ICANN has defended its decision to fund a group that proposed a radical new governance model that would give states a role in regulating the internet, and distanced itself from the group’s proposal.
The governance model is called the Council of African Internet Governance Authorities (CAIGA) framework, and is the work of Smart Africa, an entity that represents 42 African nations that work to accelerate adoption of digital technology across the continent. Member nations’ heads of state sit on Smart Africa’s board.
The CAIGA framework suggests creating a body to represent Africa at internet global internet governance bodies, and for that body to supersede some of the policy-making functions of existing governance organizations such as the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), Africa’s sometimes dysfunctional and controversial regional internet registry.
Smart Africa has not responded to multiple requests from The Register for an interview to discuss CAIGA, but in presentations like this session at October’s ICANN84 conference, described CAIGA’s role a being to “define Africa’s strategic objectives within global Internet governance bodies (ICANN, ITU, IGF) and ensure its voice is reflected in discussions on Internet resources and digital regulations.”
CAIGA has alarmed some in the African internet community.
Nigeria-based network engineer and internet governance activist Amin Dayekh labelled CAIGA a “quiet coup” because he feels it could mean AFRINIC members could lose decision-making power.
Alice Munyua, a Kenyan who has held senior positions at the Internet Society and ICANN, riffed on Dayekh’s post, suggesting that CAIGA “represents a new layer of governmental and regulatory authority positioned above AFRINIC’s elected board.”
Such a layer would be extraordinary, as AFRINIC and the world’s four other regional internet registries (RIRs) have for decades used a bottom-up decision-making process in which members and other stakeholders devise, debate, and vote on policies. A new layer of internet governance for AFRINIC would also challenge the role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees AFRINIC through its role as the policy-setting body for domain names, the domain name system, and IP addresses.
Milton Mueller, founder of the Internet Governance Project at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has criticized the CAIGA framework for lacking important details.
“The ‘Council’ would be an as-yet unformed, totally untested group selected by a board dominated by African heads of state, with unclear powers over registry operations,” he wrote.
Mueller also points out that in 2024 ICANN and Smart Africa signed a Memorandum of Understanding [PDF] to co-operate on many matters, plus a Project Agreement that requires Smart Africa to develop a long-term vision and roadmap for Internet governance in Africa. ICANN committed $40,000 to that project.
Joining the dots
Smart Africa endorsed a slate of candidates at AFRINIC’s recent board election. Seven of the eight elected directors were on Smart Africa’s list. After the election, Smart Africa issued a statement linking the election result to advancement of the CAIGA development process.
ICANN’s involvement with Smart Africa, Smart Africa’s endorsement of AFRINIC board members, and CAIGA’s suggestion of new governance arrangements, led some to conclude that ICANN was effectively endorsing a new internet governance framework that applied new rules only to African and AFRINIC.
As Milton Mueller put it: “ICANN, which positions itself as the ultimate manifestation of bottom-up governance by nonstate actors, and which fought for years to rid itself of political oversight by the U.S. government, is supporting Smart Africa, an organization that promotes digital sovereignty, has a board composed of heads of state, and issues rhetoric that calls for political oversight of its Regional Internet Registry.”
Online debate about CAIGA became louder, and more prominent.
On November 18, ICANN president Kurt Lindquist published a post in which he said the organization doesn’t endorse CAIGA and that its Project Agreement with Smart Africa didn’t ask it “to cover AFRINIC governance, modify AFRINIC, or envision a different RIR structure to serve the region.”
Lindquist also distanced ICANN from CAIGA, saying financial support for Smart Africa “does not equate to ownership or responsibility for the content, similar to how researchers might obtain a grant or other financial support without attributing the results of that research to the funder.”
The ICANN president also said no change will be made to African internet governance unless it is consistent with existing policy and approved by AFRINIC members.
Lindquist’s post did not go down well within ICANN itself, as the next day the org’s own Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), a body that represents non-commercial internet users and organizations in ICANN policy-making forums, sent a letter calling for Lindquist and the ICANN Board to clarify its relationship to Smart Africa and to the development of CAIGA.
The NCSG’s letter describes CAIGA, and ICANN’s role in its development, as potentially representing “a precedent that undermines community trust and the integrity of ICANN’s governance framework.”
Lindquist responded on Tuesday, writing that he understands “it can be difficult to separate the issues of authorship and endorsement from funding.”
He added that ICANN did not intend for its relationship with Smart Africa to produce a new internet governance model, did not ask Smart Africa to develop such a model, and “did not preevaluate the resulting CAIGA proposal.” Lindquist said criticism of ICANN for not revealing its role in the development of CAIGA is therefore unfounded, and again said ICANN will not accept any reform to AFRINIC that its members do not support.
Lindquist also noted, as The Register has reported, that ICANN is currently debating revisions to the “ICP-2” policy that governs RIRs. Consultation on the second draft of a revised ICP-2 closed on November 7 and debate on its final form continues.
“If the RIR communities wish to have the ability for an RIR to be governed in the way that CAIGA proposes for AFRINIC, to allow direct governmental involvement in RIR governance … now is the time for those proposals to be raised and evaluated in the ICP-2 conversation,” Lindquist’s letter states.
On his LinkedIn account, Amin Dayekh labelled Lindquist’s explanation of ICANN’s involvement with CAIGA as “shame wrapped in bureaucratic language, bureaucratic evasion disguised as multistakeholder respect.”
Dayekh also wondered: “Is ICANN opening the conceptual door for governments to reshape RIR governance by capturing the ICP-2 process?”
The Register thinks that’s unlikely, as in our recent coverage of internet governance bodies we have seen them fiercely resist outside influence, albeit at the slow pace at which such organizations move as they work through their bottom-up, consensus-driven decision-making processes.
However, our contacts in the internet governance community also tell us that events of recent years are almost unprecedentedly contentious and an unwelcome change from the usual technically focused matters discussed at ICANN and RIR conferences. ®
