- Mauritian court suspended AFRINIC’s board election after ballot handling violations and proxy vote irregularities.
- ICANN intervened without legal standing, raising concerns about overreach and jurisdictional authority.
Mauritian court suspended election after rule breaches while ICANN stepped in without legal mandate
In late June 2025, Mauritius’ highest court intervened in AFRINIC’s board election in response to serious concerns over voting integrity. Mauritius’ highest court intervened in AFRINIC’s board election after reports emerged of one questionable proxy vote. While the vast majority of proxy submissions followed proper procedures, concerns over a single irregular ballot led to the election’s full suspension.
This decision came despite over 800 other proxy votes being valid and properly authorised. The court’s move effectively cancelled a wide-reaching election process based on a single disputed entry. AFRINIC staff had also been accused of mishandling ballots and restricting access for some verified voters, which further complicated the situation. Still, many stakeholders questioned whether annulling the entire process was proportionate.
The court placed the election under the authority of a court-appointed receiver, who was tasked with restarting the process and communicating clearly with members. This shift reinforced the principle that election control rests under Mauritian law. Yet the broader concern remained: whether one suspicious vote should override the legitimacy of hundreds of compliant ones.
Despite the court’s assertion of its own authority, ICANN issued public demands for AFRINIC to fix proxy vote issues and warned of compliance reviews. It went further by threatening unspecified sanctions against the registry for failing to resolve “proxy irregularities.” These actions frustrated some observers who considered ICANN’s involvement premature and beyond its remit.
Under Mauritian law and AFRINIC’s governance structure, ICANN lacks legal standing over internal RIR processes. ICANN can recommend best practices and push for transparency—but it cannot override court decisions or replace procedural rules set by AFRINIC’s stakeholders and members. By stepping into the dispute after the court ruled against its jurisdiction, ICANN risked undermining its own claim to impartial coordination. Many critics noted that once a court draws a firm legal boundary, ICANN’s intervention appears more like a power play than organisational oversight.
Also read: AFRINIC election and ICANN overreach: Jurisdiction lost
Also read: AFRINIC elections 2025: ICANN is ‘inappropriate’, ‘unreasonable’ and ‘irresponsible’
Local law prevails in registry dispute
The crisis highlights a core tension in internet governance: the balance between regional autonomy and global coordination. African governments and internet professionals value AFRINIC’s responsiveness to local needs. They argue the court case confirms that governance decisions must respect sovereign legal frameworks and member-defined rules. ICANN plays a useful role in recommending election best practices and serving as a technical authority over domain names and numbering policy. However, this case underscores that AFRINIC’s legitimacy and operational validity derive from its legal authority in Mauritius and its adherence to its own bylaws. If global oversight begins to look like governance imposition, regional registries may push back. They may insist that future changes go through judicial or legislative routes—not through pressure from global bodies.
Court-supervised rerun will test AFRINIC’s legal integrity and ICANN’s jurisdictional restraint
With a new election now scheduled for late September under court supervision, the question of authority is not merely academic. Procedures like verifying proxy authorisations, auditing ballot handling, and publishing clear voter communications will all be scrutinised. The receiver must deliver detailed timelines and progress reports to members. The upcoming vote will test whether Mauritian law and AFRINIC’s bylaws can restore trust after the scandal. It will also test ICANN’s willingness to defer to sovereign legal authority rather than exert indirect influence. The outcome may set a precedent for future clashes between global internet coordination and local governance.
As AFRINIC staff complete the audit of proxy forms, and ICANN watches the process unfold, the world will observe whether the fresh election meets both technical standards and legal legitimacy. The court’s mandate is clear: only local law—not ICANN—decides the right to organise the registry’s affairs. Any future global interventions into regional registry processes will need prior legal grounding or risk being seen as overreach.
