[Ncsg-discuss] Is ICANN helping to subvert its own governance model?
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at APC.ORG
Wed Nov 19 15:05:50 EET 2025
Dear all
Thanks for the clarifications Emmanuel. Also those in your earlier
message about what ISPA is. Here <https://ispa.org.za/press_releases/>
are the South Africa ISPA's press releases relevant to this discussion.
There was an attempt a long time ago to establish an AfriSPA, in the
early 2000s, I was involved at the time, so was Brian Longwe if I
remember correctly.. but it did not survive to my knowledge.
I also agree with Tomslin's points (echoed by Farzi) about us continuing
to ask questions. I actually thought the letter had already been sent.
If it has not, it would make sense to acknowledge the CEOs' blog as it
does answer several of our questions.
More comments and a proposal below.
On 2025/11/19 06:30, Emmanuel Vitus wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Agree. But also good that NCSG has engaged this. His response is indeed
very clear and reflects what my understanding was. But that is also why
I am interested in hearing more about how Smart Africa is working with
/ alongside existing AUC internet and data governance related guidelines.
>
> 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.
>
Absolutely. And I think this is a challenge the new board has to
address. But it is also relevant for NCUC and NCSG's engagement with
African processes and challenges on an ongoing basis.
>
> 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.
>
Agree too. But we also need to keep in mind that African governments
have been inconsistent in their support for openness and
multistakeholder rights-oriented governance. And on the other hand
Africa's extensive digital rights civil society community in is not that
active in ICANN spaces - aside from a small but active group of people
including you Emmanuel. Participation is indeed a safeguard, but we
also need robust governance structure and processes, particularly in
crisis situations. What happened in AfriNIC is a combination of internal
and external pressure/crisis/breakdown. It could happen at any RIR. I
think the question of what happens in such a situation is relevant to
all RIRs.
> 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.
>
I agree.. but I am not so sure we can really talk about just 'one
Africa'. As with all multistakeholder processes there are different
interests and they do not always coincide. That is not a flaw, but a
characteristic of multistakeholder processes that we have to work with.
That is also why, over and above its relationship with AfrNIC, I think
it is good for civil society to engage with Smart Africa on issues
around human rights and civil society participation, and, as Tomslin
points out, transparency.
> 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.
>
Agree absolutely.
As for the proposal... what about NCSG approaching the new AfriNIC board
for a meeting to get an update on their plans and further clarification
re. other role players (e.g. Smart Africa)? It can be later this year or
early next year.
Anriette
> 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>
>> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 16, 2025 10:44 AM
>> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU>
>> <mailto:milton at GATECH.EDU>; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2025 1:55 AM
>> *To:* NCSG <ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu>
>> <mailto:ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu>; ncsg-pc
>> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> *Cc:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> <mailto: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/20251119/18ae0ada/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/20251119/18ae0ada/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/20251119/18ae0ada/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list