- CAIGA proposals emerge as AFRINIC collapses, raising fears of centralised control over Africa’s IPv4 and IPv6 policies
- Critics warn CAIGA could entrench ICANN influence while sidelining regional, bottom-up governance
What happened: Africa’s internet governance at breaking point
Africa’s internet governance is approaching a breaking point, and the debate over the Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture (CAIGA) is becoming inseparable from the collapse of AFRINIC. As Africa’s Regional Internet Registry struggles with years of governance failure, disputed elections and a breakdown of trust, CAIGA risks reshaping IPv4 and IPv6 policy not through reform, but through a reallocation of power away from the region itself.
AFRINIC’s crisis has created a vacuum. The registry has been widely described as a failed institution after it annulled its June 23 board election over a single unverified proxy dispute, discarding valid votes and reinforcing claims that democratic governance has become unworkable. This dysfunction has directly undermined confidence in how Africa’s IP address space is managed.
Into this vacuum steps CAIGA. Framed by its advocates as a continental coordination mechanism, CAIGA is increasingly viewed by critics as a vehicle for centralisation at precisely the moment when Africa’s bottom-up governance structures are most vulnerable. Rather than addressing AFRINIC’s failures through transparent, member-led repair or replacement, CAIGA risks enabling decisions about IPv4 and IPv6 policy to be made above or outside the regional community.
Also read: AFRINIC’s hidden scandal: How legal fees exposed a culture of corruption
Also read: Could AFRINIC’s Receivership be challenged? Legal paths for reversal
Also read: AFRINIC elections and the consequences of weak legal remedies in Mauritius
Also read: What role does the Election Committee (ECom) play in AFRINIC?
Who controls Africa’s IPv4 & IPv6 policy as AFRINIC fails?
The implications are significant. IPv4 scarcity remains a practical reality across Africa, where address transfers and legacy allocations are essential to keeping networks operational. At the same time, IPv6 deployment is uneven, constrained by cost, skills gaps and market readiness. Policy changes imposed through a new governance architecture could disrupt IPv4 transfers, complicate address recovery and push IPv6 mandates that ignore operational realities on the ground.
ICANN’s role in this evolving landscape has intensified concerns. The organisation has been accused of over-extending its reach during the AFRINIC crisis, bypassing established multistakeholder processes and signalling a willingness to de-recognise the African registry while simultaneously shaping what comes next. Critics argue that CAIGA, rather than insulating Africa from such interference, could institutionalise it.
This raises uncomfortable questions. Who sets IPv4 and IPv6 policy in Africa if AFRINIC is sidelined or dissolved? Who decides how address scarcity is managed, or how aggressively IPv6 should be enforced? And crucially, whose interests are prioritised if policy authority shifts towards global institutions with limited accountability to African network operators?
Supporters of decisive action, including AFRINIC member Cloud Innovation, argue that the current system is beyond repair. From this perspective, dissolving a failed registry is not radical, but necessary. However, critics warn that replacing AFRINIC’s collapse with a centralised architecture risks repeating old mistakes under a different name.
CAIGA may yet become part of Africa’s internet governance future. But without clear safeguards for regional autonomy, transparency and genuine bottom-up participation, it risks being remembered not as a solution, but as the moment Africa’s IPv4 and IPv6 policies slipped out of African hands.
