• ICANN uses the ICP-2 compliance document. It tries to control regional internet registries and undermines multistakeholder processes.
  • ICANN wants to appoint AFRINIC’s leaders. This effort jeopardizes Africa’s bottom-up internet governance model.

ICANN’s quiet power grab in Africa

ICANN tried to interfere with AFRINIC’s governance, and AFRINIC is Africa’s key internet registry. ICANN adopted the ICP-2 compliance document. Through this document, it has given itself the authority to potentially derecognize regional internet registries (RIRs). This move threatens the principle of bottom-up governance. That principle is vital to Africa’s digital ecosystem. In this ecosystem, local stakeholders should control internet resources based on regional needs.

This shift towards centralized control puts Africa’s internet infrastructure at risk. For example, external actors like ICANN would gain power. They could make decisions that affect critical IP resources. This would undermine the continent’s digital sovereignty.

Also read: ICANN CEO resorts to anti-constitutional control model

ICANN undermining courts and legal frameworks

ICANN has sought to override judicial decisions within Africa. Specifically, these decisions relate to AFRINIC’s election process. The court had approved the election. Even so, ICANN attempted to intervene. This action sparked backlash from stakeholders. This outcome undermines the integrity of regional legal frameworks. It also raises questions about the legitimacy of global governance processes.

As a result, it sets a dangerous precedent. This precedent allows external entities to interfere in local governance. It also threatens the autonomy of African stakeholders. These stakeholders are in charge of managing their digital resources. ICANN’s interference has another effect too: it disrupts established legal processes. These processes ensure accountability and fairness in internet governance.

Also read: AFRINIC election: 2nd attempt to delay voting fails

Enabling state surveillance through control

ICANN’s influence is growing. Because of this, Africa’s internet resources could become centralized. This centralization might facilitate state surveillance. If ICANN controls the infrastructure behind internet access, governments could act differently. Both African and non-African governments could track users more effectively. They could also monitor communications better. Such control could lead to another issue: greater regulation of digital traffic. This regulation might infringe on privacy and freedom of expression.

Regional entities like AFRINIC are working to protect Africa’s internet ecosystem. However, ICANN’s overreach poses a direct threat. It threatens the open and free nature of the internet in Africa. The risks of state surveillance and control are growing. Therefore, Africa needs to safeguard its digital sovereignty. It also needs to resist external interference.