Cloud Innovation rejects AFRINIC’s demand to remove us from the company register. Every Resource Member should be recognised under company law, entered in the register and protected by the applicable shareholder-equivalent rights. The protections we have fought to enforce should be available to every member.

If thousands of members qualify for registration, put thousands of names on the register. Administrative convenience cannot justify excluding them.

Correcting a classification does not cancel membership

Cloud Innovation is a Resource Member. We accept that our earlier classification as a “Registered Member”, the category AFRINIC’s bylaws use for directors, was incorrect. That correction does not cancel our membership of the company.

The 11 June 2025 order, in SC/COM/MOT/000399/2025, required AFRINIC to correct its register under section 91 and include Cloud Innovation as a member, with corresponding entries in the Registrar’s records. Removal of the earlier entries came with an express requirement to make the correct entries. The Court recorded AFRINIC’s undertaking, signed by Mr Dabee as Receiver, to complete the correction within fifteen days.

The 19 June ruling addressed the incorrect Registered Member classification. It contains no order cancelling the 11 June inclusion directions. A correction of category cannot erase an express direction to record membership.

Under sections 2 and 269 of the Companies Act, entitlement to registration matters to membership, and applicable shareholder provisions extend to members of a company limited by guarantee, subject to statutory exceptions. AFRINIC’s lack of share capital does not remove those protections.

The order names Cloud Innovation. We demand equivalent recognition for every Resource Member on the basis of each member’s entitlement. The Registrar’s email of 30 October identifies us as a Resource Member, the correct category.

Executive authorities cannot reverse a judicial decision

AFRINIC’s communiqué says the Receiver’s legal notice of 29 October demanded our immediate removal and was copied to the Prime Minister, the ICT Minister, the Attorney General and the State Law Office for information and any appropriate action.

In our view, seeking administrative removal contrary to the Court’s inclusion direction is an attempt to enlist the executive against a judicial decision. Such an override would breach the separation of powers protected by Mauritius’s Constitution. AFRINIC must seek judicial relief if it wants that obligation changed. It cannot obtain the same result by asking officials to disregard the order.

AFRINIC should publish the legal notice and identify any operative order authorising the removal it demands. The inclusion direction must be respected unless lawfully stayed, varied or set aside.

Election organisers must establish the authority for their actions

The Court required elections under AFRINIC’s constitution. The Receiver’s September election guidelines nevertheless claimed priority in interpretive conflicts if consistent with the bylaws’ “spirit”. There was a concrete consequence: Article 12.12 permits proxy voting; the guidelines prohibited it.

Authority to organise an election does not, by itself, include authority to remove a voting method the constitution expressly allows. Invoking its “spirit” cannot supply the missing legal power. Otherwise, the organiser could choose which rules bind him and certify his own compliance.

Our case is that these departures exceeded the Receiver’s mandate, breached the Court’s orders and failed to produce valid appointments. In SC/COM/MOT/000757/2025, AFRINIC and the Receiver sought his discharge, termination of the receivership and a declaration that the September candidates had been validly appointed. We oppose that application. They should publish any subsequent order granting that confirmation. An application for validation is not an order granting it.

Cloud Innovation does not recognise this Board as lawfully constituted. We demand removal of the purported directors through the competent legal procedures, with correction of the corresponding director and Registered Member entries. Registry services must continue under lawful authority.

AFRINIC’s own June 2025 statement records that our member rights enabled the receivership application. These individuals claim office through the resulting process, yet support removing the member whose action made it possible. Member rights cannot serve only as a route for administrators to gain office.

The proposed constitution would weaken member control

This purported Board appointed the Bylaws Review Committee’s six members and chair, with the Receiver’s consent. The committee reports to the Board, and Board approval is required before the final draft reaches members. Members must still approve amendments.

The proposed constitution would change the balance of power:

  • Articles 6.5–6.6 attach statutory registration and Companies Act rights to directors while describing Resource Membership as contractual. Specified governance rights and mandatory legal rights remain, but the draft reinforces the divide between directors and resource holders.
  • Article 7.4 omits the current Article 7.6(iv) power to determine general policies by ordinary resolution. Article 7.2A requires ten Resource Members in Good Standing to support a proposal and permits refusal by two-thirds of all directors, with written reasons.
  • Article 8.6 permits delegation of membership suspension and termination to officers, subject to safeguards and appeal. Article 8.5 retains resource return on termination under the registration agreement. Membership decisions therefore remain tied to control over your resources.

In our view, directors overseeing proposals that would reduce members’ control over those same directors creates a clear conflict of interest. Consultation does not remove it. Members should reject provisions that weaken their control while preserving administrators’ power over their resources.

Member rights must protect the networks members operate

We advocate secure ownership of lawfully held IP address resources, continuity of use, transferability and freedom to change registry providers. Corporate membership and resource ownership are distinct rights. We defend both.

Our Bill of Rights of Uniqueness Coordination sets the principle: operators build networks and bear the consequences; administrators maintain records and protect uniqueness. Administrative authority must remain limited, accountable and replaceable. Neither an administrator nor a membership majority should acquire another operator’s resources through a governance decision.

We demand recognition of every eligible Resource Member, compliance with the inclusion orders, lawful removal of the purported directors and rejection of these amendments. No executive intervention should defeat the Court’s directions. Publish the relevant court instruments and legal notice so members can assess the evidence themselves.

Why should those appointed to serve members enjoy stronger legal protections than the members themselves? Will you defend your rights and your network’s continuity—or the administrative power to withdraw them?

Cloud Innovation Ltd