Public accountability

These are the named people behind the authority problem.

If communiqués are issued in AFRINIC’s name, members deserve to know who is personally standing behind them. The question is no longer abstract governance. It is whether this Receiver and this purported Board are prepared to use AFRINIC’s registry chokepoint power to threaten the Internet operations of the very members they claim to serve.

Question 1Do you personally support using anti-leasing rhetoric against the ordinary address-use model every ISP, cloud provider, telecom and hosting company depends on?
Question 2Are you personally prepared to let AFRINIC use its registry chokepoint power to threaten, freeze, delegitimise or destroy members’ live Internet operations?
Question 3Who is lawfully speaking for AFRINIC today: the Receiver, the purported Board, or a circular combination of both?

No collective shield.

NRS is not asking an abstract institution. NRS is asking the named Receiver and each named purported Board member. If AFRINIC wants to turn normal address use into a chokepoint weapon, the people whose names appear on the governance structure must answer in their own names.

Silence will be recorded as no public dissent. Until a named person answers, operators should assume that person has not publicly rejected the communiqué, has not publicly rejected the anti-leasing narrative, and has not publicly rejected the attempt to push Resource Members away from statutory rights.

Notice sentQuestions sent to named individuals
Answer statusNo public answer received yet
Update policyReplies will be published here
Member actionAsk them directly before your business is next

Status note: NRS has sent these questions to the above individuals and has yet to receive an answer. This page will be updated if any response is received.