I read Amin Dayekh’s piece on the Constituent Community Doctrine a few weeks ago and recognized every mechanism he described and found it real. I left a comment laying out what happened with .africa. He responded saying he is already using .africa as a case study in a forthcoming paper.

It was only after that exchange that I noticed .amazon sitting there as the primary illustration for the Independent-Judgment Principle. Not because Amin made an error in his reasoning, he did not. But because the case he cited to illustrate that principle came two years after mine, and Amazon’s own lawyers cited my panel ruling directly to make the identical argument.

So here it is.

The Chain of Authority, and the Chain of Credit

Dayekh identifies the .amazon Independent Review Process as an illustration of his Independent-Judgment Principle: a governing body receiving advisory input must still exercise its own independent judgment and cannot hide behind institutional presumption.

But this was not the first time an IRP panel had made that finding. It was the second.

The first was in 2015, in DotConnectAfrica Trust v. ICANN, ICDR Case No. 50-2013-001083. That panel found that ICANN’s Board had acted inconsistently with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws by accepting GAC advice concerning the .africa application without requiring any reasoning, without conducting any diligence on how that advice was developed, and without affording DCA any meaningful opportunity to respond.

The panel defined accountability in terms that would be quoted back to ICANN two years later:

“Such accountability requires an organization to explain or give reasons for its activities, accept responsibility for them and to disclose the results in a transparent manner.”DotConnectAfrica Trust v. ICANN, ICDR Case No. 50-2013-001083, Final Declaration, ¶ 74 (July 31, 2015).

Two years later, Amazon’s lawyers cited that ruling directly. Paragraph 88 of the Amazon’s IRP Panel Final Declaration states:

“Amazon argues the decision in the DCA Trust IRP, particularly paragraph 74, is precedent for proposition that the GAC must provide a reason for its advice. In that IRP, the Panel held: ‘As previously decided by this Panel, such accountability requires an organization to explain or give reasons for its activities, accept responsibility for them and to disclose the results in a transparent manner.’”Amazon EU S.à r.l. v. ICANN, IRP Final Declaration, ¶ 88 (July 11, 2017), citing DotConnectAfrica Trust v. ICANN, Case No. 50-2013-001083, Final Declaration, ¶ 74 (Int’l Centre for Dispute Resolution, July 31, 2015). [Full declaration: icann.org]

The record

The precedent runs from .africa to .amazon. Not the other way around.

How the GAC Accountability Argument Was Built

• I built the GAC accountability argument myself, while DCA was under active GAC objection at ICANN.

• I co-authored the rules in the 2012 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, which meant I knew precisely where ICANN had deviated from its own written commitments because I had helped write those commitments

• ICANN’s own internal lawyer rejected it, insisting GAC advice was a “policy issue” and therefore beyond challenge. I disagreed, held the argument and went to IRP. My panel accepted it and we won.

• From my own direct involvment, the Amazon lawyer who was following up on their own application issues came to me during their GAC objection, like many others have. I pointed them to my argument, and later, during my own engagement with my IRP lawyers, I also made that introduction. That is how Amazon also secured my IRP lawyers.

• The documentary record then confirms where the argument traveled. Paragraph 88 of Amazon’s own IRP Final Declaration quotes our panel ruling directly in advancing the same accountability proposition. The GAC argument Amazon ultimately carried into its IRP was the one I had started at ICANN, which ICANN rejected, and which our IRP Panel subsequently accepted.

They followed my lead twice. And because they won the string, they became the reference point.

The others found a winner and followed it too. The Gulf Cooperation Council cited DCA’s ruling directly in their .persiangulf IRP. Booking.com’s panel measured its own reasoning against ours. None of them needed anyone to point them to it. That is how precedent is supposed to work. You establish the standard, others cite it, the argument compounds across cases.

The difference is that every applicant who cited DCA’s ruling got to use the precedent we built. We remained the only ones who won the argument and did not get the string.

Why Brand Recognition Rewrites the Record

Dayekh uses .amazon because it is legible. Amazon is a trillion-dollar company. Everyone in any governance room already knows who they are and what was at stake. The moment you name .amazon, you have context, scale, and a narrative that resolves cleanly. Amazon fought, Amazon won, Amazon got the string.

.africa requires more. It requires you to understand who DCA was, what the African Union’s role was, how GAC advice was manufactured and deployed, why ICANN staff drafted an endorsement letter for a competing applicant, and why the applicant who established the precedent did not get the string.

This is what I mean by the multistakeholder model’s brand problem. When a more visible party borrows intellectual architecture built by a smaller applicant and achieves a more visible outcome, the original construction can disappear from the narrative.

The precedent migrates to the winner.

Dayekh uses .amazon not as legal precedent but as an illustration of the Independent-Judgment Principle. But using .amazon to illustrate that principle skips over where it was forged. The GAC accountability argument began when ICANN accepted GAC advice without reasoning, diligence or a meaningful opportunity for DCA to respond, and when I challenged that while ICANN’s own lawyer insisted GAC advice was beyond challenge.

The same pattern. The same argument. Two years later.

Selective Amplification

The significance of the DCA IRP was not merely my interpretation of our own victory.

In July 2017, Milton Mueller, founder of the Internet Governance Project, and Internet Governanace expert, published “Amazon Win Sets Good Precedent”, describing Amazon’s successful .amazon IRP as a victory arguing that the decision carried important precedent value, particularly in establishing that the ICANN Board could not simply defer to GAC consensus advice without independently establishing a well-founded public-policy basis for doing so. Mueller’s framing was incomplete.

That accountability principle did not begin with Amazon.

Even Mueller’s own readers pointed to his blind spot on his .amazon framing. Commenters pointed back to the earlier DCA .africa IRP and challenged the impression that the principle being celebrated was new. The correction did not depend on DCA retrospectively claiming precedence. Others recognised the connection themselves

Two years earlier, Robin Gross, founder and Executive Director of IP Justice and former Chair of ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, had examined DCA’s 2015 .africa IRP victory “ICANN Accountability Deficits Revealed in Panel Ruling on .AFRICA”, and described .africa as “among the most important and precedential IRP declarations ICANN has ever received,” highlighting the Board’s obligations of due diligence, independent judgment, fairness and transparency.

Expertise does not eliminate narrative blind spots. Sometimes it merely gives them more authoritative language.

The .africa precedent was not invisible. It was known, discussed and recognised. What differed was the amplification. Selective amplification has its own amnesia. It does not erase the record. It simply stops looking for it.

