- AFRINIC members say African internet governance must remain under local control.
- Some respondents did not follow the politics, however others is fear the loss of digital sovereignty.
When Smart Africa exposed the email addresses of thousands of AFRINIC members in a mass mailing error, it triggered a storm of questions about data handling, privacy, and accountability. The organisation has yet to explain how it obtained the full contact list, why no safeguards were applied to prevent such a disclosure, and what measures it intends to adopt to prevent another breach.
In response, BTW Media spoke to hundreds of AFRINIC members to understand their view
Also read: ICANN’s lack of transparency: A threat to democracy?
What happened: Concerns grow among AFRINIC stakeholders about ICANN interference and regional self-rule
The debate of the AFRINIC’s governance has intensified after months of what some see as the interference by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The concern is that ICANN, which is based in the United States but is widely regarded as dominated by European stakeholders, is attempting to influence the way of AFRINIC’s management.
When asked if they were comfortable with a European organisation influencing AFRINIC, several members expressed firm opposition. One respondent was clear: “Regarding AFRINIC’s management, we are fiercely opposed to a European organisation controlling it.” One other member stated: “AFRINIC should be handled exclusively by members from the region it represents. Any outside interference is bad.”
Another participant raised the risk of skewed decision-making. “No, this undermines the local protection needed to ensure that larger enterprises and governments from other areas are not favoured in our region. Most importantly it undermines regional self-governance, making us subject to external control and sparking backlash from governments, who may push for digital sovereignty,” they said.
Others agreed that the African registry should not be dictated to by foreign powers. The fear is that oversight from outside bodies will erode the principle of self-determination in internet governance.
Not everyone was equally engaged. A few respondents admitted they do not follow the politics closely and have little preference either way. “I do not follow the politics,” said one. Another added: “I don’t have a strong preference either way.” Yet even these voices acknowledged that interference, if proven, would not be a good outcome.
Also Read: Smart Africa leaks thousands of AFRINIC member email addresses Also Read: Special report: Smart Africa leaked email list was obtained without consent
Why it’s important
AFRINIC which headquartered in Mauritius, is the only Regional Internet Registry (RIR) in the Africa. This RIR is responsible for the distributing internet number resources such as the IP addresses across in continent, thus the independence is therefore critical for the functioning and stability of the Africa’s digital ecosystem.
Opponents of the ICANN’s role argue that the outside control risks tilting the balance of power towards larger corporations or governments from outside the continent. This could reduce the fairness for smaller African internet service providers and has threaten Africa’s push for digital self-reliance.
The timing is also sensitive. AFRINIC has faced the turbulent few years, also with the contested elections and court supervision, and disputes over voting systems. adding to the sense of instability. Against this backdrop, suggestions of external interference strike a nerve for many members.
The responses collected the highlight of broader geopolitical struggle. African stakeholders are calling for the internet future to be decided locally, which cannot be shaped by boardrooms abroad. This feeds into the wider discussions about digital sovereignty, and has been growing across the continent as governments look to safeguard national control the data and infrastructure.
Some members fear that if AFRINIC loses the autonomy, the political leaders will push harder for national or regional alternatives. That could fragment governance, weaken cooperation, and risk creating competing systems of internet management.
The issue remains unresolved. While ICANN is denies interfering, the perception alone has stirred mistrust and sharpened divisions. The question now is whether AFRINIC can reassure the community that the governance will remain in African hands, which should without outside influence tipping the balance.
