Internet governance debate: Why registries must not become enforcers

Internet governance debate: Why registries must not become enforcers is profiled by BTW Media because published evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• Registries are urged to stay administrative, not punitive, in managing internet resources.
• Experts warn that expanding registry power could harm trust and threaten free use of critical infrastructure.

“A registry’s role is administrative, not punitive. Confusing the two is one of the most dangerous mistakes in Internet governance.“

——Lu Heng, CEO at Cloud Innovation, CEO at LARUS Ltd, Founder of LARUS Foundation.

Lu Heng Warns Against Expanding Enforcement Powers in Internet Governance

On 17 September 2025, internet governance analyst Lu Heng published an argument explaining why registries — the organisations that record who holds certain critical internet resources — should not take on enforcement roles beyond their administrative mandate.

His commentary, titled “Why registries must never become enforcers”, emphasises the importance of preserving registries’ neutral function as record-keepers rather than judges or punishers in disputes over internet number resources such as IP addresses and Autonomous System numbers.

According to Lu Heng, a registry’s proper role is to maintain accurate and reliable records of assignments and transfers. Any attempt by these bodies to adjudicate disputes, punish network holders, or revoke access based on behaviour would exceed their administrative charter and could undermine the trust on which global infrastructure depends.

He argues that enforcement and punitive measures should remain the domain of sovereign legal systems — such as courts, regulators, and governments — with clear authority and due process, rather than being delegated to private or community-led registry organisations. 

Lu Heng highlights a fundamental distinction between two categories often conflated in internet governance discussions:
• Community platforms and forums, where moderation and participation rules can apply, and
• Number-resource administration, where a registry’s function is purely operational and non-discretionary. 

He warns that treating an address registry like a social-media moderation forum risks eroding trust. A registry that revokes essential services of policy disagreements or community pressures would be performing a role that no credible governance framework supports.

Also read: Data sovereignty’s practical reality: Why law matters more than localisation
Also read: Calls grow for overhaul of internet governance amid centralisation concerns

Internet Governance Tensions Grow as Lu Heng Questions Expanding Registry Enforcement Powers

The governance of internet infrastructure is a subject of growing debate as digital systems become ever more central to economic and societal functions. Registries are part of the core architecture that ensures the internet runs smoothly and reliably. Their neutrality is widely considered essential for cross-border interoperability and fairness, particularly when dealing with organisations and individuals in diverse legal environments. 

Heng’s argument raises critical questions about how power and responsibility should be balanced in managing resources that underpin the global internet. Granting enforcement powers to registries could create unpredictability and damage confidence among network operators and users. Critics contend that registries lack sovereign authority and due-process safeguards, making them ill-suited to act as judge, jury, and enforcer. 

Observers also note that debates over registry power intersect with wider concerns around freedom of expression and content control in domain enforcement. Civil liberties groups have warned that proactive monitoring and takedown policies — if exercised without transparency or appeal mechanisms — could have chilling effects on speech. 

Defenders of a limited administrative model argue that enforcement should remain with entities that are accountable under law and equipped with mechanisms for appeal and due process. They suggest that preserving the registry’s core role supports stability and predictability. Heng underscores that clarity about functions and limits is essential in a governance ecosystem where technical systems, private actors, and sovereign law all interact.