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

Thu Nov 20 00:33:16 EET 2025

Hi all, Milton, Anriette,

The letter was sent as I indicated I would do that in my last message and I
already got acknowledgement from board ops.

Best,

Rafik

On Thu, Nov 20, 2025, 01:12 Mueller, Milton L <
00001d75540da649-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
> <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>
> 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/20251120/c873b9c4/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/20251120/c873b9c4/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/20251120/c873b9c4/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-sau4sfcy
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6749 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251120/c873b9c4/attachment.jpe>