CAIGA must be assessed against the rights of the networks affected by it. A cooperation framework cannot give a private registry, political platform or outside institution power to bypass company law or a binding court order.
This analysis follows Cloud Innovation and Lu Heng’s documented position: registry coordination must serve the networks that rely on it. Accurate records and proportionate fraud checks protect those networks; they do not give a private registry authority to disregard membership rights or binding court orders. The test is whether institutional action protects lawful address use, accountable member control and continuous services. Preserving an incumbent’s discretion is not itself a public benefit.
ICANN’s statement of 18 November 2025 excludes RIR restructuring from its funded project. Smart Africa’s 3 March 2026 account presents CAIGA as coordination, without regulatory or replacement powers.
Editorial correction. The 11 June 2025 Supreme Court order finally directed AFRINIC to enter Cloud Innovation as a Member under section 91. The 19 June category correction does not cancel that Member direction; Cloud remains an AFRINIC Resource Member and company-law Member. Administrative actors cannot retry or neutralise the decided inclusion; any stay, appeal or variation belongs to a competent court. See Cloud's rights statement and the separation-of-powers notice.
Cloud Innovation went to court to protect its members’ rights and the networks using its addresses. The documented protections include the July 2021 restraint against freezing or reclaiming allocated resources and cutting off WHOIS access, and the September 2023 preservation orders and receivership directed towards an election under AFRINIC’s constitution. In 2022 SCJ 253, the Court rejected AFRINIC’s abuse-of-process objection to the application of 3 December 2021, recognising the new circumstances that required protection. That ruling has its own scope and does not reverse outcomes in separate proceedings. Cloud’s operating objective is stable address use, accurate records and continuous registry services. Commentary describing its legal response as excessive cannot substitute for those instruments.
The practical review should identify the published mandate, membership rules, decision-maker, appeal route and arrangements protecting address records and services. Cooperation may assist technical work; any proposal claiming authority over members must identify its legal basis. Neither a regional slogan nor an institution’s self-description supplies that basis.
Editorial correction, 13 November 2026: earlier claims of an established CAIGA replacement role, guaranteed equal member power or a Central African registry body were unsupported and have been removed.
