Why AFRINIC’s election guidelines matter for global internet governance

• Les réformes électorales du conseil d’administration d’AFRINIC en 2025 suscitent un examen minutieux concernant la transparence et l’exclusion potentielle des électeurs.
• Les nouvelles règles d’intégration et d’éligibilité soulèvent des inquiétudes quant à l’équité et à l’accessibilité de la gouvernance d’Internet.

Les règles d’AFRINIC sous surveillance face à la fragilité institutionnelle

AFRINIC’s updated election guidelines for the 2025 board election have gained significance beyond the organisation’s region. The election process is governed by a court-appointed receiver and strict eligibility criteria: only Resource Members in good standing as of 19 septembre 2023 may vote, and each member must designate a single authorised voter—proxy votes are no longer permitted. While intended to streamline accountability and reduce ambiguity, the guidelines have prompted concern over whether AFRINIC is aligning itself with global standards of election integrity or merely reacting to internal failures. Given AFRINIC’s role in managing IP resources across Africa, any shortcomings in democratic legitimacy risk weakening confidence in both regional and global internet governance structures.

Also read: AFRINIC launches voter onboarding ahead of board election
Also read: AFRINIC election: 2nd attempt to delay voting fails

Transparency reforms echo across multistakeholder expectations

In response to cancelled elections and criticisms of opacity, AFRINIC introduced a voter onboarding system requiring identity verification and publication of a provisional voters register in advance of final listing. These measures reflect a drive toward enhanced transparency, a core expectation in the multistakeholder internet ecosystem. Yet observers note that the abrupt rollout and limited timeframe for compliance reduce their effectiveness. Genuine transparency requires not only procedural clarity but also accessibility. If stakeholders cannot verify their registration or voice concerns pre-election, the reforms only partially meet global governance expectations, leaving AFRINIC at risk of falling short of model standards.

Guidelines influence confidence in the global internet sphere

Although AFRINIC is regionally focused, its guidelines reverberate through global internet governance. As one of the five Regional Internet Registries, AFRINIC operates under coordination with bodies like the NRO and ICANN. The integrity of its elections affects resource allocation, policy development, and reputational legitimacy across the global IP system. When internal rules cause disenfranchisement or appear exclusionary, they may erode trust among international stakeholders. AFRINIC’s election crisis, including revoked votes and governance paralysis, has been widely reported as symptomatic of a registry in crisis. Clear and fair election guidelines are not a regional concern alone—they help anchor global norms in democratic legitimacy.

Also read: AFRINIC’s proxy vote scandal: What went wrong?
Also read: Voter eligibility criteria under AFRINIC’s updated election guidelines

A path forward depends on execution, not just rules

AFRINIC’s election guidelines signal intent to correct past failures and align with best practices. But execution will determine whether this translates into restored trust. Observers stress that publishing a voters list too close to voting, requiring rapid onboarding under unfamiliar protocols, and limiting avenues for correction all risk undermining participation—especially among smaller or remote members. Voir aussi: Le conseil d'AFRINIC confronté à un test de légitimité.

As Cloud Innovation and others maintain reform must be structural not superficial, AFRINIC’s ability to manage Africa’s IP resources effectively today—and to retain credibility tomorrow—rests on whether these reforms translate into fair, inclusive, and transparent elections. If they succeed, the continent may set an example; if they falter, the lesson will be that rules alone are not enough.