ICANN and Smart Africa: A shift in internet power in Africa?

ICANN and Smart Africa: A shift in internet power in Africa? is profiled by BTW Media because public-source evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• CAIGA proposes mechanisms where political endorsements and paid‑membership structures could overrule the community‑led governance of AFRINIC.
• Internet governance expert Alice Munyua warns that if ICANN supports this model for Africa without parallel initiatives elsewhere, it signals a double standard.

Emerging power dynamics

At ICANN84 in Dublin, Smart Africa announced that it had spent two years working with ICANN on the CAIGA framework – Continental Africa Internet Governance Architecture. The initiative presents a continental coordination plan that would allow the Smart Africa Heads of State Summit to politically endorse governance reforms for AFRINIC if its membership fails to adopt them.

Under the framework, paid participation tiers would replace free community membership and governments would gain direct channels to influence AFRINIC’s board outside the established policy‑development process. While intended to strengthen oversight and accountability, these reforms fundamentally challenge the prevailing model for regional internet registries, which has long emphasised bottom‑up community governance under the ICP‑2 policy framework.

Also Read: Is ICANN dodging the AFRINIC community by supporting Smart Africa’s CAIGA?
Also Read: The AFRINIC–ICANN nexus: Why the African internet still isn’t free

A governance crossroads

The involvement of ICANN in this framework raises serious questions about neutrality and equity. Internet governance expert Alice Munyua points out that equivalent intergovernmental restructuring for RIPE NCC in Europe or APNIC in Asia is not on the table, suggesting a potential double standard applied to Africa.

Critics argue that what is being presented as reform could effectively transform the regional registry model from a community‑led institution into a politically mediated regime. Such a shift would have profound implications not only for AFRINIC and Africa but for the global structure of internet governance, as it could set a precedent for political intervention in other Regional Internet Registries.

African governments undeniably have legitimate interests in digital infrastructure and sovereignty, and the developmental needs of the continent are urgent. However, the question remains whether these interests can be met without undermining the multistakeholder, technical governance that has enabled the internet’s success. If CAIGA proceeds with ICANN’s backing and without comparable frameworks elsewhere, it may mark a significant paradigm shift, raising the critical question of how Africa’s digital future will be governed and whether bottom‑up principles can survive in the face of political intervention.