- Many operators welcome steps to stabilise AFRINIC; others warn CAIGA centralises power and bypasses community processes.
- Experts call for transparency, ICP-2 compatibility and clear safeguards to protect technical independence.
A divided reaction: Solidarity, scepticism and urgency
Smart Africa’s Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture (CAIGA) was pitched as a way to coordinate reforms and protect Africa’s internet infrastructure after years of AFRINIC turmoil. That pitch found sympathetic ears: governments and some stakeholders say the continent needs faster, coordinated responses to governance paralysis and legal uncertainty that threatened address allocation and network stability. At the same time, a strong current of scepticism runs through the technical community — ISPs, network engineers and civil-society actors — who worry CAIGA substitutes political endorsement for the bottom-up ratification that underpins Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).
Also Read: Who should govern Africa’s internet — AFRINIC or CAIGA?
What community critics are saying
Voices from the African technical community have been blunt. Nigerian network engineer Amin Dayekh, who attended Smart Africa’s Accra sessions, told attendees: “You are not engaging the real members of AFRINIC… These changes must happen in open forums, not behind the scenes on Zoom or Gmail.” His first-hand account warns that CAIGA’s design risks creating “a new hierarchy” above the community that actually runs AFRINIC. (Amin Dayekh, analysis).
Internet governance scholar Milton Mueller—writing for the Internet Governance Project—argues CAIGA would “add some new vulnerabilities” to AFRINIC’s problems and cautions the plan could “guarantee another five years of instability” by politicising technical governance. His analysis stresses that CAIGA’s council model conflicts with the ICP-2 bottom-up norms that keep registries predictable and neutral.
Alice Munyua, a long-time African internet governance expert, likewise warned of a “new layer of governmental and regulatory authority positioned above AFRINIC’s elected board,” and asked whether the same approach would be accepted in Europe or the Americas — highlighting fears of a double standard. Her commentary has amplified calls for ICANN and Smart Africa to explain their approach.
Also Read: How African internet governance could evolve under CAIGA
Which parts of CAIGA worry the community most?
Several specific features have provoked concern: paid membership tiers that could tier participation; a permanent secretariat hosted by Smart Africa that would create dual reporting lines; and an explicit route for political endorsement by heads of state if AFRINIC’s membership does not approve reforms. Community members say these features risk blurring technical and political functions and could undermine AFRINIC’s operational independence. Analysts point to documented minutes and drafts that describe a path where reforms are prepared by Smart Africa/CAIGA and then — if not adopted by members — advanced for political endorsement.
Concerns about process and data handling
Beyond structural worries, procedural issues have damaged trust. Investigations found Smart Africa once exposed thousands of AFRINIC members’ email addresses in a mass mailing error, prompting alarm about how contact lists were obtained and handled. That mishap reinforced perceptions that CAIGA’s development lacked sufficient community consent and data safeguards.
Where supporters say CAIGA helps
Supporters argue CAIGA was born of necessity. AFRINIC’s legal battles, receivership and annulled elections left the registry weakened; proponents say continental coordination and political backing can unblock reforms, speed capacity building and protect digital sovereignty. According to What Is Smart Africa’s CAIGA Initiative?, the initiative aims to “give African governments a structured mechanism to respond collectively to governance disruptions that threaten the stability of the region’s internet resources.” Smart Africa and ICANN point to their Memorandum of Understanding, asserting the collaboration focuses on capacity development and inclusion. ICANN’s correspondence states it joined the working group to provide input and financial support while remaining neutral on CAIGA’s specific elements.
What the community wants to see next
Across the spectrum, community members demand three things: full transparency about how CAIGA was developed; clear reconciliation with ICP-2 and RIR norms; and legal and technical safeguards that keep address allocation and routine operations insulated from political override. As one consensus emerging from the debate: Africa can pursue digital sovereignty and stronger institutions — but reforms must be community-anchored, transparent and compatible with the technical rules that ensure network stability.
