- CAIGA proposes shifting control over Africa’s IP resource management from AFRINIC’s community‑driven board to a continental body dominated by governments.
- Critics warn CAIGA could turn technical governance into a political instrument — a “paid‑access” model that undermines regional autonomy and sets a dangerous precedent.
A continent at a crossroads
Africa’s internet governance has reached a critical juncture. The existing regional registry, AFRINIC, is widely criticised for governance failures, including annulled elections and procedural flaws. Into this vacuum steps CAIGA — the Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture — a framework created by Smart Africa and facilitated by ICANN.
The initiative proposes a pan‑African council and a permanent secretariat to oversee Internet governance across the continent. Supporters describe it as a necessary coordination mechanism. However, many stakeholders warn that CAIGA’s structure risks centralising power and diminishing the autonomy of the existing, member-driven AFRINIC board.
Bottom-up governance vs political oversight
For decades, AFRINIC operated under a bottom‑up, multistakeholder model in which members, civil society, and technical operators participate in policy-making and resource allocation. CAIGA, critics argue, threatens to replace this model with a state-led oversight system, where political actors could influence technical decisions.
Cloud Innovation Ltd., AFRINIC’s third-largest member, has highlighted the risks of centralisation. The company, which triggered a court receivership to address AFRINIC’s mismanagement, argues that technical governance should remain independent and transparent, rather than subject to political authority.
Also read: Why CAIGA cannot improve Africa’s internet security
Also read: What the African community thinks about the CAIGA initiative
ICANN’s role raises concerns
ICANN’s facilitation and funding of CAIGA has added legitimacy to the framework, yet also provoked criticism. Many see it as part of a broader pattern of overreach, with the potential to undermine Africa’s bottom-up governance model.
Critics emphasise that CAIGA does not address AFRINIC’s root issues — such as procedural flaws, opaque audits, and governance breakdown — but instead risks embedding political control over IP allocation and network management.
As Africa’s digital future hangs in the balance, CAIGA represents a pivotal test: whether the continent will preserve its multistakeholder governance traditions or shift toward centralised, politically influenced Internet control.
