Procedure or precedent? Rethinking ICP‑2 in AFRINIC’s aftermath

Procedure or precedent? Rethinking ICP‑2 in AFRINIC’s aftermath is profiled by BTW Media because published evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• Revisions to the ICP‑2 policy have introduced mechanisms that could enable unilateral action over regional internet registries, prompting concerns about increasing centralisation.
• Some observers have questioned the role played by Kurt Lindqvist during AFRINIC’s crisis, pointing to perceived overreach, limited stakeholder input, and a lack of procedural clarity.

The ICP‑2 addendum: balancing protection and power dynamics

In December 2024 ICANN introduced an addendum document to the Internet Coordination Policy‑2 (ICP‑2) citing the need to protect regional internet registries experiencing existential governance crises. In the aftermath of AFRINIC’s governance collapse—marked by annulled board elections and court-appointed receivership—and Cloud Innovation’s formal call to wind up the registry, ICANN positions this dcoument, called “Implementation and Assessment Procedures for ICP-2 Compliance” as a safeguard mechanism enabling swift replacement of a failed RIR.

Yet, observers argue that Kurt Lindqvist, a senior figure within ICANN, played a key role in advancing the compliance document outside traditional multistakeholder channels. This has led to perceptions that ICP‑2 is being shaped less as a protective framework and more as a means for individuals in leadership to exert greater influence over regional registry operations—potentially enabling unilateral de-recognition.

Also read: Cloud Innovation supports ICANN’s move to derecognise AFRINIC, calls for successor to be immediately identified
Also read: Who is Eddy Kayihura? The scandalous past of AFRINIC’s former CEO

AFRINIC’s governance crisis: the justification pretext

AFRINIC’s governance failure is well documented: years of internal dysfunction, legal disputes, forfeited election legitimacy, and annulled votes over a disputed proxy triggered collapse and diminished trust among its membership. The court‑appointed receiver has overseen operations since 2023, underscoring AFRINIC’s debilitated legal footing. Cloud Innovation, the registry’s third‑largest member, has demanded a reset via dissolution and immediate appointment of a new RIR under ICP‑2, citing irreparable governance failure.

While the crisis highlights the case for structural support, the way Kurt Lindqvist advanced ICP‑2 has led some to question whether the narrative was shaped to support a more centralised oversight of Africa’s IP ecosystem.

Over‑extension or overdue stewardship?

Statements encouraging AFRINIC to clarify its NomCom procedures and address membership discrepancies were publicly framed as efforts to uphold election fairness. However, some community members noted that these pressures continued even after the Supreme Court of Mauritius ruled out external jurisdiction in AFRINIC’s internal electoral matters.

Persistent references to ICP‑2 compliance—alongside informal suggestions of emergency leadership replacements—have raised quiet concerns within the internet governance community. Several observers worry that such momentum, even if well-intended, could unintentionally shift influence away from regional legal processes toward a more centralised style of intervention.

Also read: ICANN is backtracking on its own threats to derecognize AFRINIC
Also read: AFRINIC’s proxy vote scandal: What went wrong?

Narrative control under the guise of compliance

With AFRINIC incapacitated and Cloud Innovation advocating for its dissolution, invoking ICP‑2 as a pathway for regional continuity may seem institutionally reasonable—provided the process remains transparent, consultative, and locally grounded. However, the manner in which certain individuals, notably Kurt Lindqvist, advanced the narrative has led some to question whether the emphasis was placed more on consolidating procedural control than ensuring stable governance.

Observers have pointed to an inconsistent use of “transparency” and “fairness” narratives—emphasised when advantageous, downplayed when inconvenient. This selective framing, some argue, reflects a form of narrative management presented as neutral oversight. If ICP‑2 is applied without broad-based legitimacy and genuine regional engagement, the real risk may not be systemic collapse, but subtle centralisation of authority over Africa’s internet future.