Selective amplification need not be deliberate. It can emerge when institutional noise, established narratives and repeated commentary make one version of events easier to see, and therefore easier to repeat, than another. That is what this is. Not necessarily the suppression of a fact, but the repeated elevation of one part of the record until another, equally consequential part becomes easier to forget.

What Was Actually Manufactured

I want to be precise here, because precision is what distinguishes a documented account from a grievance.

In the .africa case, the community invoked to justify blocking DCA’s application was not organic. It was constructed. ICANN staff advised the African Union Commission at the commissioner’s staff to reserve .africa for a regional body rather than endorse an individual applicant.

The AUC’s letter dated 27 August 2009 did not revoke our endorsement in any legal sense. It stated:

“Following consultations with relevant stakeholders, the African Union Commission has reconsidered its approach in implementing the subject Internet Domain Name (DotAfrica) and no longer endorses individual initiatives in this matter related to continental resource.”African Union Commission letter to DotConnectAfrica Trust, 27 August 2009.

We never accepted it as a revocation, and we sought to have the legal standing of the original endorsement examined on its merits. What the letter did in practice was open the door to a parallel process.

That process produced ZACR, whose initial endorsement documents failed the Geographic Names Panel’s formal requirements. Rather than fail the application, ICANN staff with the knowledge and instruction of the CEO drafted a replacement endorsement letter for the AUC to issue on ZACR’s behalf, mirroring the form and substance of the original endorsement DCA had received years earlier – an affirmation that she.africa must know what she is doing, becaming the template for ZACR’s rescue.

This sequence is not contested. The panel found that GAC advice in our case included proposals from an individual who no longer represented Kenya as a GAC advisor, that the genuine Kenya GAC advisor had expressly refused to endorse that advice, and that ICANN acted on the advice without any diligence on how it was developed.

The ICANN Board’s own resolution acknowledged that its actions were inconsistent with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. That resolution is publicly available on ICANN’s website.

Dayekh’s terms this is Community Gerrymandering: drawing the boundary of the relevant community in a manner that predictably privileges a desired outcome. That is precisely what happened. The “African community” invoked to block DCA’s application that was assembled after DCA had already secured genuine continental endorsements, for the purpose of displacing them. My 2015 CircleID article on the ICANN Africa Strategy. approval

The Setup of the Extended Evaluation

Here is where the record exposes the real contradiction.

ICANN never said our endorsement was invalid. When ZACR’s own endorsement later failed the Geographic Names Panel’s requirements, ICANN staff used the form and substance of DCA’s original endorsement letter to help draft a replacement one.

Meanwhile, our own valid endorsement was sent to extended evaluation, requiring us to get an update from the AUC, the same AUC that had already negotiated .africa’s legal rights with ZACR. ICANN had therefore placed DCA in the position of having to return for validation to the very institution that had already aligned itself with the competing applicant.

That is not an independent evaluation process. That is a setup.

That is why we went to court. The ICANN IRP reviews Board conduct, not staff conduct, yet ICANN’s lawyers argued that DCA could simply have pursued another IRP.

We sued ICANN for fraud. The first judge to hear the case, Judge Howard Halm of the Los Angeles Superior Court, ruled the fraud claims were triable and the case proceeded toward trial. The underlying fraud evidence was therefore not disposed of as factually insufficient. ICANN never won on the facts.

Once a different judge took over, ICANN avoided a jury trial through judicial estoppel, based on our IRP lawyer’s earlier good-faith statement that “…DCA has only this forum for relief…”

The fraud evidence was never heard on its merits. It still hasn’t been.

Why ICANN Could Never Give the String to DCA

The deeper question is why ICANN could not simply follow its own process. The answer sits outside the application itself.

At the time, ICANN was fighting for independence from US government oversight through the IANA stewardship transition. It needed African governments behind that transition rather thn pushing internet governanace toward the UN or ITU. The African Union Commission was the gateway to that support. And the relationship between the two issues was not occurring in separate rooms: AUC representatives were openly linking African support for ICANN’s transition agenda to the outcome of .africa at ICANN public meetings.

I had brought the AUC to the ICANN table in the first place, built the introduction, and secured the original endorsement, something then Deputy Chairperson of the AUC, Mwencha, later confirmed under oath in sworn testimony.

In exchange for that endorsement, ICANN was understood to deliver .africa to the AUC’s aligned registry, who has given the right to the AUC. Meanwhile, ZACR had signed a separate arrangement with the AUC concerning .africa’s operation and rights. DCA challenged that arrangement in public comments, IRP documents and court filings. Yet ICANN continued moving ZACR forward, signing a registry agreement before DCA’s IRP was resolved.

This arrangement ran directly against the rules of the gtld guidbook. Yet, ICANN moved ZACR forward at every opportunity regardless, signing a registry agreement with them before DCA’s IRP was even resolved.

Both institutions, ICANN & AUC used what I had built to serve their own arrangement. The .africa string was the currency of that exchange.

.DCA was the pawn in a game neither institution had the honesty to name, and ICANN, to this date, wants to erase that this dual quid pro quo ever existed. But the record exists.

The Outcome Is Not the Precedent

People equate winning the string with having the stronger case. Amazon received .amazon. Therefore, people assume, their IRP established the standard. DCA did not receive .africa. Therefore, the assumption goes, something must have been weaker in our position.

What actually happened is this:

1. We won the legal argument in 2015.

2. Amazon borrowed that argument in 2017.

3. Amazon won the politics in 2019, when the United States government intervened at ICANN Montreal and the deadlock broke.

Those are three separate events. The precedent came from the first. The string came from the third. The second would not have been possible without the first.

The real stress test is what happens when an applicant wins the accountability argument but still cannot obtain the remedy.

That is where the distance between institutional accountability on paper and institutional accountability in practice becomes visibleand where the constitutional stress test lives.

What I Would Add to the Doctrine

Dayekh has done something important by naming the manipulation of procedure itself. I would add that manipulation can continue into institutional memory: who gets credited, whose case becomes the reference point, and which parts of the record get amplified.

Three concepts matter here:

1. Precedent Capture: when a later, more powerful actor becomes associated with a legal principle established by an earlier, less visible actor.

2. Precedent Migration: when the legal principle survives but the identity of the party that established it disappears from the institutional narrative.

3. Community Gerrymandering: when institutions selectively construct the relevant “community” to justify a predetermined outcome.

The Constituent Community Doctrine asks institutions to identify the source of their authority, trace the mandate through the Community Authority Chain, and ensure that the Claimed Community Mandate does not exceed what the Conferred Community Mandate actually authorized.

I would add a parallel requirement for precedent attribution: when an institution, review panel, or governance actor cites a prior case as authority for a proposition, the citation should reflect the actual origin of that proposition, not just its most recently visible application.

