AFRINIC accuses litigant of trying to ‘paralyse’ it
- Reference: 1773425619
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/03/13/afrinic_strikes_back_at_litigant/
- Source link:
AFRINIC is the regional internet registry for Africa, and in that role assigns and manages IP addresses and autonomous system numbers to network operators across the continent. The organization has a long history of [1]corruption and dysfunction . In 2021 the registry alleged that one of its members – Cloud Innovation limited (CIL) – had breached its service agreement by using IPv4 addresses inappropriately. AFRINIC initiated procedures that could have resulted in withdrawal of Cloud Innovation’s IP resources.
CIL in turn filed [2]a series of lawsuits , and AFRINIC was unable to appoint a board or CEO, and therefore also unable to fulfill some of its functions.
[3]
After many legal struggles, AFRINIC managed to elect a board in 2025 and in February [4]said it is close to resuming normal operations.
[5]
[6]
But on Thursday, AFRINIC [7]offered a more pessimistic view of its situation.
“We are currently facing a web of litigation and procedural roadblocks driven by CIL, Larus Ltd, and associated advocacy campaigns,” AFRINIC stated in a post. The post mentions litigation to prevent the registry from issuing IPv4 addresses, and objections to the creation of a new committee to consider bylaw changes.
[8]
The post also claims AFRINIC has “observed campaigns encouraging uninformed members to submit pre-drafted protest letters designed to further entangle AFRINIC in court proceedings.”
“Taken together, the aforementioned actions, alongside a host of other litigations initiated directly or indirectly by CIL, clearly evidence an intention to disrupt and/or paralyse Africa’s sole Regional Internet Registry,” the post states.
“Accordingly, we urge members to look at the broader context of these disruptions,” the post continues. “A continued state of instability at AFRINIC effectively prevents the restoration of an organisation that should serve you efficiently and help to develop the region. Furthermore, the delays and soaring legal costs are actively obstructing any attempt to embark on initiatives that will give back to the community and strengthen membership (e.g, training, research).”
[9]ICANN distances itself from radical proposal – which it funded – to give nations a role in internet governance
[10]Regional Internet Registries work to prevent one of their own going rogue
[11]AFRINIC warns members of fake news campaign, voting rights grab
[12]APNIC election sparks move for rapid rule changes to prevent council stacking
The Register has sought comment from Lu Heng, the CEO of CIL and Larus, and we will update this story if we hear back.
On his personal blog, Lu has [13]argued that IPv4 addresses are assets that holders should be able to monetize.
[14]
AFRINIC has [15]rebutted the view its policy is inappropriate by pointing out that IP addresses “are not owned as property in the traditional proprietary sense." That view is widely held, even though the addresses are often bought, sold, and leased.
Support for AFRINIC
AFRINIC is not alone in its accusations. AfroDIG, the African Dialogue on Internet Governance, this week published a [16]piece describing CIL’s actions as “the Long Proxy War Against Africa’s Internet Registry.”
The piece points out that AFRINIC’s community approved its revised IP address transfer policy using transparent processes, and notes that the policy “frustrates any business model that depends on treating African-issued number resources as liquid inventory for global leasing or export.”
AFRINIC’s troubles are a frequent topic of discussion in internet governance and RIR forums, and the recent APRICOT conference staged by the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) and the Asia Pacific Network Operators Group was no exception. Your correspondent participated in informal chats at the event, during which one delegate described AFRINIC’s antagonists as a virus, and orderly internet governance as a vaccine.
