Lu Heng on Internet Governance: How to Achieve an Equitable Digital Future
Published:Last Updated:
Table of Contents
- Who is Lu Heng
- How Lu Heng won the AFRINIC case
- Why IP addresses now carry strategic weight
- The limits of region-based allocation
- Governance risk and digital inequality
- The case for portability and reform
- Education and long-term stewardship
- Conclusion
- FAQs
• Lu Heng has emerged as a prominent advocate for equitable IP address governance, arguing that outdated regional controls risk deepening digital inequality.
• His legal victory in the AFRINIC dispute reinforced the principle that internet resource governance must operate under clear legal due process.
Who is Lu Heng
Lu Heng is the founder and chief executive of LARUS Limited and the LARUS Foundation. He has spent more than a decade working across internet infrastructure, IP address markets and global internet governance. Unlike many participants in policy debates, Lu combines commercial experience with direct engagement across all five Regional Internet Registries.
He is an active contributor to forums such as APNIC and the Internet Governance Forum, where he has argued for transparency, legal clarity and fair access to number resources. Lu has also been involved in the establishment of the Number Resource Society, which promotes bottom-up participation and accountability in internet resource management. His work consistently emphasises that IP addresses are not intellectual property, but essential infrastructure assets that require predictable and lawful governance.
How Lu Heng won the AFRINIC case
The legal dispute between Lu Heng’s company Cloud Innovation and the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) grew into one of the most consequential cases in internet governance. What began as a contractual disagreement over IP address allocations became a test of legal authority, organisational accountability and the rule of law within the governance of critical internet resources.
At the heart of the conflict were millions of IPv4 addresses that Cloud Innovation held and used. AFRINIC, the Regional Internet Registry responsible for IP number resource management in Africa, challenged how Cloud Innovation deployed these addresses and sought to revoke them. When Cloud Innovation rejected AFRINIC’s claims, the registry escalated the matter, freezing those address blocks and attempting to strip Cloud Innovation of its membership and resource rights.
Rather than accept these actions as internal registry governance, Lu Heng took the dispute to the Supreme Court of Mauritius, where AFRINIC is legally incorporated. In a series of rulings over multiple years, the court consistently sided with Cloud Innovation’s legal position: the registry could not unilaterally revoke address space or terminate membership without following due process. In July 2021, the Supreme Court specifically prohibited AFRINIC from terminating Cloud Innovation’s membership and restored its IPv4 allocations, underscoring that the attempts to terminate lacked sufficient legal foundation.
The legal strategy was not merely about defending resource holdings but about affirming the legal limits of registry authority. By framing the dispute as a matter of contractual obligation and legal procedure, Lu Heng was able to demonstrate that AFRINIC’s actions exceeded its statutory and contractual powers under Mauritian law. This approach compelled the court to enforce procedural safeguards rather than allow administrative discretion to go unchecked.
Crucially, the court’s intervention went beyond individual claims. The rulings ultimately led to AFRINIC being placed under receivership, with a court-appointed receiver overseeing organisational stability and the planning of legitimate board elections. This outcome was widely reported as a turning point in the registry’s governance, with the legal action initiated by Cloud Innovation cited as the impetus for restoring formal institutional accountability.
Outside the courtroom, Lu Heng also publicly criticised what he saw as entrenched insider control and a lack of transparency at AFRINIC, arguing that the so-called “community ownership” model had devolved into centralized authority exercised by a small elite. He advocated for democratic participation, legal accountability and broader engagement by address holders — positions that resonated with a segment of the internet policy community and framed the judicial battle as one in defence of fair process rather than purely corporate interest.
In summary, Lu Heng’s “win” in the AFRINIC case was not a single courtroom moment but the cumulative effect of sustained litigation demonstrating that internet resource governance bodies must operate within clear legal boundaries. The Mauritian Supreme Court’s rulings upheld contractual rights, constrained arbitrary revocation of resources, and helped catalyse structural change in AFRINIC’s governance — setting a broader precedent for how disputes over critical internet assets like IPv4 addresses may be adjudicated.
