Live Wire
View all briefingsLead Report / Afrinic
AFRINIC’s proposed overhaul of its Policy Development Working Group contains a serious answer to paralysis and a dangerous shortcut around constitutional authority. The distinction will decide whether continuity rests on lawfully delegated procedure or on a policy manual pretending to be the institution that authorises it.
Afrinic
AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02 confronts a genuine engineering failure in AFRINIC’s aggregate utilisation test: a separately routed site, a failure-isolated data centre or an IPv6-transition function can need its own IPv4 prefix before the operator’s older space is 90% full. But the proposed cure would make an undefined, repeatable staff waiver the gateway to scarce address space. The right answer is neither blind adherence to the percentage nor an open-ended licence for AFRINIC to choose network architecture. It is a bounded technical-necessity test whose evidence, cumulative effect, policy hierarchy, reasons and independent review can all be audited.
Afrinic
Four days after AFRINIC’s formal recognition, IANA placed a new IPv4 /8 and a block of 1,024 Autonomous System Numbers in the African registry’s administrative inventory. The transfer mattered because it gave AFRINIC a consequential supply and coordination role. It did not assign every number to an operator, switch on a route, convey ownership of the addresses, or turn a service region into sovereign territory.
Afrinic
On 1 April 2026, AFRINIC’s Board named four people to the committee that would decide which candidates could advance toward seven governance and policy positions. The written rules contain genuine safeguards. The public evidence showing how the screeners themselves were selected, classified and recused is much thinner. That difference is the institutional question.
Member Access
Become a BTW member for free daily updates across governance, market, membership, and RIR Watchdog sessions. Join now and manage your delivery preferences anytime.
Governance
On 21 February 2005, AFRINIC became the primary processor of African registry services while its final recognition was still pending and incumbent registries still reviewed allocation decisions. The six-and-a-half weeks that followed reveal precisely what a regional registry can do, what accreditation changes, and why neither should be mistaken for sovereignty over networks or number-resource holders.
Market
A regional internet outage is rarely explained by one company, one cable, or one engineer. In June 2018, an Abruzzo publication identified Giovanni Di Clemente as a Telweb engineer and quoted his estimate that a severed backbone fibre had affected 40,000 to 50,000 users. It also quoted him saying Telweb teams supported the company working to restore service and supplied material. Those statements offer a useful person-level view of continuity work, but only within clear limits: the figure was his reported estimate, the restoration remained collaborative, and the wider outage account belongs to the publication. Read carefully, the episode shows how local operators manage dependencies they do not control and why credible continuity reporting separates observable action from heroic attribution.
Market / Companies
Fiber57 has a documented right to resell internet service across four municipalities in the Dominican Republic's Duarte province, and its own internet number resources briefly appeared in the global routing system in 2025. Yet the public record still does not show the cables, powered sites, usable capacity or repair arrangements that would determine whether a wet-season break near Pimentel becomes a short local incident or a prolonged loss of access.
Market / Trends
Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo's public record does not describe a lone architect making the internet safe. It shows a more instructive kind of authority: a regional registry strategist working where cryptographic standards, trust-anchor operations, operator education and cross-border incident coordination meet, and where each technical control remains dependent on institutions and people using it well.
Governance / NOGS
NANOG’s annual reports have become increasingly detailed about how people appear in its meeting record: registrations by mode, first-time participants, membership status, students, speakers, women in attendance, employment bands and organisation types. Its programme record also describes orientation, mentoring, ambassadors, a help desk and invitations to take on later roles. What the reviewed public record does not publish is the bridge between those two views—the share of a first-time cohort that returns, speaks, volunteers, becomes a member or serves in a formal role. That is a bounded measurement gap, not evidence that newcomers disappear.
Editorial position
Internet governance is too often described as theory, consensus, or institutional comfort while operators live with the consequences of structure, scarcity, jurisdiction, and incentives.
BTW shows how the system works when assumptions are tested: clear, uncomfortable, evidence-led reporting that keeps attention on structure rather than drama.
Governance, market, and membership branches operating in one integrated intelligence model.
Reporting on address stewardship, representation, and the institutions shaping number-resource governance.
Five regional sessions: ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC, AFRINIC, and LACNIC.
North America policy and transfer market signals.
Europe governance transparency and accountability monitoring.
Asia Pacific allocation pressure and policy dynamics.
Board legitimacy, election process, and legal continuity.
Institutional adaptation and ICP-2 governance trajectory.
Operational intelligence from the communities where routing, peering, resilience, and deployment practice are tested.
Asia-Pacific NOGs
Europe and Middle East NOGs
North America NOGs
Latin America and Caribbean NOGs
Asia-Pacific NOGs
Asia-Pacific NOGs
Africa NOGs
North America NOGs
North America NOGs
History of the Internet
Structural context for current governance behavior and infrastructure control models.
The 2016 Dyn attack did not take down the internet. It did something narrower and more costly for dependent services: it made revenue, login, payment, media, support, and public-information flows unreachable because a shared authoritative DNS provider was overwhelmed. The accountability question is who controlled DNS diversity, transit exposure, customer continuity, and practical revenue-cycle workarounds before a managed-DNS dependency became a common-mode failure.
Leadership Alliance
Capital, policy, and institutional leadership alignment in cross-border digital systems.
AFRINIC entered the global registry coordination compact in 2005 without the financial capacity to bear an ordinary pro-rata share of its costs. The solution was neither free admission nor reduced institutional standing: it was a negotiated initial contribution, explicitly described as symbolic, whose amount the four founding regional registries were meant to decide within ninety days. The agreement is public. The amount, method, decision record and payment trail are not. That distinction turns a small financial clause into a precise test of how institutions can accommodate unequal capacity without inventing unequal rights—or allowing an accounting arrangement to masquerade as sovereign power.