This is not a matter of institutional pride. It is a matter of accuracy.

A 2026 applicant reading about GAC accountability through .amazon may never know that the standard was established in .africa—or that winning the IRP and receiving the string are two entirely different outcomes.

That gap in the record is not neutral. It is a structural disadvantage for every applicant who comes after.

A Note on the Record

Records can be quietly reduced. In the weeks following the publication of my June 2026 CircleID article on multilingualism and Universal Acceptance, the ICANNWiki biography documenting my work in this space was substantially reduced. An Internet Archive snapshot from July 2026 shows the full record. What is live today shows a fraction of it.

This was documented in my July 2026 CircleID article, ICANNWiki, SHE.africa, AI, and the Integrity of Digital Platforms, where an Internet Archive snapshot confirms what the full record contained before the reduction, and confirmed in a formal notice published by DotConnectAfrica on July 18, 2026.

The primary source documents do not change. The IRP declaration is public. The Board resolution is public. The Amazon IRP filing citing our panel is public. Paragraph 88 cites DotConnectAfrica Trust v. ICANN by name and case number.

Those citations are the record. The rest is institutional memory management.

I look forward to reading Amin’s forthcoming paper on .africa. I hope this account gives him more to work with, and gives the field a version of the story told by the person who was actually there.

The community was manufactured. The precedent migrated. The record was managed.

What happened to DotConnectAfrica did not stay in Africa. It traveled through every IRP panel that cited it afterward.

The domain was African. The precedent was global. The doctrine names all three mechanisms. Now let’s make sure the history names them too.

#ICANN #ICANNWiki #DigitalGovernance #InternetGovernance #InstitutionalMemory #PlatformAccountability #DigitalSovereignty #Governance #AI #AIEthics #SilentErasure #WeaponizedAnonymity #DotAfrica #IDN #Transparency #History #Archive #Evidence #Leadership #Policy

Sophia Bekele
Internet Governance Pioneer | ICANN Reform Veteran
Founder, DotConnectAfrica Group & CBSegroup | Publisher, The Ethical Technocrat

Subscribe to The Ethical Technocrat →
The Counter-Playbook for leaders navigating power, platforms, and institutional risk

I want to bring ICANN to the public square.

It has been an industry widely unknown, operating eccentrically in its own bubble where checks and balances seem to exist only within its own ecosystem. So here we are: governance professionals, business leaders, communities, and decision-makers, invited to audit, query, and see for yourself.

This is the first in a series. I have been in this fight longer than most people have even known this fight existed.

I Called This a Decade Ago

This is not a new comparison for me. Back in June 2015, weeks after FIFA president Sepp Blatter resigned in the middle of a US Department of Justice corruption indictment, I wrote publicly that ICANN was walking the exact same path.

In 2015, I wrote that ICANN was walking the same path as FIFA. In 2026, the path is still being walked by both institutions.

“Only proper regulation by an independent agency with full Congressional mandate will ensure that a ‘FIFA-Mafia type’ organization of systematic corruption does not emerge. ICANN should not be trusted by Congress to regulate itself.”Sophia Bekele, June 2015 — Read the full article on CircleID

I called for ICANN’s CEO, its Board Chairman, and the NTIA Administrator overseeing the transition to all step down. Blatter resigned within days. Chehadé resigned too. The other two did not. They served their term. The ICANN CEO and Chairman showed up for DCA depositions. But the NTIA head at the time - the one who ensured ICANN’s transition out of U.S. oversight - dodged ours a dozen times.

So yes, I said it a decade before it was fashionable to make this comparison.

How I Ended Up Here

Here is the part most people do not know.

When the New gTLD expansion started, ICANN wanted to blow open the root zone, move past .com, .org, .net, and let anyone claim a piece of the internet as their own ending. Brands. Cities. Communities. All of it. Everyone in that space was genuinely excited.

I was too.

I got appointed as one of the high-level policy advisors helping shape the program. I co-authored the rules in the 2012 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. I took on championing .africa from the inside, because if anyone was getting a piece of digital real estate that big, Africa deserved one too. No one was paying attention to it. My reasons were justified. .Asia and .EU were done already and.LAT was doing it in parallel to me. What happened after that is one of the longest fights in internet governance history. I have written the full account in my upcoming book, Black Swan Moments: Nerves of Steel.

That is not what I am here to tell you today.

Same Pattern, New Jersey

ICANN is opening up a new round of gTLD applications. The pitch sounds exciting. Own your brand as a domain. Secure your digital territory. Own your corner of the internet forever.

I have heard this pitch before. I believed it once too.

Here is what nobody tells you upfront: the technology works fine. The governance does not. And that gap is where your money, your years, and your sanity go to die.

I know because I lived it. My fight for .africa took over a decade. An Independent Review Process. A federal lawsuit. A legal doctrine most applicants have never heard of. I won legally, on the merits. And ICANN still found a way to make sure I never got what I won.

FIFA STILL IN THE HEADLINES AFTER GAME IS OVER

So let us talk about FIFA for a moment, because the comparison is no longer mine alone. The technology at this World Cup is precise—connected balls, sensors that catch contact invisible to the human eye. And still, match after match, the same countries keep getting burned by the same pattern. Croatia. Egypt. Senegal. Iran. Norway. The tech works. The governance around it does not, and everyone watching can feel it.

The crisis at FIFA is still unfolding. In 2026, its president, Gianni Infantino, faced widespread calls for his resignation over a failed plan to sell a stake in the World Cup to private investors. UEFA, the Asian, and North American confederations accused the leadership of a ‘fundamental breach of trust,’ and U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly backed him, warning FIFA against his removal. The confederations are now split, with the crisis exposing the same culture of impunity you identified a decade ago.

That is not a football problem. That is an institutional problem wearing a football jersey.

The Winners Are Not Even Using What They Won

ICANN is the same story in a different jersey. And here is what should actually worry you if you are thinking about applying in 2026: even the applicants who won clean, no fight, no controversy, are not using what they won.

• Google has owned .google since 2012. Thirteen years later, it has 256 registered domains. Employees only. Nobody else can touch it.

• Amazon fought for seven years just to be allowed to use .amazon, and today it is locked down, internal, invisible to the public.

• Compare that to genuinely open extensions like .shop, sitting at over 1.5 million registrations, or .top, past 2 million. Anyone can register those. Almost nobody can register a domain on .google or .amazon at all.

Meanwhile, the real money paid for real exclusivity that mostly just sat there.

