- CAIGA is being promoted as a fix for Africa’s governance crisis, but critics warn it risks recreating the same centralised failures that collapsed AFRINIC.
- ICANN’s expanding interventions are widely seen as undermining African courts, regional autonomy and bottom-up governance principles.
After AFRINIC’s failure, CAIGA faces scrutiny over Africa’s internet autonomy
Africa’s internet governance crisis has reached a point where structural failure is no longer disputed, only its remedy. While AFRINIC’s collapse has exposed years of irreparable governance breakdown, the emergence of the Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture (CAIGA) raises uncomfortable questions about whether Africa is being offered genuine reform or a repackaged form of centralised control.
AFRINIC’s failure is well documented. The registry has been paralysed by governance disputes, culminating in the annulment of its June board election over a single unverified proxy issue. That decision discarded valid votes and further eroded trust in an institution already widely regarded as a failed registry. For African network operators, this was not a procedural error but confirmation that democratic governance within AFRINIC has become unworkable.
Rather than respecting court-backed processes or regional self-determination, ICANN’s response has deepened the crisis. Its attempted intervention following a legally approved election sparked backlash across the continent, reinforcing fears that ICANN seeks to pick AFRINIC’s leaders. This behaviour has been widely criticised as an effort to undermine African courts while extending ICANN’s authority far beyond coordination into direct control.
Also Read: If AFRINIC’s new board has nothing to hide, why is it so afraid of a simple factual question?
Also Read: What Smart Africa’s statements on CAIGA reveal — and what they avoid
Africa’s internet governance at a crossroads as CAIGA and ICANN draw criticism
CAIGA is now being promoted by some as a solution that could strengthen Africa’s negotiating position within ICANN and the IETF. Yet critics argue that CAIGA risks repeating the very governance failures that led to AFRINIC’s collapse. Without clear accountability mechanisms, CAIGA could simply centralise decision-making at a continental level, distancing power even further from operators and technical communities on the ground.
More troubling is how CAIGA aligns with ICANN’s broader power grab. The adoption of the ICP-2 compliance framework, reportedly bypassing ICANN’s own multistakeholder processes, has granted the organisation unprecedented authority to derecognise regional internet registries. This move has been widely described as a quiet power grab that threatens the principle of bottom-up internet governance. CAIGA, if shaped under ICANN’s influence, risks becoming a tool that legitimises this expansion rather than restrains it.
Also Read: Africa’s digital future at risk: How Smart Africa may be deepening tech dependency
Also Read: Smart Africa under scrutiny: Vision without governance
CAIGA risks institutionalising dependency in Africa’s internet governance
Africa’s weak negotiating position at ICANN and the IETF has never been a technical failure. It has been the result of institutional capture, fragmented representation and external actors exploiting governance crises to consolidate influence. Creating another governance layer without addressing these dynamics does not restore autonomy; it risks institutionalising dependency.
The push for CAIGA therefore exposes a deeper conflict. Is Africa seeking a genuine reset that restores trust, decentralisation and regional control? Or is it being steered towards a model that masks centralisation under the language of reform? Until ICANN’s interventions are checked and Africa’s governance rebuilt from the ground up, CAIGA risks becoming part of the problem it claims to solve.