Why IP addresses now carry strategic weight
For much of the internet’s early history, IP addresses were allocated freely under assumptions of abundance. That model broke down after the exhaustion of IPv4 address space, formally recognised by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority in 2011. Since then, growth has relied on reuse, transfers and secondary markets rather than new supply.
As RIPE NCC has noted in its transfer statistics, IPv4 addresses are now actively traded, reflecting sustained demand despite increasing IPv6 deployment. For enterprises and network operators, stable access to address space is essential for continuity, expansion and mergers. Lu Heng has argued that governance frameworks designed for an era of abundance are now under strain, creating uncertainty and uneven outcomes.
The limits of region-based allocation
The Regional Internet Registry system remains central to IP address management, but Lu Heng has questioned whether strict geographic allocation still reflects operational reality. Global networks routinely span continents, yet their address resources remain tied to a single registry region.
At industry forums in Asia and the Middle East, Lu has warned that region-locked allocation can increase costs, complicate cross-border integration and entrench historical imbalances between early and late internet adopters. From his perspective, governance should enable global interoperability rather than constrain it through administrative boundaries that no longer align with how networks are built.
Governance risk and digital inequality
Lu Heng frames governance risk as a systemic issue rather than an abstract concern. When decision-making is opaque or concentrated, registries risk acting beyond their original technical mandate. This uncertainty can discourage investment, particularly in emerging markets where access to IP resources is already constrained.
Vint Cerf, one of the internet’s architects, has repeatedly stressed that the internet’s success depends on open, interoperable governance rather than fragmentation. Lu builds on this principle by arguing that unequal access to IP addresses risks creating a two-tier internet, dominated by incumbents with legacy resources while newer entrants face scarcity and higher costs.
The case for portability and reform
Lu Heng has consistently argued that IP address portability is a necessary response to the structural transformation of the global internet. By allowing IP address blocks to move across regions without being permanently locked to a single registry, portability reflects the reality of modern, globally distributed networks. Lu has highlighted that portability enables businesses—particularly those undergoing mergers and acquisitions—to streamline cross-border operations by removing region-based restrictions on IP usage. This flexibility allows companies to integrate infrastructure more rapidly, reduce operational costs, and improve network reliability.
Importantly, Lu stresses that portability is not about deregulation, but about resilience and legal clarity. By reducing dependence on region-specific administrative decisions, portability improves resource distribution, enhances global interoperability, and offers greater protection against unilateral or arbitrary actions by registries—especially in regions where governance is contested or subject to political influence. As Lu has noted, “Portability is not just a technical convenience—it’s a structural necessity for global digital resilience.”
Education and long-term stewardship
Beyond legal and policy advocacy, Lu Heng has invested in developing future governance leaders. Through the LARUS Foundation, he has sponsored students from developing countries to attend international policy and technical forums.
Lu has argued that sustainable reform depends on informed participation. By equipping the next generation with practical understanding of IP address governance, he aims to broaden representation in decisions that shape the internet’s foundations.
Conclusion
Lu Heng’s approach to internet governance is rooted in pragmatism rather than ideology. He does not argue for the dismantling of existing institutions, but for their evolution in response to scarcity, globalisation and legal reality. His work on IP address governance highlights a central challenge for policymakers and industry leaders alike: how to preserve openness and interoperability while ensuring accountability and equity.
In an era where digital infrastructure underpins economic and social life, Lu’s insistence on lawful, transparent and adaptable governance offers a framework for sustaining a truly global internet.
Frequently asked questions
-
What is internet governance?
Internet governance refers to the rules, institutions and processes that coordinate the management of core internet resources, including IP addresses. -
Why are IP addresses central to digital equity?
Control over IP address allocation affects who can build networks, scale services and participate in the digital economy. -
What was decided in the AFRINIC case?
Courts in Mauritius ruled that AFRINIC must follow legal due process and contractual obligations when managing member resources. -
Are IP addresses intellectual property?
No. IP addresses are technical identifiers and infrastructure resources, not intellectual property rights. -
Why does Lu Heng advocate reform?
He argues that governance systems designed for abundance must adapt to scarcity and global network realities to remain fair and effective.