Maserati got theirs. Abandoned it. Mont Blanc, same story. Zippo, MetLife, dozens more. All paid. All walked away with nothing to show for it.

The Seal Already Moved On

And here is what nobody wants to say out loud: the seal of legitimacy everyone paid a fortune for in 2012 has already moved on without them.

Today it is .ai. Over a million registrations and counting, up from just over a hundred thousand five years ago. Register in .ai and people assume you are building something real. Register your own name as a dotBrand and most people will not even notice.

The legal protection people assume they are buying with a dotBrand, they already had it. Decades ago, I registered CBSInternational.com, now rebranded to CBSegroup for my own business, matching the name of a local company, CBS, my father was invested in for my interest in Addis Ababa. The US media company’s CBS lawyers wrote to me claiming rights to it. My answer was simple: I had it first, legitimately, in active use. Go talk to ICANN. That was the end of the conversation.

Trademark priority follows genuine first use in commerce, not which ending sits after the dot. A dotBrand does not buy you protection you did not already have. It buys you an ending, nothing more.

The product nobody names

Nobody at ICANN has ever had to answer for how many of those dotBrands turned out to be worth what companies paid for them. The fee gets collected whether you use what you bought or let it die quietly.

That is not a partnership. That is a toll booth with no obligation to tell you what is on the other side of the bridge.

The WAIVER TRAP

When you apply for a gTLD, ICANN makes you sign a waiver. You give up your right to sue them. In return, you get a review process, with their “Independent Review Proces” that they treat as optional. They do not have to follow it. We won ours. Amazon won theirs, and so many others. It did not matter.

We tried to hold them accountable for fraud-related claims regarding the way they treated our application. We defeated their motion for summary judgment, overturned the applicant waiver, and preserved a Jury trial. Then a procedure no one had heard of ” Judicial Estoppel,” stopped us. They finally succeeded when they used our own IRP lawyer’s words against us: “...that DCA has only the IRP forum for relief...” They argued that this statement was inconsistent across two different forums. One single statement, contested by two different judges, by the way, blocked us from ever having our day in court.

Two years of procedural litigation. Not a single day on the merits.

Bottom line: ICANN could not face DCA’s fraud allegations, so it used procedural maneuvering to shut the courtroom door.

This is the architecture of impunity. ICANN makes you sign away your right to a real remedy, promises you a process that is not actually binding, and then uses your own good-faith participation in that process to block you from ever getting justice.

That is not a process. That is a trap.

Who Can Actually Afford This Game

Before you file anything in 2026, ask yourself the only question that actually matters: who can afford to play this financial and procedural minefield? I laid out this full breakdown recently in response to a Kenyan outlet encouraging local companies to apply — worth reading if you want the full context: LinkedIn or Substack.

Application fee (standard )$227,000

Application fee (community, 80% reduction)~$45,400

Annual ICANN registry fee$25,000 / year, forever

Legal costs if disputed$300,000 – $500,000

Legal costs if it goes to court: no ceiling. Mine crossed $2 million.

Different Institutions, Same Failure

I left the corporate world because I could not breathe in it.

All the language, all the process, all the meetings about meetings, while the people actually harmed by these institutions never get a straight answer. I have watched this exact pattern play out many times, in business, in large government engagements, and on a football pitch in front of a billion people. Different institutions. Same failure.

If you have read this far and you are still thinking about applying for your dotBrand, you are either brave or unaware. I hope you are brave. But I also hope you are informed.

And if you do decide to file, know your rights, including the right to withdraw. The process is designed to trap you, not to help you succeed. Know the rules before you play the game.

I spent fifteen years documenting exactly what that fight actually costs, in money, in time, and in things nobody warns you about until you are already in too deep.

My upcoming book documents the full account, the IRP, the court case, the $2 million-plus in legal fees, and the evidence that never saw trial. It is not just a guidebook. It is a warning.

My ICANN Series on CircleID

For the full picture on ICANN, governance failure, and what 2026 applicants need to know, read my series on CircleID:

• The IRP Docket Speaks Louder Than Theory: A Response to Charles Mok on ICANN and AI Governance

• When the Registry Itself Is Contested: The Unseen Geopolitical Risk in the 2026 gTLD Round

• The 2026 String Similarity Guidelines: Automating the Mistakes of the Past

• The Unprepared gTLD Applicant of 2026

• Eight-Year Legal Battle Recap: DCA Blocked From Being Heard on Its Merit

Also on LinkedIn

• A Citizen of Kenya Encourages gTLD Applications: How Kenya Lost .africa —LinkedIn, 2026., or Substack, 2026.

• ICANN’s Accountability Crisis: How WSIS+20 Exposes Decades of Failed Oversight

• Same Playbook, New Battlefield: Why I Stand With Burkina Faso

For those who want strategic support navigating the process, visit https://sophiabekele.com/advisory-and-strategic-engagement/dotbrand-gtld-sovereignty/

More in this series to follow. ICANN is now in the public square. Welcome!

#FIFA #ICANN #TLDTrap #GTLD #GovernanceRisk #DotConnectAfrica

Sophia Bekele - ICANN gTLD Policy Advisor (2005–2007) | Author, Black Swan Moments: Nerves of Steel, ⚽ FIFA, ICANN and the TLD Trap – What ICANN, Consultants, and Lawyers Won't Tell You.

Published Exclusively for CircleID.

Part of the ICANN & Governance Series

The integrity of digital history is becoming one of the defining governance challenges of the AI era.

Every day, platforms edit, revise, and remove information. Most corrections improve accuracy. Some quietly alter the historical record without meaningful transparency, public accountability, or an audit trail. As AI systems increasingly rely on digital archives to understand people, organizations, institutions, and events, those editorial decisions become governance decisions.

ICANN, the institution whose own documented conduct across a decade of proceedings, panel rulings, and court findings is the subject of this record, is now represented by a platform it funds that reduces that same history to ‘participation,’ as if the individual in question were merely another attendee traveling on a government or company-paid dime. ICANN spent a decade contesting this record in panels and courtrooms.

This is the same ICANN that, during the .africa process, publicly referred to my organization as ‘SHE’ which I later reclaimed in my SHE.africa article. Now a platform it funds reduces that same record to ‘participation.

The record demonstrates otherwise.

The recent revisions to my ICANN Wiki biography provide an instructive case study.

The Case Study

The latest conduct involves ICANN Wiki, which has revised and reduced multiple ICANNWiki sites that had been stable for nearly twelve years. The revisions and deletions were not isolated. In July 2026, multiple pages, my biography, the DotConnectAfrica Trust page, and the No Campaign page- were all revised or deleted within a short timeframe.

