One pattern, five years
A registry keeps a record of who holds which addresses. For five years, those who have controlled AFRINIC, a private company in Mauritius, have reached instead for powers that belong to states: to police people, to stand above the courts, to be immune from the law, to have ministers act where judges have ruled and to keep members from leaving. Along the way, an alliance of governments took seven of the eight seats on its Board. Where the courts or the Government of Mauritius have been asked, they have said no.
Police powers
What they did. In August 2021 AFRINIC’s management wrote that websites using addresses allocated to us carried illegal content, including some with indecent images of children, and demanded to know why we did not monitor them, on pain of suspension or termination. We host no websites: our customers are network operators serving hundreds of millions of end users in 60 countries. We asked them to tell us within four hours which addresses were involved, so the sites could be shut down. They refused.
What the law said. The Supreme Court later found that, after that letter, we had no alternative but to seek its protection.
Why it matters. Policing takes the power to watch people, a state’s power that a private company in Mauritius should never hold. A registry that would not say where the abuse was had no business demanding the power to watch everyone.
Lu Heng’s Note 28
Why Registries Must Never Become Enforcers
Why is an address book the wrong instrument for punishment?
Above the courts
What they did. In July 2021 AFRINIC’s management defied a court order until it was warned of contempt proceedings. It then gave the Judge an unconditional undertaking, and in November 2021 it withdrew it. It went on to ask the Court to treat our applications as an abuse of its process.
What the law said. On 19 July 2022 the Court rejected that objection. It held that Cloud Innovation “cannot be taxed for resorting to an independent court to safeguard its rights” and that upholding the objection “would imperil the future administration of justice”.
Lu Heng’s Note 61
Running-Code Betrayal: How the RIR System Turned Consensus Against the Technical Community
Does “community consensus” give a room the right to rule over networks that are already running?
Above the law
What they did. AFRINIC’s management repeatedly asked the Government of Mauritius to recognise AFRINIC as an international organisation under the International Organisations and Conferences (Privileges and Immunities) Act, and renewed the request in March 2022. On 12 July 2022 the four other regional internet registries, through the Number Resource Organization, wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General. They called that status appropriate and urged them to address it “as rapidly as possible”. In the same letter they called our litigation vexatious, complained of the courts’ orders, wrote that it would be “very unfortunate” if Mauritius proved the wrong home for AFRINIC, and suggested that government authorities review the affidavits filed against us.
What the law said. Seven days later, on 19 July 2022, the Supreme Court declined to treat us as a vexatious litigant. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied that the request “cannot be entertained”.
Why it matters. A private company that registers addresses has no claim to immunity from the law. The registries wrote that AFRINIC would stay “subject to Mauritian laws”, yet they took a case still before the courts to ministers.
Lu Heng’s Note 62
Mandate Laundering: From RIR Fantasy to Transition Architecture
When does an institution stop performing authority and start believing it possesses it?
Ministers instead of judges
What they did. In 2025 the executive opened an inspection that, as we said in our constitutional complaint, would call into question judgments the courts had already delivered. In October 2026, after a Supreme Court rule of 9 October certified the outcome of the orders that put us on AFRINIC’s register of members, AFRINIC’s Receiver sent a legal notice demanding that the Registrar of Companies remove us at once, with copies to the Prime Minister, the ICT Minister, the Attorney General and the State Law Office. He cited no court order for it.
What the law said. On 7 August 2025, on our application, the Judge in Chambers halted the inspection. Our place in the register rests on the orders of 4 April and 11 June 2025, the second made on AFRINIC’s own application.
Why it matters. Under the constitutional separation of powers, a judgment is enforced or appealed in court. Ministers do not undo it.
Lu Heng’s Note 2
The Internet’s Address Book — and Why “Digital Sovereignty” Is a Dangerous Fantasy
If a registry is only an address book, what does “digital sovereignty” actually control?
Governments on a members’ board
What happened. In June 2025 AFRINIC’s Receiver annulled the entire Board election over “one disputed proxy”, and his rules for the new election banned the proxy voting that AFRINIC’s constitution allows. In the disputed election of September 2025, Smart Africa’s candidates won seven of the eight seats. Smart Africa is an alliance of 40 governments that acts “under the mandate of its Heads of State and Governments”.
Why it matters. AFRINIC belongs to its members, who elect its Board. A registry is not a continental government, and its Board should not be filled with the candidates of an alliance of governments.
Lu Heng’s Note 54
On Who Gets to Speak for a Continent, a Community, or “The End User”
Who has a mandate to speak for a continent, a community, or “the end user”?
A locked exit
What they did. On 4 February 2026, five months after that election, AFRINIC’s Board ratified a transfer policy under which, in AFRINIC’s own words, “AFRINIC-issued IPv4 cannot be transferred out of the region”. Only legacy resources and resources transferred in from other regions may leave. AFRINIC’s assessment of the proposal put the consequence plainly: “AFRINIC will not lose its current resource members to other RIRs in outgoing transfers.” Its legal assessment called the choice “purely and simply a business decision”.
Why it matters. A registry exists to keep an accurate record, not to keep its members from leaving. AFRINIC presents the policy as strengthening its “governance mandate”. No law gives a private registry that mandate.
Lu Heng’s Note 71
What does a policy manual confess about what an institution thinks it is?
Its own audit
What it found. AFRINIC’s own 2021 audit of its database found 2,371,584 IPv4 addresses misappropriated from its pool.
Why it matters. Power that answers to no one does not stay clean, and this finding is AFRINIC’s own.
Lu Heng’s Note 42
How a Neutral Bookkeeper Became a Fragile Power
How did a bookkeeper become a fragile power once the ledger turned into capital?
What we ask
A registry keeps the record and answers to the law like any other company. Courts decide disputes, and ministers do not overrule them. Members elect their Board and are free to leave. Those are the rule of law, a democratic society, people’s freedom and the separation of powers, and they are what we defend.
Lu Heng’s Note 72
The Bill of Rights of Uniqueness Coordination
Which rights keep networks running, records accurate, and exit real?