- AFRINIC election suspended after staff called a voter mid-process.
- Multiple members say their votes were misused through proxy form.
Staff phone call disrupts AFRINIC election process
In June 2025, the AFRINIC board election came to an abrupt halt, catching everyone off guard. The disruption stemmed from a single phone call made by a staff member to a resource owner listed on a Power of Attorney form. That call took place while in-person voting was under way in Mauritius.
There is no doubt that the phone call was a breach of electoral sanctity – the rules governing non-disclosure and confidentiality had clearly been flouted, as written in AFRINIC’s own bylaws.
But what was said in that phone call that derailed an entire election? An election that everyone who has been following the AFRINIC saga over the past few years will agree is desperately needed.
Number Resource Limited (NRL), the organisation that had arranged hundreds of voters to cast their votes by proxy, later explained in a public letter that the staffer took the POA paper out of the designated area and reached out to the voter to double-check whether he had indeed given POA to NRL. Of course he had, says NRL, bu that day, in that phone call, the resource owner denied having signed the document.
Because of that mismatch, the ballots tied to the POA were tossed out, and fresh doubts emerged about both staff behaviour and the integrity of the voting process.
The call came while ballots were still being cast, turning a routine outreach attempt into a heated debate. Why did the resource member now deny having signed the POA? Were they pressured to say this? Did they feel overly scrutiinised?
Supporters of the campaign stated that their goal was simply to clarify, but even they acknowledged that intervening during active voting is a violation of democratic process. Contacting someone while they fill out a ballot can increase anxiety and confuse the line between persuasion and pressure. Because of that phone call, the bigger questions about election conduct quickly shifted from the background to the forefront of the news.
Voter confusion and proxy disputes surface
The situation worsened when it was revealed that over 800 POAs had been submitted, and now, due to this single refuted POA, all were to be annulled. More than 800 voters were to have no say in the election due to a phone call that should not have been made.
Reports suggested that some other POAs were missing or could not be verified. There were also claims that some forms could not be linked to any digital or physical source. These inconsistencies sparked a wider debate about how AFRINIC’s staff had conducted their checks on proxy submissions and whether current safeguards are strong enough to prevent misuse.
For an election as important as this one, the staff at AFRINIC, in the Election Committee and n the NomCom, appeared to be woefully unprepared and unskilled in managing the process.
Also Read: The story of AFRINIC: How Africa’s internet ideal was destroyed from within
Also Read: AFRINIC staff violated obligations during 2025 election
AFRINIC’s own rules put staff conduct in question
It is explicitly states in AFRINIC’s election regulations that employees must act impartially and with strict confidentiality. Employees must abide by nondisclosure agreements and refrain from taking any actions that might impair a member’s ability to vote. All communication with voters is forbidden during the election period, unless it is necessary for the routine verification procedure that is conducted prior to the start of the voting process. It goes beyond what is permitted by the guidelines to remove a POA while voting and get in touch with the person on it.
The phone call demonstrated that, in reality, the limits established by AFRINIC’s regulations were not being adhered to. Reaching out to a voter during the election process violates the principle of noninterference, even if the staff member thought they were acting in good faith. It also calls into question the appropriate training and supervision of election staff. The event revealed a discrepancy between the actual enforcement of the policy and its written version. If that disparity is not closed, it may erode confidence in subsequent elections.
Global examples show similar risks
Voter contact concerns during elections have created significant issues on a global scale. Voters in the US and Canada have been misinformed and confused about when and how to cast their ballots as a result of automated or unauthorised calls made during election seasons. Public indignation and legal action resulted from these incidents. Even though the AFRINIC case was a manual call rather than a mass effort, it demonstrated how quickly rules violations can erode process trust.
For this reason, strict no-contact policies are enforced by election systems in many countries. Except in situations of emergency or as part of a specified correction the process, election staff should not interaction voters directly after voting has started. Even if it was not the intent, any contact could be determined as influencing the vote. In spite its small scope, AFRINIC’s case reflects these global issues and highlights the necessity of enhanced internal safeguards.
Also Read: As ICANN threatens to ‘review’ AFRINIC, an elected board is its only hope for survival
Also Read: AFRINIC election suspended, hundreds unable to vote
Demands for clarity and accountability grow
The internet governance community as a whole called for accountability in the days after the election was suspended. In a forceful letter, ICANN, though the Supreme Court of Mauritius ha earlier declared that ICANN had no locus standi, meaning it had no relevance to AFRINIC’s activities, demanded a thorough explanation. According to ICANN’s leadership, AFRINIC may be subject to compliance action if the staff interference and missing POAs reports are not promptly addressed. Regarding suspected proxy fraud, the Internet Service Providers’ Association of South Africa also lodged a criminal complaint in Mauritius.
Afterwards, AFRINIC declared that the June election would not be held and requested permission from the court to hold a new one by the end of September. The court concurred. AFRINIC announced that it would update election protocols to incorporate improved oversight and more stringent POA verification. It hasn’t yet stated, though, if the employee who called would face disciplinary action or be identified. Some members continue to criticise this lack of detail, arguing that the only way to rebuild process trust is through transparency.
