• AFRINIC’s 2025 election was suspended over a disputed proxy, disenfranchising hundreds.
  • Governance failures exposed gaps in confidentiality, voting rights, and receiver authority.
  • The crisis highlights urgent risk management lessons for all Regional Internet Registries.

A suspension that silenced hundreds

AFRINIC’s 2025 board election was halted just before voting concluded, triggered by concerns over a single proxy vote. This decision, stemming from the discovery of an allegedly unauthorised Power of Attorney (PoA), rendered hundreds of votes uncast and effectively disenfranchised large swaths of the membership. According to Number Resource Limited (NRL), only 20% of the PoAs it held were exercised before the suspension. “We fear that the premature halt to the voting effectively disenfranchised many legitimate members,” the group stated. Critics have since questioned the proportionality of the response, noting that no audit or transparent review was conducted prior to suspending the election. Instead, the vote was annulled wholesale, leading to widespread concern over procedural fairness. The election was intended to restore legitimacy to AFRINIC after years of instability, but instead has triggered further distrust and institutional doubt.

Also read: Why AFRINIC governance needs transparency

Governance breakdown and blurred lines

The governance infrastructure surrounding the AFRINIC election failed to ensure transparency and due process. Allegedly, a member of the Election Committee removed a proxy document from the voting room and contacted the resource holder directly—an act that violated confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations, constituting a serious breach. According to Article 4.6 of AFRINIC’s guidelines, Election Committee members are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement. This incident triggered a chain of events that ultimately led to the suspension of the committee. Additionally, the decision by NomCom Chair Simon Davenport KC and Receiver Gowtamsingh Dabee to annul the vote further raised concerns about accountability and the scope of their authority. Critics argue that instead of invalidating the entire election, the disputed proxy should have been isolated to contain the crisis. “Such unsolicited contact during a sensitive voting process created confusion,” stated Number Resource Ltd (NRL), emphasising the need for clearer rules and boundaries within AFRINIC’s governance procedures.

Also read: AFRINIC 2025 election in crisis: Why transparency is missing

Lessons for RIRs: risk lies in opacity

The AFRINIC case illustrates how fragile internet governance can become without robust risk management protocols. Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) worldwide depend on proxy voting, election procedures, and internal accountability frameworks. If a single PoA dispute can upend an entire election, the implications are dire. This incident shows how quickly trust can erode when dispute resolution mechanisms are weak or unclear. AFRINIC’s suspension has already caused ripple effects—loss of community confidence, judicial scrutiny, and pressure from global stakeholders like ICANN. Other RIRs must take this as a serious warning. “This isn’t just about one vote,” observers noted. “It’s a test of legitimacy, transparency, and institutional resilience.” Going forward, RIRs must define the format and verification of PoAs, reinforce confidentiality protections, and establish independent election dispute bodies. Without urgent action, they may find themselves facing similar legitimacy crises, undermining the global internet’s decentralised governance system.