- A continental power shift raises questions about whether Africa is being held to a different governance standard.
- ICANN’s involvement in CAIGA is intensifying scrutiny of political influence over technical institutions.
A new battle for control of Africa’s digital infrastructure
A quiet but consequential fight is unfolding over who should govern Africa’s internet. At the centre are two very different visions: AFRINIC, the continent’s long-standing Regional Internet Registry (RIR), and CAIGA, the “Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture” developed by Smart Africa, an intergovernmental body representing 40 African states. What makes this moment explosive is not simply the existence of competing models, but the revelation that ICANN worked with Smart Africa for two years to help shape the CAIGA framework, even providing financial and technical support.
According to Smart Africa’s public statements at ICANN84 in Dublin, CAIGA would allow Heads of State to politically endorse governance reforms for AFRINIC if the membership does not adopt them — a mechanism that critics say effectively replaces bottom-up decision making with continental political oversight. The framework also proposes paid participation structures, a Permanent Secretary drawn from the Smart Africa Secretariat, and direct government recommendations to AFRINIC’s board outside the normal community policy process.
Also Read: AFRINIC vs. CAIGA: Competing visions for Africa’s internet future
A governance architecture with global implications
The central question now being asked by African internet governance experts is simple but deeply uncomfortable: Would ICANN support a similar intergovernmental restructuring of RIPE NCC by the European Commission, or ARIN by the OAS? If the answer is no, why then is Africa treated differently? And if the answer is yes, then ICANN must openly acknowledge that it is helping reshape the global RIR model from community-driven coordination to politically mediated oversight.
This is not merely about African digital sovereignty — which is legitimate, necessary and long overdue. It is about whether sovereignty requires the erosion of the bottom-up multistakeholder processes that have long underpinned the stability of the global internet. Critics like Alice Munyua warn that CAIGA represents governance capture rather than genuine reform, especially given that many AFRINIC members reportedly had minimal awareness or involvement in the drafting process.
Also Read: ICANN and Smart Africa: A shift in internet power in Africa?
The choice Africa must make
Africa does not need to choose between sovereignty and community governance. Both can coexist — but only if reforms are built transparently through AFRINIC’s own processes, rather than drafted externally and politically endorsed. The future of Africa’s internet depends on the answer to one fundamental question: Should technical institutions remain accountable to their communities, or be reshaped by political power?
And crucially — why is Africa being asked to accept a choice the rest of the world is never forced to make?