The timing coincides with the publication of four articles that revisited documented events ICANN would prefer to forget. The ICANN Wiki biographies for Sophia Bekele and DotConnectAfrica Trust were reduced by approximately 90 percent, from 11 sections and 153 citations to 4 sections and a fraction of the original references.

If they had to reduce my record by 90 percent to make me look like a competitor, imagine how little the other side actually accomplished

Before examining the edits themselves, it is important to understand the platform behind them. ICANN Wiki has received funding from ICANN for years. Public records have documented funding exceeding US$100,000. Whatever its original purpose, it is no longer a neutral historical resource. It has become a platform that can itself be influenced by the institution it documents.

The initial revisions were not subtle. The language was dismissive and unprofessional: “unsuccessful applicant,” “failed the extended evaluation,” and other framing designed to diminish the record. Subsequent revisions, after I raised the issue, shifted tone, but the damage to the historical record had already been done. The IDN section, which originally contained four formal testimonials from the IDN Pioneers, was deleted completely, and then, after my contacting the editor, was restored and reduced to a single sentence of vague ‘public praise.’ I requested a full restoration; the editors declined and gave an option of deletion, which is perhaps along the line of what they were looking for.

ICANNWiki presents itself with the visual language of a genuine wiki platform, a “View History” tab, the appearance of MediaWiki’s open architecture. But unlike Wikipedia, which is governed by an independent nonprofit foundation with public revision logs anyone can inspect without an account, ICANNWiki is a privately owned platform, funded in part by ICANN itself. When I sought to review the page’s edit history directly, I requested account access from ICANNWiki. That access was never granted. Whatever transparency the platform’s interface suggests, in practice I was denied the ability to independently verify what had changed, when, or by whom.

If ICANNWiki’s revision history functioned the way it does on genuine wiki platforms, there would have been no need to rely on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to establish what the page originally said. Yet that is precisely what was required: an independent, third-party archive, entirely outside the platform’s ownership, to reconstruct a record the platform’s own tools should have made available directly. A wiki’s credibility rests on transparency anyone can verify without permission. A private platform, funded by the institution it documents, now controls how that institution’s critics are remembered.

Screenshot of ICANNWiki showing ‘Access Denied’ message when attempting to view page history, with ‘Log in’ and ‘Request account’ options visible. System account access was requested online, but there was no response

The four recent publications below preceded the removal of substantial portions of the documented record.

The timing of the revisions is equally revealing.

The revisions occurred shortly after these publications received public attention. Whether that timing was coincidental or responsive, the chronology is noteworthy

1. Universal Acceptance Day and the Long Arc of Multilingualism (CircleID), documented a testimonial from pioneers of the IDRU (International Domain Resolution Union). That testimonial disappeared immediately after publication and was restored only after I requested a correction. The editor corrected part of the record but declined to fully restore it. That correction also reduced the solid testimonial to a “public praise”.

2. Kenya Lost .africa. Here Is the Story The Citizen Kenya Left Out (LinkedIn), revisited how Kenya lost the .africa domain and documented key aspects of the institutional history surrounding the dispute, including the role of DotConnectAfrica’s former Chief Technical Officer, who later joined ICANN, together with events examined through the Independent Review Process and related legal proceedings. The article also highlights that the 2026 gTLD round is a financial and procedural minefield and not an easy road ahead.

3. The Attention Economy Was Only the First Layer (LinkedIn) The Attention Economy Was Only the First Layer (LinkedIn) discussed the emergence of the Interest Economy. I referenced a recent case where a source cited that they used AI to analyze my public body of work, concluding that I was among the few practitioners able to speak on AI governance, Internet policy, and digital sovereignty from a position of direct institutional experience, also citing .africa as an example. Well, thank you, AI, for that affirmation. But in reaching that assessment, the AI cited my published work on LinkedIn, CircleID, and The Ethical Technocrat, without relying on or even referencing the ICANN Wiki or any Wiki biography. That reinforces where the most comprehensive and authoritative documented record of my work actually resides.

4. Did the AUC-Aligned ZACR Actually Deliver .africa? (LinkedIn), shifted the discussion from historical process to measurable outcomes. It examined the registry’s performance after a decade of operation, documenting approximately 55,000 domain registrations serving a continent of 1.5 billion people, and asked a simple question: what exactly was the objective that justified choosing ZACR over DCA, and was it ever achieved?

Following these publications, ICANN Wiki removed approximately 90 percent of my documented biography as well as our company DotConnectAfrica. The original record has since been preserved through the Wayback Machine and republished on the respective sites as an archive.

The documented records in these publications include, at a minimum:

• Championing IDNs for the global language group, organizing the constituencies led by the IDN Pioneers, who came to me complaining about ICANN’s process and gave me testimonials for my leadership in ensuring the policy gets done—not “public praise” as ICANN Wiki revised it to be. I was also nominated to chair the ICANN IDN group as a result.

• Championed .africa gTLD in a The 6-year successful and widely acclaimed Yes2DotAfrica campaign that raised awareness not just of .africa but of the ICANN gTLD program, making .africa one of the top 50 gTLDs by a reputable industry rating agency, with pre-registrations reaching 25,000.

• Co-authorship of the 2012 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook and the successful challenge to its subsequent subversion by ICANN, through its own Independent Review Process (IRP) and related court proceedings.

• Precedent-setting objections involving ICANN’s Independent Objector (IO), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the IRP that reshaped ICANN’s own accountability mechanisms and that got cited by so many other IRPs afterwards and benefited the ICANN internet community.

• Went to the US Congress, presented my testimony on ICANN’s accountability, and engaged until a hearing was conducted.

• Court Litigation that defeated ICANN’s motion for summary judgment, overturning the applicant waiver ICANN required applicants to sign, preserving fraud-related claims for scheduled trial.

• The only .africa application that followed the Applicant Guidebook as written, with no political influence. ICANN did not need to write an endorsement using the same format I had already prepared for the Geographic Names Panel behind the scenes. Instead, they used extended evaluation to force DCA to get support from the same organization that negotiated legal rights to .africa in exchange for endorsing ZACR.

The Difference Between Editing and Revisionism

No historical record is perfect. Corrections are necessary. New evidence emerges. Mistakes occur. Good editors improve history.

Revisionism is something different. Revisionism selectively changes historical understanding while leaving readers unaware that the underlying narrative has materially shifted. The distinction is subtle. Editing improves accuracy. Revisionism changes perception. Responsible governance requires systems capable of distinguishing between the two. That distinction will become increasingly important as AI systems absorb today’s digital record and present it tomorrow as historical truth.

