• Election outcomes have been significantly affected by members whose votes were unrecognized or disallowed, altering the final board composition.
  • The handling of membership eligibility and proxy or POA (Power of Attorney) disputes risks undermining fairness and trust in AFRINIC’s governance.

Disallowed votes and election integrity

A recurring feature of recent AFRINIC elections is the number of votes declared invalid, disallowed or disqualified due to membership status, proxy disputes or technical eligibility issues. During the June 2025 election, for instance, several candidate seats were contested, but the event was annulled largely after a single proxy challenge—a move that invalidated hundreds of votes from disallowed or ambiguous membership arrangements. AFRINIC’s notices to its members and to the internet community confirmed that proxy validation rules, membership verification and ambiguities in the bylaws played a central role in deciding which votes would count. The fact that some members were later declared ineligible—due to missing documentation, delayed fee payment or insufficient information—meant that their votes were never tallied, even though they believed themselves to be valid. Media coverage and commentary from Cloud Innovation raised concerns that these disallowed votes may not be distributed uniformly across regions, disadvantaging startups or less-resourced members. Such outcomes can change the board makeup in subtle but significant ways, tipping decisions toward incumbent or well-connected members.

Also read:Why AFRINIC’s election legitimacy matters for internet governance globally

Also read:AFRINIC elections and the problem of legal enforcement in Mauritius

Broader implications for AFRINIC’s legitimacy

When members fear their votes may be disallowed, scepticism grows. Unclear eligibility criteria create confusion. Disallowed members weaken the principle of community participation. This is central to AFRINIC’s mission. The impact is more than numerical. Communities outside major telecom players, or in the Indian Ocean region, are often most affected. Their membership may be questioned or rejected. ICANN has repeatedly called on AFRINIC to clarify registration processes. It has also urged clear rules for proxy use and POA submission. Without transparency, election results may favour those familiar with internal rules. Legal or financial resources can give some members an advantage. Over time, this risks shifting policy away from newer entrants or smaller stakeholders.

Disallowed votes also affect global perception. Regional Internet Registries rely on legitimacy in forums like NRO, ICANN, and IETF. If AFRINIC elections appear to exclude members through opaque procedures, international partners may doubt Africa’s self-governance. Erosion of trust can trigger external oversight or stricter compliance demands. These measures may further complicate AFRINIC’s governance. To maintain credibility, AFRINIC must clearly recognise all eligible members. Eligibility criteria should be published in advance. Disallowance should remain exceptional, not structural, to protect fairness and autonomy.