[Ncsg-discuss] Is ICANN helping to subvert its own governance model?

Wed Nov 19 03:00:34 EET 2025

Dear colleagues,

ICANN's CEO wrote a formal clarification
<https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/icanns-commitment-to-the-africa-community-18-11-2025-en>
on the IG Blueprint and the concerns around CAIGA. The blogpost
<https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/icanns-commitment-to-the-africa-community-18-11-2025-en>is
clear and, in my view, settles the questions that have occupied us. ICANN
explains that its cooperation with Smart Africa relates to broad Internet
governance engagement and capacity development, not to the governance of
AfriNIC. It reaffirms that ICP2 remains the framework guiding AfriNIC and
that any evolution must come from AfriNIC members and the African Internet
community. ICANN also confirms that CAIGA is still a draft under community
discussion and has not been presented to any political authority. This
should reassure anyone who feared structural change. The multistakeholder
model remains intact and AfriNIC’s future remains with its community.

I would like to offer a broader reflection. AfriNIC has around 2,600
members, yet fewer than 1 in 4 participated in the last election, and while
Africa is home to 1.4 billion people, only a small number of us regularly
contribute to ICANN working groups or policy processes. When participation
is so limited, misunderstandings can grow quickly. African coordination,
when it appears, is too often interpreted as an attempt at capture rather
than what it usually is, which is an effort to bring coherence and
visibility to a region that has long been underrepresented in global
deliberations.

We also need to be honest about the global context. The United States, once
a stabilising force in Internet governance, is entering a period of erratic
policy making. Europe, while invoking the language of digital sovereignty,
is simultaneously weakening some of the protections that once defined its
regulatory leadership. Meanwhile, the private sector continues to
consolidate power in the technical and infrastructural layers of the
network. In this environment, Africa cannot afford to remain fragmented or
reactive. It also cannot allow its attempts at coordination to be
reflexively interpreted as political intrusion. Coordination is not
capture. Coordination is how a continent of 1.4 billion people begins to
articulate a shared position in a global system shaped by geopolitical
interests and commercial concentration.

One size does not fit all in Internet governance. Our infrastructures
differ, our regulatory capacities differ, and our development priorities
differ. The global model only works when these realities are recognised and
represented. As Africa defines its path, we must ensure that civil society,
academia, technical operators, the private sector and all stakeholder
groups have their voices embedded in the process. A coordinated Africa is
not a closed Africa. It is an Africa capable of speaking clearly,
constructively and confidently in spaces that do not pause for those who
remain silent.

ICANN’s clarification confirms that AfriNIC’s authority remains with its
members and that any governance evolution must be community driven. The
task before us now is to strengthen African participation, deepen our
engagement and bring our perspectives to the global table with greater
confidence.

The world is changing. Africa must change with it. Not by outsourcing its
digital future, but by shaping it together and with intention.

