's operator analysis explains why this is not bookkeeping theatre. RIR governance choices can reach infrastructure and asset continuity. Member-funded expenditure also changes the resources available to operate the registry. A procedural shortcut around financial accountability therefore shifts risk to the members and operators who fund and depend on the institution.

What AFRINIC must publish

The narrow remedy is a complete vote and authority record. AFRINIC should publish the final approved SGMM minutes; the exact resolution displayed before voting; when, why and by whom “adopt” was added; eligible-voter and credential totals; ballots cast; raw Yes, No, abstention and invalid counts; the poll audit; objections; and the result of the 25 June minutes-approval resolution.

It should also state that adopting financial statements does not ratify any underlying engagement, invoice or payment, then publish the transaction-specific authority for material legal expenditure: resolutions, delegations, budgets, invoices, approvals, Receiver instructions where applicable, payments and outcomes.

The bounded conclusion is already damaging. AFRINIC notified members of a no-approval presentation, yet its own draft minutes record a broader adoption vote. The draft offers an emphatic percentage without the numbers needed to audit it and has not been shown here to be final. Until the purported Board and Receiver close those gaps, “adopted” is a contested record entry—not a substitute for proof.

Sources