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

Wed Nov 19 18:11:37 EET 2025

As an NCSG member I am still not sure whether the letter was sent to the board, and helped to trigger ICANN's response.

I suspect ICANN staff knew of the dissatisfaction brewing in NCSG and elsewhere over the SmartFarica/CAIGA proposal, but there was no formal statement on the list that the letter had been sent. In that regard, let me call attention to a process problem within NCSG.

The only persons who opposed sending the letter, Kathy and Emmanuel, stopped discussing the issue on this member list as soon as it was clear that most of us, including our African members, supported the letter. They moved their dialogue to the Policy Committee (PC) list, which most of us cannot post to.

I view that as a questionable tactic, especially because Kathy is actually not on the PC anymore. Indeed, I've discovered that many people who have not been on the PC for years, are still on that list.

I have never liked the creation of a separate PC list, though I recognize the practical necessity for it. We need to have an official forum to make policy decisions on behalf of the NCSG, but we must also recognize that this separate, closed forum creates an opportunity for strategic manipulation of the discourse.

If we are going to have a formally designated PC with its own list, it should be restricted to people who are currently on the PC, and thus are formally accountable to the members. May I formally request that the NCSG Executive Committee address this issue?

Dr. Milton L Mueller

Georgia Institute of Technology

Carter School of Public Policy

[cid:81dcd22c-80ae-4ed6-a398-aea68f9df84b]<https://internetgovernance.org>

________________________________
From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 9:20 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Is ICANN helping to subvert its own governance model?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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

[cid:ii_19a9149934eb0c2f32c1]<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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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

[cid:ii_19a9149934ef3aa6fb62]<https://internetgovernance.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251119/cdea6812/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-xmoxcji0
Type: image/png
Size: 6749 bytes
Desc: Outlook-xmoxcji0
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251119/cdea6812/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-ruvfuzec
Type: image/png
Size: 6749 bytes
Desc: Outlook-ruvfuzec
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251119/cdea6812/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-sau4sfcy
Type: image/jpg
Size: 6749 bytes
Desc: Outlook-sau4sfcy
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251119/cdea6812/attachment.jpg>