Warm regards,
Emmanuel

Le mar. 18 nov. 2025 à 02:20, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Hi Rafik, all,
>
> *I fully support the letter to the board*. As it states "Expedited timing
> is critical to ensure that any ICANN-related engagement aligns with the
> multistakeholder principles embedded in ICP-2".
>
> Having followed the work of Smart Africa closely within ICANN, I have
> always held the view that while their efforts might be providing the much
> needed support AfriNIC needed to address the issue they were facing, the
> Smart Africa approach was not consistent with Internet Governance models we
> advocate for -  which are *bottom-up* *inclusiveness, openness* and
> *transparency*. These questions we are asking now ensure that going
> forward, the right approaches are used to achieve the right results. So, we
> must ask these questions to the ICANN board and whoever else is accountable.
>
> Remain blessed,
> Tomslin
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 21:10, Emmanuel Vitus <emmanuelvitus at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm…. It is not hesitation but reflection. It is the kind of moment
>> anyone who has lived through the history of African Internet governance
>> will recognise. Those who witnessed the creation of AfriNIC, the protracted
>> 4-year crisis that nearly fractured it, or the long political odyssey
>> behind the “dot africa” top level domain know that these debates are never
>> merely technical. They carry historical memory, institutional fragility,
>> and the ongoing struggle for African agency within a global digital order
>> that was not built for us.
>>
>> Professor Milton’s article is, as always, rigorous and analytically
>> sharp. For many of us, he has long been a model of principled thinking in
>> global Internet governance. Yet on this particular point, the framing
>> requires a more historically grounded African perspective.
>>
>> There is a long-standing tendency to portray African states as inherently
>> unstable or structurally fragile. We saw this again only weeks ago when
>> Donald Trump, in his current political capacity, declared Nigeria a
>> “disgraced country” and threatened to intervene “guns blazing” based on
>> unverified allegations. This rhetoric does not arise from empirical depth;
>> it emerges from narrative habits that reduce African complexity to
>> simplified explanations. It is essential that we do not reproduce such
>> patterns in our internal governance debates.
>>
>> Smart Africa, which features prominently in this discussion, must also be
>> situated in its proper context. It has always operated under African Union
>> guidance and in several areas it succeeded where the AU advanced slowly.
>> Yes, Smart Africa is close to governments and the private sector. Yes, it
>> must improve its engagement with civil society, academia and the technical
>> community. No, the model is not perfect. But depicting Smart Africa as a
>> covert instrument seeking to capture AFRINIC or impose political control
>> over a regional technical institution misrepresents both its mandate and
>> its contributions.
>>
>> I should also clarify that I am not a “defender” of Smart Africa, despite
>> the interpretation suggested in the article. I defend African initiatives
>> that attempt, however imperfectly, to advance African sovereignty and
>> agency. When Smart Africa errs, I criticise it privately and publicly.
>> <https://medium.com/@emmanuelvitus/after-years-of-paralysis-afrinic-must-prove-it-can-govern-itself-1b7d50bbd67c>
>> When it succeeds, I acknowledge tha
>> <https://medium.com/@emmanuelvitus/afrinic-hope-hijack-and-the-harsh-lessons-of-african-multistakeholderism-8e8378797101>t.
>> As we often say in Africa, *only a tree that bears fruit receives stones*.
>> Smart Africa receives stones precisely because it has stepped into a space
>> where Africa historically lacked institutional visibility. Maybe this is my
>> badge to carry as well: that by being vocal, by standing for African
>> agency, by refusing narratives that diminish us, I inevitably place myself
>> in the line of fire. But perhaps that is precisely the role our generation
>> must accept.
>>
>> Some factual clarifications are necessary. ISPA is the Internet Service
>> Providers Association of South Africa. It is not, and has never been, the
>> Internet Service Providers Association of Africa. AFRINIC covers 54
>> countries and more than 2 300 members. To reduce the outcome of a
>> continental election to the influence of a single national association is
>> not only inaccurate; it erases the collective effort behind the process
>> led by Smart Africa
>> <https://smartafrica.org/press-release-community-endorsed-candidates-for-afrinic-board-elections-2025/>.
>> Colleagues from TESPOK in Kenya, TISPA in Tanzania, ISPA RDC and many
>> others would be astonished to see their extensive consultations reduced to
>> a single sister association. Even ISPA’s own leadership knows how the
>> continental slate emerged: through negotiation, coordination and consensus
>> across the region.
>>
>> Prof, in that spirit, may I respectfully ask whether you had the
>> opportunity to speak with the ISPA leadership before drawing this
>> conclusion in the article? Their perspective would be extremely valuable to
>> this discussion.
>>
>> As for the circulating claim that ICANN funded CAIGA or empowered Smart
>> Africa to redesign AFRINIC’s governance: this is unsupported by any
>> evidence. If ICANN’s legal counsel were asked to evaluate it formally, they
>> would likely dismiss it immediately. The allegation collapses under basic
>> legal and factual scrutiny. I was present in most of the rooms where these
>> matters were discussed, most of them publicly. I witnessed the
>> interactions, the boundaries and the institutional constraints. This
>> narrative does not correspond to reality.
>>
>> My hope is that those familiar with AFRINIC’s internal dynamics and with
>> the African technical community will recognise the gap between the
>> narrative being circulated and what actually occurred.
>>
>> For colleagues who want deeper context, I invite you to read my recent
>> article
>> <https://medium.com/@emmanuelvitus/smart-africa-icann-caiga-afrinic-how-the-brouhaha-exposes-the-politics-of-african-digital-cf3ddc42beca>.
>> It explains how this narrative emerged, why it spread. More importantly, it
>> argues that African digital sovereignty will not be built on suspicion or
>> fragmentation.
>>
>> Prof, I genuinely appreciate your decision to remove the earlier
>> concluding paragraph. It reflects the intellectual humility and integrity
>> that many of us admire in your work.
>>
>> Let us continue this discussion with historical consciousness. Africa has
>> been misrepresented many times in global Internet governance. We must avoid
>> reproducing narratives that diminish our agency or our capabilities. *Africa
>> is not a country.*
>>
>> Asante sana!
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> Le dim. 16 nov. 2025 à 16:52, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Oh.. and thanks a lot for deleting the original last paragraph :)
>>>
>>> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
>>>
>>> On 2025/11/16 18:19, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Anriette,
>>> Thanks for your comments. I think your question about the relationship
>>> between the African Union and Smart Africa (SA) is an important one to
>>> pursue. It is relevant if SA succeeds in establishing some kind of Council
>>> (CAIGA) that has supervisory authority over AFRINIC. I think that is a bad
