ICANN distances itself from radical proposal – which it funded – to give nations a role in internet governance 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 …
And we all know just how stable African heads of state are in their duration and the democratic quality of their decisions. What could possibly go wrong ?
On the other hand, I note that ICANN is, once again, throwing a monkey wrench in its own policies.
Funny that, I thought that a certain slice of PAI was gone. It would seem that ICANN needs to review its procedures and stick to them.
>> the democratic quality of their decisions.
Casual racism? Look at the beautiful west - bombing sovereign countries in the name of 'democracy', while denying democracy to those who want it.
We still have unelected kings in Europe. Not exactly a good personification of democracy.
We still have unelected kings in Europe. Not exactly a good personification of democracy.
But - weirdly - those are some of the most democratic nations with the highest standards of living, education and public services.
Admittedly, the Scandi royals are all pretty much entirely ceremonial with even less procedural involvement in government and legislating than the UK monarch.
It does go to show though that's it's perhaps got less to do with the de jure structure and more to do with the de facto culture and way the government runs.
I'm one of those annoying pragmatic Brits who thinks hereditary monarchy is an insane, obsolete and anachronistic system of governance. You certainly wouldn't set it up that way today. But I am also of the belief that if we ripped up our constitution (such as it is) and replaced Charlie with President <Blair/Cameron/Johnson>, we would be absolutely no better off than we are now, except for some vague and thoroughly intangible sense of the system being more fair (even though the country is actually run by billionaires. See: USA, even before a literal billionaire was elected POTUS). Republicanism certainly wouldn't get us to the standards of living that Denmark or Sweden enjoy with their archaic, undemocratic monarchies!
As for Africa, we must be careful not to be colonial/lazy/judgmental here. Historically however, it has been the case that you can have long-lived stability (Gaddafi, Mugabe) or democracy (People's Republic of...). Pick your poison. And it's mostly Europe's fault for trying to carve up a continent of tribes and proto-states into a completely different map based on colonial resource claims and then dubbing those territories "countries", then doing our best to prevent them developing industry that might compete with ours. Pin them down to base agriculture and resource extraction with minimal local refining or processing - send that stuff to us for the value-add!
Very few European monarchs have any degree of real executive power, for the most part their role is as an impartial guarantor of democratic process.
The current fiasco in the USA is a clear example of how merely having an elected head of state does not provide any safeguarding of democratic process.
For example RIPENCC runs the european (land mass not eu) network ip allocation. Does any european goverment have influence/control over RIPENCC?
Within a country can the goverment change RIPENCC's effects?
Goverments should have some control over things. How much is a difficult question.
A completely technical control seems wrong.
Asking for understanding not conflict.
RIPE NCC is based in Amsterdam. Which is in the Netherlands. It is subject to whatever laws and regulations are passed by the Dutch and EU governments.
Similar constraints apply to other Internet organisations. ICANN for instance is incorporated in California and is therefore governed by Californian and US law.
AFRINIC is based in Mauritius. That means it's under the jurisdiction of the Mauritian courts and government. Smart Africa has no authority or legal control over AFRINIC, apart from having a handful of its representatives serving on AFRINIC's board. Smart Africa is an alliance of a bunch of African governments (mainly) which does not appear to include Mauritius. It's not an international treaty organisation and seems to have no power to pass laws or enforce regulations.
RIPE NCC is based in Amsterdam. Which is in the Netherlands. It is subject to whatever laws and regulations are passed by the Dutch and EU governments.
True, and RIPE's members are incorporated in many nations, along with the countries they operate in, all subject to national and international laws. I haven't been to any RIPE meetings for a good few years, but they often included some politics, and RIPE does some outreach to try and inform policy makers. Downside is Internet governance is kinda split betwee entities like RIPE, ICANN, IETF and governments like the EU often just impose policy without really considering the implicatons. So all the censorship and surveillance proposals heading down the pipeline.
That doesn't appear to be the case these days:
The European Commission is setting up a Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Internet Standards Deployment, looking into strengthening the deployment of existing standards and operational best practices in four areas:
- IPv6
- modern E-mail communication standards
- DNS security
- Routing security & hygiene
The initiative was presented during its conceptual phase at RIPE 90 in the cooperation working group. The idea is to bring together valuable deployment expertise to capture proven approaches in multi-stakeholder guidelines that support broad and coordinated adoption across sectors.
Participation is open to anyone with relevant experience and interest.
More information and how to join:
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/european-commission-seeks-participants-multi-stakeholder-forum-internet-standards-deployment
"The European Commission is setting up a Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Internet Standards Deployment"
What a horrible idea. At least it's only a Forum, i.e. another talking shop, so it will mainly contribute hot air to global warming.
"Downside is Internet governance is kinda split"
No, that's an important upside. It's one of the reasons why transborder and international regulation of the Internet has repeatedly failed to happen over the last 30 years or so. Long may this remain the case!
Unfortunately nation states do have the ability to restrict or stop Internet usage in their countries, and we can't ever stop that, whether it's North Korea, Sudan, Russia, Ukraine, or wherever you happen to live.
The real surprise in this story is that ICANN started this effort in the first place. Just another of their political blunders, I guess.
What’s unfolding in Africa isn’t just a regional quarrel. It is a stress test of the entire legitimacy architecture that has kept the global Internet stable for three decades.
The CAIGA proposal doesn’t challenge ICANN on the axis of law; it challenges it on the axis of consent, and that is where every governance institution is at its most fragile. You can have perfect legality on paper, but if a critical region decides that legitimacy has shifted elsewhere, the whole bottom-up model starts to wobble.
Africa has every right to demand stronger performance from its regional structures; many of those concerns are valid. But bypassing the RIR system and replacing community governance with an intergovernmental authority is the kind of cure that becomes the disease. We tried this dance in other sectors: it always ends with political capture, diminished transparency, and a centralised power that serves the few while claiming to serve the many.
This moment matters far beyond Africa. If a single regional bloc asserts authority over an RIR, other governments watching from the sidelines will take notes, and some will follow. That’s how fragmentation begins: not with fireworks, but with administrative “reforms” that quietly redefine who the Internet answers to.
ICANN’s cautious language in the statements is understandable, but it highlights a deeper truth: legitimacy in Internet governance isn’t inherited; it is continuously earned, and when the multistakeholder process is weakened or circumvented, everyone loses, including the very governments who believe they are tightening their grip.
Africa deserves stronger institutions, yes. But those institutions must emerge from accountability and participation, not from substituting one free model with another paid that discards the hard-won lessons of the past twenty years.
What we are watching is a global turning point disguised as a regional reform. The question is not whether CAIGA “can” exist. The question is what precedent it sets, and whether the rest of the world is prepared for the consequences.
ICANN's funding is a bad signal
There are lots of ways to look at this. The issue of de jure verses de facto is critical. In particular, I would argue strongly that the independence of ICANN, for instance, is good for the first and very bad for the latter.
In the end, governments gonna government. If you operate in ANY way in their sphere, they are going to want to have their say (and cut), even if only to maintain their position. Moreover, just because you & I can agree that a particular government is despotic, that doesn't change the basic fact of their territorial sovereignty.
So complain all you want. You might even condemn. But much better to lobby. Don't warn--persuade.
You're right. Persuasion (and education) is essential. That's hard, considering the many years of sleaze and broken governance at AfriNIC. African governments can quite reasonably say "This multi-stakeholder model has failed. It has to end. It's time for the grown-ups (ie us!) to take charge.". I hope the African Internet community will be unified and strong enough to stand up to CAIGA's interventions.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
