Member rights vs. Emergency measures: Balancing fairness and expediency

Member rights vs.

• AFRINIC’s annulled June 2025 election cancelled valid votes, sparking claims of “unworkable” governance.
• Emergency online-only voting aims to restore order but sidelines members, raising concerns over disenfranchisement.

In the wake of AFRINIC’s annulled June 2025 board election—cancelled over a single disputed proxy vote that “silenced hundreds of valid votes” and set an unworkable precedent—the clash between protecting member rights and ensuring procedural expediency has become glaringly evident.

Member rights under attack

Fair governance demands that all members be able to vote, including through trusted proxies or Powers of Attorney (PoAs). Yet, to prevent further alleged abuses, the court-appointed Receiver has banned both proxies and PoAs, shifting entirely to online voting. Although intended to shore up integrity, this move effectively disenfranchises those unable to vote online—some for valid reasons—thus violating established bylaws and undermining “bottom-up internet governance.” Cloud Innovation has sharply criticised the Receiver for overstepping those bounds.

Also read: AFRINIC election: 2nd attempt to delay voting fails

Emergency measures to restore trust

Proponents argue such extraordinary steps are necessary to break the electoral paralysis. ICANN and the NRO have raised serious concerns about AFRINIC’s governance collapse and flagged the election—for good reason—as putting AFRINIC’s credibility “in jeopardy”. A swift, court-supervised online-only vote may seem the only path forward to reestablish a functioning Board—but it comes at the cost of broad member participation and risks sidelining the very stakeholders the system should serve.

Also read: AFRINIC launches voter onboarding ahead of board election

Balancing the scales

This situation highlights a painful trade-off. On one hand, member rights—including participation via proxies and offline access—are foundational to fair governance and must be protected. On the other, AFRINIC’s governance is so fragile that extraordinary steps appear unavoidable to simply get the organisation functioning again.

But maintaining procedural integrity without disenfranchising voices requires careful calibration—not blanket restrictions. Limiting proxies without due consultation disrupts inclusivity. Conversely, allowing unrestricted proxies threatens legitimacy. Ultimately, the path forward must reconcile both imperatives—protecting member rights and enabling emergency actions—as a precondition for restoring trust in the African Internet governance ecosystem.