>>> idea and I also think it is highly unlikely. But as a partner of SA, ICANN
>>> needs to confront this question.
>>>
>>> As for "generalizations about the region and its governments," sorry if
>>> you read that into the article. No such generalizations were intended. Your
>>> misinterpretation shows that nationalism and identity politics are big
>>> obstacles to clear thinking about Internet governance, especially in this
>>> case. There is no statement anywhere in that blog, or in anything I have
>>> ever written, that says Africa is "inherently" unstable or undemocratic.
>>> Inherent means "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or
>>> characteristic attribute." No, the article merely calls attention to the
>>> fact that many of its current governments are undemocratic or unstable,
>>> which is a fact. Some African governments are not unstable or undemocratic,
>>> and there is certainly long term hope that stability and liberal democracy
>>> will come to additional African states.
>>>
>>> The point is, all these governments would be part of a board that wants
>>> to govern AFRINIC. So what kind of principles and policies would ensue?
>>> Geopolitics and national interests are "inherent" features of multilateral,
>>> government institutions. That is my argument, and it applies to all
>>> regions, not just Africa.
>>>
>>> The article advocates for *self-governance* of AFRINIC by its *members,
>>> * and opposes an overlay of state-directed control. This is what we
>>> mean by "the multistakeholder model," is it not? My rejection of state
>>> control and digital sovereignty applies to the U.S. government, to European
>>> governments, etc. Our current experience with the Trump administration and
>>> its nationalistic, nativist, sovereigntist policies is an excellent example
>>> of why I don't want states setting policies for the global coordination of
>>> Internet identifiers. It also explains why I was and remain a big advocate
>>> of eliminating U.S. control of ICANN during the 2014-2016 transition. I
>>> think I have been perfectly consistent about this.
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>>
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>> Carter School of Public Policy
>>>
>>> <https://internetgovernance.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> <anriette at apc.org>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 16, 2025 10:44 AM
>>> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU> <milton at GATECH.EDU>;
>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Is ICANN helping to subvert its own governance model?
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Milton
>>>
>>> You are often the person that asks tough questions in an uncompromising
>>> way. I like and value that about you even when I don't agree with you :)
>>> But speaking as an African I would appreciate it if you could do so without
>>> making generalisations about the region and its governments. Africa is not
>>> inherently 'unstable' or undemocratic, as you imply.  In fact, living in
>>> the US at present you probably have firsthand knowledge of how erratic
>>> states and their leaders can be and how risky it is to make assumptions
>>> about them.
>>>
>>>
>>> From my perspective as someone who has tried to follow the process
>>> closely, but from a distance, I do have questions over and above those in
>>> the NCSG letter, but they can wait for a bit later and should be addressed
>>> to the AfriNIC board and to Smart Africa and the  African Union.
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, does the MOU between Smart Africa and the African Union
>>> Commission include commitment to comply with the AU's Data Policy
>>> Framework
>>> <https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/42078-doc-DATA-POLICY-FRAMEWORKS-2024-ENG-V2.pdf>,
>>> and the AU Declaration on Internet Governance
>>> <https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/33025-wd-african_declaration_on_internet_governance_en_0.pdf> which
>>> affirms freedom of expression, openness and the WSIS  principles of
>>> multistakeholder participation? And, will Smart Africa int is
>>> interaction/support of AfriNIC adhere to  the African Commission on
>>> Human and People's Rights Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression.
>>> The latter is a particularly strong document and shaped by multistakeholder
>>> consultation and in particular civil  society input.  AfriNIC has in the
>>> past been active in the formulation of AU internet-related policies.
>>>
>>>
>>> I also have questions on how Smart Africa, which is indeed doing good
>>> work and filling a gap left by the lack of capacity at the African Union
>>> Commission, plans to work with civil society and promote and protect human
>>> rights in its digital governance work.  While Smart Africa does not exclude
>>> civil society, it does seem to practice its multistakeholder approach
>>> primarily through working with the private sector. AfriNIC also always
>>> needed to strengthen its connections with civil society. I hope  that new
>>> board will help make that happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> These are not questions for ICANN but I think they are questions
>>> relevant to many NCSG members involved in internet governance in Africa
>>> (and beyond).   Emmanuel and others, if you do have some of the answers to
>>> my questions, please share.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
>>>
>>> On 2025/11/14 17:50, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>
>>> I support the letter 100%
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2025 1:55 AM
>>> *To:* NCSG <ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu>
>>> <ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu>; ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> *Cc:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Is ICANN helping to subvert its own
>>> governance model?
>>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> thanks for the comments and input to letter, here the new version after
>>> resolving the changes
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPgRLILaCtsda8YRA4mUtElLXYS6udjF8cHvTo2AXHI/edit?tab=t.0
>>>  .
>>> If there is no strong objection or concern, we can send this letter asap
>>> to the board for consideration, hopefully by the end of the day.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> Le jeu. 13 nov. 2025 à 23:08, Mueller, Milton L <
>>> 00001d75540da649-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> > I want to urge NCSG members that as we ask for more information, we do
>>> so without undermining AfriNIC's new board
>>> > and the efforts of this board and those working with it to stabilise
>>> AfriNIC. They need our support.
>>>
>>> Absolutely correct. The focus should be on CAIGA proposal, which
>>> deviates from multistakeholder principles, the new Afrinic board has very
>>> little to do with that as far as I know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>>
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>> School of Public Policy
>>>
>>> <https://internetgovernance.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251119/99da8ec8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-xmoxcji0
Type: image/png
Size: 6749 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251119/99da8ec8/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-ruvfuzec
Type: image/png
Size: 6749 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251119/99da8ec8/attachment-0001.png>