- AFRINIC’s court-approved election was annulled over one disputed proxy, silencing hundreds of valid votes and raising fears of endless electoral deadlock.
- ICANN’s intervention, seen by some as necessary oversight, is criticised by others as overreach that undermines African internet self-governance.
Late June 2025 in Mauritius: Hope for renewal turned into regional turbulence
AFRINIC — Africa’s Regional Internet Registry — was finally crawling out of a three-year leadership vacuum. After years of legal chaos, a court-approved election on June 23 seemed to offer a fresh start. Hundreds of members, many represented via legally notarised proxies, cast their votes. But then — just before counting began — it all collapsed.
Also read: Cloud Innovation calls to wind up AFRINIC
One disputed proxy. That’s all it took.
The court-appointed Receiver abruptly froze the process and, days later, annulled the entire election. Hundreds of valid ballots were voided. No court order, no full explanation, just a sudden administrative decision — and total disenfranchisement.
Also read: EXPOSED: The letter that reveals who was really benefitting from AFRINIC’s lawsuits
Also read: AFRINIC election and ICANN overreach: Jurisdiction lost
One vote, hundreds silenced
That lone disputed power of attorney became a wrecking ball. For smaller African internet providers — many of whom had relied on proxies due to geographic or logistical constraints — it was devastating. Proxy voting had been greenlit in advance. The rules were followed. But now, a single questionable proxy had wiped out their representation.
Groups like the Number Resource Society, which helped organise those proxies, were furious. To them, cancelling the entire election over a single issue was a dangerous precedent — one that could keep AFRINIC in a loop of endless disputes and election failures. It’s a formula for paralysis: if any one vote can be used to cancel an election, can AFRINIC ever hold a valid one again?
ICANN steps in — And oversteps?
Just when things couldn’t get messier, ICANN entered the picture.
On June 19, even before the vote happened, ICANN tried to delay the election through the Mauritian courts. The court rejected the request, saying ICANN had no legal standing. Four days later, AFRINIC held its election. And two days after that — when the process had already been suspended — ICANN issued a strongly worded public letter.
In it, ICANN warned AFRINIC that “shocking allegations” about the election raised “serious questions” about its legitimacy. It said AFRINIC’s ability to function as a Regional Internet Registry was in jeopardy. It demanded immediate answers. And it made it clear: a formal compliance review was on the table.
This was starting to look like digital colonialism. An American-based organisation threatening punitive action — even after local courts had approved the process — did not sit well with many in Africa’s internet community.
Also read: Why ICANN’s involvement in AFRINIC election raises red flags
Also read: AFRINIC’s election collapse: Courts overruled, ICANN intrudes
Oversight or interference?
ICANN defenders say the organisation had no choice. AFRINIC’s credibility was at stake. A vote that needed investigating should not be allowed to stand. Better to halt, review, and fix the system.
But critics see a different picture. ICANN’s court motion was already rejected. AFRINIC’s election was supervised and sanctioned by a local judge. And yet ICANN acted as if it had the final word — warning of sanctions, casting doubt on court-approved decisions, and stirring public alarm.
Meanwhile, Mauritius’s own ICT ministry reportedly intervened behind the scenes to delay the release of election results, further blurring lines between the judiciary, the state, and AFRINIC’s governance.
The result? AFRINIC’s autonomy now feels under siege from all sides.
The forgotten voters: Small ISPs and community networks
Amid all the legal letters and jurisdictional muscle-flexing, one group was quietly sidelined: small African internet providers and end-users. They’re the ones who struggle with limited access, complex bureaucracy, and long-standing barriers to participation. For them, the election — and proxy voting in particular — was a rare chance to be heard.
And just like that, their votes were gone. No investigation. No public reasoning. No plan to reinstate valid proxies. Just silence.
If ICANN’s goal was to protect the rights of these voters, it missed the mark. The letter demanded delays and reviews but offered no relief to those already disenfranchised. From the point of view of many small ISPs, ICANN’s intervention looked no different from the internal disruption that nullified their vote. It was another external force pulling the strings.
Also read: As ICANN threatens to ‘review’ AFRINIC, an elected board is its only hope for survival
Also read: AFRINIC elections 2025: ICANN is ‘inappropriate’, ‘unreasonable’ and ‘irresponsible’
A narrow window for redemption
The Mauritian court has now extended AFRINIC’s election deadline to September 30. There’s a brief opportunity to fix what went wrong — but the clock is ticking.
Internet governance experts agree: reforms are essential. AFRINIC must secure its proxy voting process, verify identities, limit abuse, and ensure transparency. It must also make digital participation easier for remote members who cannot attend in person. Most importantly, it must make sure that one mistake — or one questioned proxy — never again erases an entire election.
And it needs to do this publicly. Publish findings. Clarify rules. Show the community — especially the smaller players — that their voices matter and their votes will count.
The real test: Can oversight and autonomy coexist?
In the end, the ICANN-AFRINIC saga is about more than one election. It’s about who governs the internet — and on what terms.
Oversight should be a safety net, not a noose. ICANN was right to care about fairness. But when it acts without regard for local court rulings, or ignores the impact on disenfranchised members, it risks becoming a gatekeeper rather than a guardian.
AFRINIC, for its part, must rise above internal divisions and rebuild trust through transparency and inclusion. If the next election is open, secure, and truly representative, the organisation will come out stronger. If not, the narrative of interference and dysfunction will only deepen.
Africa’s internet community deserves more than legal skirmishes and top-down interventions. It deserves a seat at the table — and a system that listens when it speaks.