Why This Matters

None of these four publications introduced new facts.

They revisited events already documented in contemporaneous publications, the Independent Review Process, court proceedings, and other primary sources.

The question raised by the subsequent revisions is therefore not whether these events occurred, but whether the historical record of Internet governance should remain complete, transparent, and faithful to the documentary evidence.

These are not opinions. They are documented.

Fortunately, DCA Institutional sources since 2008, CircleID publications since 2012, ICANN dockets. Federal court filings. The Independent Review Process decision. The documentary record has existed for years.

The popular South African artist and activist Miriam Makeba once said that the white man came, conquered, and wrote his own history. The same dynamic is at play in the digital domain. ICANN and its affiliated platforms are not just managing records, they are writing their own narrative, erasing the contributions of those who built the foundation. The ICANN Wiki revisions are not neutral edits. They are an attempt to rewrite history. Makeba spoke to an era where Africans were denied the tools to write their own history. The colonizers controlled the narrative because they controlled the medium. But the digital age has changed that. The tools are now in our hands. The record is preserved. The narrative is ours to write.

In my case, they are not just fighting me. They are fighting the infrastructure of digital memory itself. They are fighting the infrastructure of digital memory itself. The record has been ingested, indexed, and validated by AI systems they cannot control. The evidence is preserved, permanent, and beyond their reach. The battle of evidence is already won.

Governance Analysis

This case is not simply about one biography.

It illustrates a broader governance challenge: how digital platforms can quietly manage narratives, revise history, and erase inconvenient records without meaningful transparency. In an AI-driven world, editorial decisions increasingly influence not only what people know, but also what machines learn.

The governance question therefore extends well beyond ICANN Wiki. It concerns the integrity of digital history itself.

Silent Erasure Is Not Governance

Silent erasure is the practice of revising or deleting historical content without notice, explanation, or accountability.

It is not governance. It is containment.

When platforms alter the historical record without disclosing what changed, why it changed, or who authorized the revision, they deprive readers of the ability to distinguish between legitimate correction and historical revision. Transparency is what gives institutional records credibility. Without transparency, trust becomes impossible to verify.

Weaponized Anonymity in the AI Era

Weaponized Anonymity is a series I began writing last year because I believe its implications extend far beyond a single platform and impact the way AI renders its views on any matter.

The AI era has fundamentally changed the consequences of anonymous editorial decisions. Opaque and untraceable edits can reshape reputations, rewrite institutional memory, and ultimately influence how both people and AI systems understand history.

The ICANN Wiki revisions are one example of this larger governance problem.

Anonymous editorial power without transparent accountability creates an environment where historical narratives can be modified while responsibility remains invisible.

Platform Accountability in the AI Era

Historically, platforms were viewed primarily as publishers. Increasingly, they function as custodians of institutional memory.

That responsibility carries new obligations: editorial transparency, version accountability, correction histories, document provenance, and source integrity. These concepts are already familiar within cybersecurity, auditing, financial reporting, and records management. AI now requires similar thinking for digital history.

If governance decisions increasingly rely upon AI-assisted research, then the integrity of the underlying digital record becomes part of governance itself. This is no longer simply an editorial issue. It is an information governance issue. An AI governance issue. An institutional trust issue.

The lesson extends far beyond Internet governance. Every organization should begin asking whether its digital archives are sufficiently transparent to withstand future AI scrutiny.

Preserving the Historical Record

To ensure continued accessibility of the historical record, the original ICANN Wiki biographies for both Sophia Bekele and DotConnectAfrica Trust have been preserved. Should you want to compare with the current revision/deletion that merited this writing.

The full record of preserved ICANNWiki pages—including personal biographies, campaign records, and institutional endorsements deleted is available in the Featured Notice on ICANNWiki Historical Record Deletion, in line with our previous archives

One lesson became unmistakably clear throughout this experience: never rely upon a single platform to preserve your professional history. Primary documentation remains the strongest protection against institutional amnesia. Court records remain. Published articles remain. Conference presentations remain. Government submissions remain. Independent interviews remain. Books remain. Institutional archives remain. Those sources collectively create resilience. If one summary changes, the broader body of evidence continues to exist.

This became evident through the AI assessment discussed earlier. The AI reached its conclusions without depending upon the ICANN Wiki biography. Instead, it synthesized evidence from LinkedIn, CircleID, The Ethical Technocrat, conference presentations, governance publications, public interviews, DCA’s institutional documentation, and other primary sources accumulated over two decades.

That outcome reinforces an important governance principle: the most authoritative record is rarely a single profile page; it is the totality of independently verifiable evidence.

Larger Lesson

The ICANN Wiki case is not the story. It is the case study.

The larger issue is whether platforms that document Internet governance should themselves be governed by transparent editorial principles. As AI systems increasingly rely upon digital archives as factual sources, silent revisions no longer affect only today’s readers. They influence tomorrow’s research, journalism, policymaking, and machine-generated knowledge.

The ICANN Wiki revisions matter because they illustrate something much larger than one biography. They remind us that history is increasingly dynamic. Digital memory is no longer fixed. Institutional narratives evolve. Platforms change. Editors change. Organizations change. AI models change. What remains constant is documented evidence.

Digital sovereignty is not only about infrastructure. It is also about memory. Institutional resilience is not only about governance. It is also about documentation. Historical integrity is not only about facts. It is about preserving the evidence that allows future generations, and increasingly future AI systems, to understand those facts accurately.

Governance is no longer simply about how institutions make decisions. It is also about how institutions preserve history.

So, if your work matters, preserve your own evidence. Maintain your own primary sources. Archive your own publications.
Do not assume that third-party platforms will preserve your legacy with the same care that you would.

Transparency builds trust. Anonymity enables revisionism. Here is the documented record. The parties involved know it.

Now the governance community can examine it as a case study.

Hence, a message to the ICANN Wiki ‘Lead Engineer’: I know you claimed you dont know much about the past issues at ICANN, but this is not someone who just ‘participated’ in “IDN and .africa discussions” as ICANN Wiki wants to narrate for your new audience. When you grow up professionally, all these activities are called leadership, which cannot be usurped by ChatGPT politeness. Just to be clear, it is not my style to just ‘participate’ like the hundred profiles you set up that come to your boot. I take up a cause and champion it.

Voilà.

I welcome any comments on the contents above, especially from ICANNWiki editors and/or management.

