Description :

Peeling the Onion: Power, Process, and the Battle for Africa’s Digital Sovereignty in the .AFRICA Domain

DotConnect Africa Trust (DCA) issues this commentary in response to a report published on 25 May 2011 by ComputerWorld Kenya, authored by Rebecca Wanjiku, concerning the African Union’s request for proposals related to the .africa top-level domain. While DCA acknowledges the article’s attempt to reflect multiple viewpoints in a contested process, it believes the report did not sufficiently interrogate or highlight the gravity of the concerns raised by DCA over an extended period. These concerns relate to alleged procedural irregularities, conflicts of interest, and governance failures that DCA contends have undermined the integrity of the DotAfrica process. This document therefore seeks to place these concerns on record in a structured and chronological manner, with the aim of promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness in African Internet governance.

DotConnect Africa and the Origin of the .AFRICA Initiative

DotConnect Africa was founded with a mission centered on advancing Africa’s digital identity and ensuring that the continent plays a meaningful role in shaping its presence on the global Internet. Central to this mission was the concept of the .africa top-level domain, envisioned as a unifying digital namespace for African institutions, businesses, communities, and individuals. DCA approached the African Union Commission in 2009 with a formal proposal outlining this vision and the technical, economic, and social benefits of a continent-wide domain managed in the public interest. According to DCA, this engagement culminated in a formal endorsement by the African Union Commission in 2009, which DCA maintains was validly issued and properly received.

The Significance of the 2009 African Union Endorsement

DCA considers the 2009 endorsement to be foundational to its legitimacy in the DotAfrica process. In its view, the endorsement represented recognition by Africa’s principal political institution of DCA’s initiative, capacity, and alignment with continental development goals. DCA asserts that this endorsement was not provisional or informal, but rather the product of direct engagement with the appropriate executive offices of the African Union Commission. The organization therefore argues that any subsequent process concerning .africa must acknowledge this endorsement as a historical and legal reality, rather than treating all applicants as if they were entering the process on equal footing at a later stage.

The Emergence of Competing Claims and Growing Disputes

Despite DCA’s early involvement and claimed endorsement, the DotAfrica initiative later became the subject of competing claims by other organizations. Among these was the Africa Top Level Domains Organization (AfTLD), which, according to DCA, had not been actively involved in the conceptualization or early advocacy of DotAfrica. DCA contends that AfTLD’s interest emerged many years after the initial proposal and only shortly before new processes were announced. This late entry, DCA argues, coincided with efforts to question or deny the existence of its earlier endorsement, thereby creating a contested narrative around DotAfrica’s origins.

Media Coverage and the Role of Journalism

DCA’s response to the ComputerWorld Kenya article must be understood within the broader context of media responsibility. While DCA recognizes the acknowledgment of differing perspectives, it argues that ethical journalism requires more than balance in quotation. In cases involving allegations of procedural misconduct and institutional failure, DCA believes journalists have a duty to investigate documentary evidence, scrutinize official statements, and amplify the voices of those who allege victimization. From DCA’s perspective, the failure to do so risks normalizing unethical practices and marginalizing legitimate grievances.

Statements by AfTLD Leadership and DCA’s Rebuttal

A central source of DCA’s concern has been public statements attributed to AfTLD leadership, including assertions that any claims of prior endorsements are “unsubstantiated” or “unreliable.” DCA categorically disputes these assertions, maintaining that it has repeatedly provided documentary proof of its 2009 endorsement. DCA argues that such statements do not merely reflect a difference of opinion, but rather constitute a deliberate attempt to erase or delegitimize a documented historical fact. From DCA’s viewpoint, this pattern of denial undermines trust in the fairness of the process and raises serious questions about the motives of those making such claims.

Allegations of Intimidation and Marginalization

DCA further contends that dismissive rhetoric and categorical denials have been used as tools of intimidation, aimed at discouraging DCA from asserting its rights. While DCA describes such conduct as troubling, it emphasizes its continued commitment to peaceful advocacy, lawful engagement, and principled resistance. DCA asserts that it will not be deterred from voicing its concerns simply because doing so challenges powerful interests or entrenched narratives.

The Question of Late Entry and Entitlement

A recurring theme in DCA’s commentary is the distinction between earned legitimacy and perceived entitlement. DCA argues that it invested significant time, resources, and effort over many years to conceptualize and promote DotAfrica, often in the absence of widespread institutional support. By contrast, DCA alleges that certain organizations entered the process much later, after DotAfrica had already gained recognition, and now seek to benefit from structures they did not help build. This dynamic, in DCA’s view, reflects a broader problem in governance systems that privilege proximity to power over innovation, initiative, and sustained commitment.

