NomCom composition controversy: Does AFRINIC’s

NomCom composition controversy: Does AFRINIC’s is a BTW intelligence profile anchored in public article evidence, object context, event links, and relationship watchpoints.

Recent revisions to AFRINIC’s Nomination Committee structure have raised questions about adherence to bylaw requirements. Stakeholders argue procedural clarity and legitimacy are at risk if AFRINIC’s plan overrides established governance guidelines. What is the Nomination Committee and why it matters The Nomination Committee , or NomCom, plays a vital role at AFRINIC by selecting eligible candidates for Board positions. According to Article 9 of its bylaws, the NomCom should consist of a chair and three other members, all appointed by the Board of Directors. Its integrity is essential to ensure fair, community‑backed elections and credible leadership transitions. Also read: ICANN wants to take AFRINIC out of Africa Also read: What losing AFRINIC would mean for African ISPs and networks The new NomCom plan under scrutiny In early 2025, AFRINIC’s court-appointed receiver announced plans to reconstitute NomCom ahead of a board election aimed at ending a long-standing governance impasse . Observers quickly flagged concerns: the proposed committee includes external legal advisors rather than member‑elected community representatives, and its composition departs from the standard four-member structure dictated in the bylaws. Critics argue this shift may not align with Article 9 process or with the spirit of member-driven governance. Are AFRINIC’s bylaws being breached? Criticism centres on potential violations of established rules. The bylaws require NomCom appointments to be made by the board—not by a court receiver—and limit it to four members. By selecting exclusively legal professionals from outside the member community, AFRINIC risks breaching both the letter and intent of its governance framework. Those calling for reform maintain that departing from the bylaws without member consultation damages trust in AFRINIC’s multistakeholder system. Why composition rules matter for legitimacy The legitimacy of board elections hinges on a transparent, member‑driven NomCom process. Stakeholders warn that any deviation may undermine member trust and provoke legal challenges. Given AFRINIC’s history of contested elections and court-ordered governance interventions, maintaining strict adherence to its bylaws is seen as essential to restore credibility. Broader context: receivership and election turmoil AFRINIC has been under court-appointed receivership since 2023, with efforts to restore governance through elections repeatedly delayed or annulled. After the Supreme Court of Mauritius dissolved the board in 2022 and directed elections to take place, the receiver’s new NomCom plan now risks repeating procedural missteps. Critics say that unless NomCom is reformed according to bylaws, the fresh election will lack legitimacy. What stakeholders are saying Supporters of the new structure argue it addresses corruption risks and brings impartial oversight after internal governance failures. But multiple operators, policy advocates, and members of the AFRINIC community have pushed back. They insist that only processes set out in the constitution, not changes made unilaterally by the receiver. Should determine NomCom composition. Civil society voices stress that bypassing member-based selection risks institutional credibility. Path forward: transparency and bylaw compliance To resolve controversy, AFRINIC should publish a full justification of its NomCom plan vis‑à‑vis the constitution, clearly explain why the changes were necessary, and outline how the community can input on or endorse the approach. At minimum, reforms should be subject to public comment, include member presence in NomCom selection, and align with the four‑member standard defined in Article 9.