#ICANN #ICANNWiki #DigitalGovernance #InternetGovernance #InstitutionalMemory #PlatformAccountability #DigitalSovereignty #Governance #AI #AIEthics #SilentErasure #WeaponizedAnonymity #DotAfrica #IDN #Transparency #History #Archive #Evidence #Leadership #Policy

Sophia Bekele
Internet Governance Pioneer | ICANN Reform Veteran
Founder, DotConnectAfrica Group & CBSegroup | Publisher, The Ethical Technocrat

Subscribe to The Ethical Technocrat →
The Counter-Playbook for leaders navigating power, platforms, and institutional risk

This post was originally published on LinkedIn as part of my ongoing series on Weaponized Anonymity. Given the response and the continued relevance of the topic, I am republishing it here for The Ethical Technocrat community.

The themes explored in this series—platform accountability, silent correction, and the weaponization of anonymity—are central to the governance challenges of our time. As AI accelerates the spread of unverified narratives, the need for auditable, evidence-based reputation infrastructure has never been more urgent.

I hope this piece sparks reflection and action among leaders navigating similar challenges.

The Battle of Evidence Is Already Won!

In any contest of narratives, whether in internet governance, business, or public life, the side with the most credible, verifiable evidence has already won.

The rest is noise.

I have seen this play out repeatedly. Opponents who cannot challenge the facts resort to silent edits, anonymous posts, and opaque platforms. They hope to shape perception without accountability.

But perception is not reality. Evidence is.

When you hold the primary sources, the letters, the testimonials, the legal rulings, you hold the high ground. The rest is just commentary.

The question is not whether you have the evidence. It is whether you have archived it where it cannot be erased.

This is Part III of my ongoing series on Weaponized Anonymity.

The DOOR

For the full framework and more on digital governance and reputation infrastructure, Subscribe to The Ethical Technocrat → The Counter-Playbook for leaders navigating power, platforms, and institutional risk.

This is why the question is no longer about platforms; it’s about architecture.

The architecture begins with governance.

The implementation continues in THE WAR ROOM.

ICANN Internet Society ICANNWiki CircleID United Nations AfricanUnion Internet Governance Forum (IGF) DotConnectAfrica Group

#WeaponizedAnonymity #BattleOfEvidence #DigitalGovernance #ReputationManagement #Leadership #SovereignSystems #ICANN #InternetGovernance #Transparency #Accountability #Unitednations

The Citizen Kenya recently ran a piece encouraging ICANN’s 2026 gTLD round as an opportunity for Kenya to run custom web domains and strengthen its digital identity. Someone brought it to my attention.

What the article does not mention:

The ongoing costs are significant. And ICANN’s record on African applications shows that winning on paper does not guarantee a fair process.

The GAC can object to geographic strings, often for political reasons. Regular brands can face string similarity objections or any number of other challenges.

So before celebrating the process, ask: who can actually afford to play this financial and procedural minefield?

Kenya Already Had a Chance for a Big Win. It Was .africa.

For those who were not part of the African internet governance space at the time, here is what happened.

The last time a Kenya-based company applied to ICANN for an African domain, DotConnectAfrica (DCA) had secured a partnership with Safaricom to establish the registry infrastructure in Nairobi.

• Kenya’s Minister of Information at the time, Hon. Samuel Poghisio, formally endorsed DCA’s .africa application.

• The late Bob Collymore, CEO of Safaricom, publicly praised DCA’s decision to base the registry in Kenya.

DCA’s technical bid was backed by CentralNic, an ICANN-accredited registry provider. Our Chief Technology Officer at the time was Gavin Brown, who has since been recruited as ICANN’s Principal Engineer, the very institution that oversaw the .africa process and ultimately ruled against us.

The technical and financial case was never the problem. What followed was political interference, governments that chose connections over competence and backed a competing application despite the evidence on record.

Moreover, and to the surprise of all, Kenya’s GAC representative objected to DCA’s application at ICANN.

But that objection failed. DCA won the IRP. Yet, ICANN refused to follow the ruling. When DCA pursued the matter in court, ICANN successfully invoked judicial estoppel (a legal doctrine that prevents a party from taking a position inconsistent with one it previously held.

For the record the inconsistency was not taken by DCA nor its merit, rather by our Lawyers statment "... the IRP is their only recourse; no other remedy is available for applicants..." ).

This is what prevented the DCA merits from being fully litigated, a doctrine the first judge rejected, but a second judge contradicted. That is how teh .africa registry was awarded to a less qualified competing bidder.

The outcome and conflicts of interest embedded in that process are documented in full.

History is vindicating the position DCA held throughout.

The Pattern: Authority Without Understanding, Then and Now

THEN - The .africa Process

• During the .africa process, a Kenyan GAC representative had already been replaced by the government before the Beijing meeting.

• Yet the individual still sat in the room, spoke, and gathered support for an objection against DCA, while the position of the actual accredited Kenya representative was ignored.

• Under deposition, former GAC Chair Heather Dryden later acknowledged that the process lacked transparency and fairness.

NOW - The Same Pattern Reappears

• The same individual is now quoted in publications such as The Register UK and BTW.media as holding “senior positions at ICANN” while speaking on matters of CAIGA.

• That framing is inaccurate. A GAC role is not the same as holding a senior ICANN position. GAC representatives are appointed by governments for specific mandates, often political in nature, and not necessarily for deep institutional or technical expertise.

• During the CAIGA discussion on AFRINIC, this same individual claimed that Smart Africa controlled the election process.

• Internet governance scholar Milton Mueller publicly corrected the claim, clarifying that AFRINIC members, not Smart Africa, controlled the election outcome.

• Mueller argued that the real concern was institutional architecture, not ballot manipulation. The correction was publicly acknowledged and accepted.

THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT

The same individual also later acknowledged publicly: “Many of us have performed roles that made this kind of capture work. I have recognised the pattern and my role in it.” - Former Kenya GAC Rep, 2012

WHY THIS MATTERS

That statement matters because what DCA experienced during the .africa process at the ICANN GAC and AUC level reflected precisely those dynamics.

DCA has been documenting these governance patterns since 2008.

Government-aligned and government-appointed do not automatically mean performance. We saw that with .africa.

THE BROADER ISSUE

This is not ultimately about one individual. It is about how authority is presented, repeated, and accepted without sufficient scrutiny — by institutions, media, and governance ecosystems alike.

The Bottom Line

ICANN’s 2026 gTLD round is not an opportunity for Kenya. It is a financial and procedural minefield for everyone. The GAC process has shown itself vulnerable to political capture. IRP wins can be ignored. Courts can close on technicalities. There is no real remedy.

Therefore, before The Citizen Kenya encourages others to apply, perhaps they could investigate why .africa never gained meaningful traction in Kenya despite local partnerships and ministerial endorsement.