The African Union Task Force and Governance Concerns

Central to DCA’s critique is the role of an African Union Task Force reportedly established to advise on DotAfrica. DCA questions the mandate, composition, and accountability of this body, arguing that its operations lack transparency and sufficient executive oversight. DCA alleges that members of this Task Force have professional or advisory relationships with organizations competing for DotAfrica, creating at minimum the appearance of conflicts of interest. Such overlaps, DCA contends, undermine confidence in the neutrality and integrity of the Task Force’s recommendations.

Meetings, Associations, and Alleged Conflicts of Interest

DCA points to meetings held in Ghana in April 2011 as illustrative of its concerns. According to DCA, individuals associated with the AU Task Force were present at AfTLD-related meetings where DotAfrica strategies were discussed. DCA further alleges that subsequent public communications appeared to align closely with AfTLD’s interests. While DCA frames these points as allegations rather than established facts, it insists that the pattern warrants independent investigation to restore trust in the process.

The Unsigned Communiqué and Procedural Irregularities

One of the most contentious issues raised by DCA concerns an unsigned communiqué published on the African Union website, which purported to clarify the AU’s position on DotAfrica and initiate an Expression of Interest process. DCA alleges that this communiqué was not issued through the appropriate executive offices of the Commission and that its authorship raises serious questions of authority. From DCA’s perspective, the absence of formal endorsement and signature renders the communiqué procedurally questionable and legally problematic.

The “Second Letter” and Document Authenticity Concerns

DCA also raises serious concerns about what it refers to as a “second letter” that allegedly sought to withdraw or nullify its 2009 endorsement. According to DCA, this letter lacked formal attributes such as an official AU stamp and did not originate from the same executive office that issued the original endorsement. DCA further notes inconsistencies between this letter and other official statements, which it argues cast doubt on the legitimacy of the document and the process through which it was produced.

Contradictions in Official Statements

In DCA’s assessment, contradictions between various AU-related documents highlight systemic governance failures. DCA points to instances in which officials reportedly stated that the AU did not support any applicant at the time DCA approached it, statements that appear inconsistent with earlier correspondence. These inconsistencies, DCA argues, are not trivial administrative errors but indicators of deeper problems in record-keeping, authority, and accountability within the process.

DCA’s Position on the Expression of Interest Process

Given the concerns outlined above, DCA has consistently stated that it does not recognize the legitimacy of the Expression of Interest process initiated under these circumstances. DCA argues that participation in such a process would amount to tacit acceptance of a flawed framework designed to erase its earlier endorsement. Until the governance issues surrounding the Task Force and related processes are addressed, DCA maintains that it cannot in good conscience participate.

Broader Implications for African Internet Governance

DCA frames the DotAfrica controversy as emblematic of broader challenges in African Internet governance. The management of a continental top-level domain carries implications far beyond technical administration, touching on issues of digital sovereignty, economic development, and cultural representation. DCA warns that opaque processes and perceived favoritism risk undermining Africa’s credibility within global governance institutions such as ICANN and may discourage future community-driven initiatives.

Advocacy, Civil Society, and Grassroots Support

Throughout the dispute, DCA emphasizes its reliance on advocacy, civil engagement, and grassroots mobilization. Initiatives such as the Yes2DotAfrica campaign and generation.africa are cited as evidence of broad-based support for DCA’s vision. DCA argues that these movements reflect a desire among Africans, particularly younger generations, for inclusive and principled leadership in the digital sphere.

Transparency, Ethics, and Leadership

DCA repeatedly calls for higher standards of transparency and ethical leadership from all parties involved in the DotAfrica process. It argues that trust in continental institutions depends on clear procedures, documented decision-making, and accountability for actions taken. From DCA’s perspective, dismissive rhetoric and selective disclosure do not constitute transparency, but rather deepen mistrust and division.

Reflections on Power, Process, and Accountability

At its core, DCA’s commentary is a critique of how power operates within complex institutional systems. DCA contends that when oversight is weak and accountability diffuse, processes can be captured by narrow interests at the expense of fairness and justice. The DotAfrica controversy, in DCA’s view, illustrates the urgent need for reform in how continental digital resources are governed.

A Call for Review, Reform, and Justice

DotConnect Africa concludes by reaffirming its belief that it holds a legitimate endorsement from the African Union Commission dating back to 2009. It asserts that subsequent efforts to negate or ignore this endorsement are procedurally and ethically questionable. DCA calls for an independent review of the Task Force’s actions, clearer executive oversight from the African Union, and renewed commitment to transparency and fairness. Despite the challenges it has faced, DCA expresses confidence that truth and justice will ultimately prevail and that Africa’s digital future deserves governance structures worthy of its aspirations.