The Number Resource Society, of which Lu Heng is a prominent member, has also criticized APNIC and [17]endorsed candidates for its elections in 2023. None were elected, and APNIC’s governance did not waver. AFRINIC, however, is only just getting back on its feet and clearly concerned it is not yet strong enough to fend off further attacks. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/24/afrinic_new_ceo/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/22/afrinic_failure_warning_apnic_link/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2abSXEY1KkVqxTcX2fXXToAAAAJg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/10/afrinic_turnaround/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44abSXEY1KkVqxTcX2fXXToAAAAJg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33abSXEY1KkVqxTcX2fXXToAAAAJg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://afrinic.net/afrinic-member-update-organisational-stability-and-ongoing-legal-challenges
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44abSXEY1KkVqxTcX2fXXToAAAAJg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/27/icann_caiga_internet_governance/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/02/internet_governance_update/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/16/afrinic_misinformation_warning/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/15/apnic_election_controversy/
[13] https://heng.lu/ipv4-scarcity-market-opportunity/
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33abSXEY1KkVqxTcX2fXXToAAAAJg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://afrinic.net/communique-response-to-member-concerns-on-misinformation-campaign-regarding-afrinic-s-ratified-policy-2020-gen-006-d3
[16] https://www.afrodig.org/skyconnect-cloud-innovation-and-the-long-proxy-war-against-africas-internet-registry/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/02/apnic_election_results/
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: A consequence of IPv6's poor design and many failures
>> users prefer v4 over many of the crappy design decisions
I have mentioned in the past the need to press the shift key to get to the colon. Add to that the word 'colon' is two syllables, so it takes twice as long to say. Add to that letters.
IPv6 addresses are hard to type, hard to say, and hard to remember. Meanwhile I can still remember IPv4 addresses from >20 years ago which I have not looked at in years.
Yes, IPv6 is flawed by design.
I propose IPv5 - nnn.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd. That's 256 * 4 billion, or over one trillion. No additional features over IPv4, just more IPs.
Re: A consequence of IPv6's poor design and many failures
Yep. IPv6 was the stupidest possible way to get more addresses. There was ZERO need for it to do "other stuff" - it just needed to expand the address space.
> I propose IPv5 - nnn.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd. That's 256 * 4 billion, or over one trillion. No additional features over IPv4, just more IPs.
Classic example of tech lords ignoring the user and demanding everyone like their Shiny New Thing™.
A lot of people preferred an IPv4 architecture where networks were locally addressed by a DHCP server (and only DMZ explicitly exempted), with local-side devices needing only know their assigned address (easy logging) and a gateway which provides translation, allowing for changes in WAN addresses (often desirable) while allowing for keeping static local relationships and no global exposure of local addressing.
But then the IPv6 brigade came along and said you're holding it wrong you can't address a network that way, forcing an entirely new paradigm on users who simply needed a wider address space.
Rule #1 of getting people on board with Shiny New Thing, make it backwards compatible with Crappy Old Thing.
The argument against address translation is that it breaks protocols that need to open up arbitrary additional channels. SIP being a prime offender. It negotiates the data stream then says to the other end, send the data to that guy over there. That misses the point you need a protocol that allows you to encode "that guy over there" in a way that translating gateways can identify and deal with. You don't need a whole new way of doing stuff.
Protocol designers had numerous options for meeting needs of the use case without resorting to a lazy fallback to global addressability.
The conceptual need wasn't new either. Corporate telephone switchboards are mature technology which meets real-world needs. But protocol designers insisted that nobody should want to see packets in a similar way and having similar routing concerns.
In IPv6 dogma, the very thought of a packet intermediator is treated as an ideological blasphemy. They could have made challenges like SIP a solved problem, but instead they told everyone who favored intermediation and clearly demarcated address scopes they were wrong.
IPV6's designers don't like the DHCP/NAT thing. That doesn't mean you can't do it. You easily can and many do. Pretending that IPV6 blocks you from doing it reinforces the impression that those who argue against IPV6 are operators too incompetent to implement it. If you have complaints that are actually true, as in things that are blocked or worsened by the design rather than things that work perfectly well but someone opposes, they would be more convincing.
A consequence of IPv6's poor design and many failures
IPv4 addresses remain valuable the world over. Demand for the protocol remains strong, and will continue to do so, as IPv6 was flawed by design.
The IPv6 evangelists will never bring themselves to admit how many users prefer v4 over many of the crappy design decisions which were forced onto an unhappy userbase. They'll never admit that the mainstream doesn't agree with them on what's a feature versus what's a bug.
These lawsuits wouldn't be happening had the IPv4 paradigm just been upgraded to support slightly wider addresses, much as telephone operators did by adding area codes and country codes as telephones became more popular.