That is not cynicism. It is institutional memory.

---

ICANN AfricanUnion WSIS Process United Nations Conference Centre in Addis Ababa (UNCC-AA) CircleID The Africa Report Citizen Digital The Register BTW CIO Africa by dx5 Nations Media

#gTLD2026 #DigitalSovereignty #InternetGovernance #ICANNAccountability #AfricaTech #DotAfrica #Kenya

Source articles — The Citizen Kenya: https://citizen.digital/article/icann-launches-2026-gtld-round-opening-door-for-kenya-to-run-custom-web-domains-n382683

Safaricom and Fincom partnership — Kahawa Tungu, July 2012: https://kahawatungu.com/dca-partners-with-safaricom-and-fincom-to-set-up-dotafrica-registry-in-kenya/

10-Year .africa performance review and documented record: https://sophiabekele.com/did-the-auc-aligned-zacr-actuallydeliver-africa/

CAIGA Discussion on AFRINIC Governance — Milton Mueller Clarification (2025): https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alice-munyua-9b76604_icann-fosters-some-not-so-smart-ideas-for-activity-7395909857901662208-KdvP

You can find my full archive of gTLD and internet governance analysis here:
https://circleid.com/members/5906/

Below is a direct link to one of the key pieces from this series.

The 2026 New gTLD Round: A Strategic Framework for Risk Management

By Sophia Bekele, Founder/CEO DotConnectAfrica Group | CBSegroup —

Sophia Bekele is the Founder and CEO of DotConnectAfrica Group and CBSegroup. She is a former Fortune 500 technology auditor and served as a policy advisor to the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization (gNSO) Council from 2005 to 2007, contributing to foundational policy discussions for the new gTLD program. She spearheaded the Yes2DotAfrica campaign and led the precedent-setting Independent Review Process (IRP) related to the .Africa domain. She has also advised United Nations agencies on ICT and digital governance issues. Bekele is a recognized thought leader in corporate and ICT governance, international policy, business strategy, and internet development. More: www.sophiabekele.com

Visit Page

This article is part of the.africa Commentary Series — a living archive of analysis, precedent, and warnings from the architect of the .africa domain. Originally published on sophiabekele.com

Executive Summary:

ICANN’s new gTLD application round is now open for 2026. Before Africa applies again, here is what happened last time.

Ten years ago, the .africa registry, built to deliver digital identity, was taken from DotConnectAfrica through a documented process of institutional manipulation.

I know, because I built it.
They fought for the registry. I built the digital identity.

In July 2024, the people who took .africa gathered in Kigali to celebrate a decade in the industry. Photos were taken. Speeches were made. The “self-styled ‘visionaries’” were thanked. The photo was published on their own website in July 2024.

I did not attend. I was not invited. I would not have gone. No media covered it. It never came to my attention — not until this month, when someone sent me the link and asked:

“Did you see this?”

I hadn’t. But once I did, one question followed:

After a decade, did they actually deliver?

The Origin

In 2009, DotConnectAfrica proposed the .africa domain name to the African Union Commission.

Perhaps most telling, ICANN’s own witness — the other institutional anchor of the competing bid —Erastus J.O. Mwencha, former Deputy Chairperson of the African Union Commission — testified under oath that the AUC first learned about the .Africa domain from DCA’s Sophia Bekele:

“Ms. Sophie is the one who told me about it.” He further confirmed that the AUC’s original endorsement belonged to DCA, not anyone else. (Mwencha Deposition, April 4, 2018, pp. 29, 62 — DotConnectAfrica Trust v. ICANN, Case No. BC607494)

Nine years after signing that original endorsement, Mwencha sat as ICANN’s own witness in a Washington D.C. — and the facts remained the same.

It was DCA — not the AUC, not any government, not any other entity — that first brought the vision of a continental digital identity to Africa’s highest political body.

Why It Matters

This testimony didn’t emerge from DCA’s advocacy — it came from the opposing side’s own witness, in a sworn legal proceeding. This is the most unimpeachable validation of DCA’s central thesis: that the institutions DCA challenged had no legitimate claim to the .africa domain, and that DCA’s resistance was not obstruction — it was the defense of the original vision.

Following that proposal, the African Heads of State, through the Oliver Tambo Declaration (2009) and the Abuja Declaration (2010) , mandated the AUC to deliver .africa — a digital identity for the continent.

DotConnectAfrica was endorsed by both the AUC and the UN Economic Commission for Africa (2008).

The vision was clear. The path was set.

Then comes the turn - the “Reserve Name” Rehearsal

The African Union Commission’s original involvement was never hostile to DCA

In 2008, DCA had received formal endorsement from both the AUC — under Chairman Jean Ping — and the UN Economic Commission for Africa. The vision was recognised. The architect was legitimate.

After DCA’s press release, ICANN staff approached the AUC to simply reserve the .africa name for itself — to protect it from being claimed by any private party.

But somewhere in that process, the AUC’s role shifted. Rather than acting as a protector of the name on behalf of all Africans, the AUC decided it wanted to control who ran the registry. It withdrew its endorsement of DCA — the organisation that had first brought it the vision — and attempted to select its own preferred registry, ZACR, to apply to ICANN directly.

That AUC attempt failed. DCA opposed it and won at the ICANN meeting in Dakar, where the AUC’s request was formally put forward and rejected for violating ICANN’s own rules.

Having failed through that route, ICANN then advised the AUC to join ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee — the GAC — and use that platform to formally object to DCA’s application.

The GAC, by design, carries significant weight in ICANN’s decision-making process. An objection from a bloc of African governments, lodged through the GAC, would be far harder to ignore than a direct request.

That is exactly what happened next. And that is where the quid pro quo begins

The Timeline of Manipulation – ICANN’s quid pro quo

At ICANN public meetings, AUC representative MoctarYadely would stand up and stated openly — on the record:

“We will not support ICANN unless they stop DCA.”

This was not backroom dealing. This was a public declaration of the terms. An African Union representative, at an ICANN public forum, making the quid pro quo explicit:

African political support in exchange for blocking the legitimate applicant.ICANN heard it.

ICANN accepted those terms. And ICANN delivered.

In exchange for that endorsement, ICANN promised to deliver .africa to the AUC’s aligned registry.

Behind the scenes, ZACR signed a separate agreement with the AUC, effectively reassigning operational control of the registry. The AUC, in turn, was led to believe it would retain oversight of .africa, perhaps even a share of the revenue. Never mind that this violated the very rules I helped draft during my term as an ICANN policy advisor. The ICANN Applicant Guidebook explicitly forbids such reassignments. The system moved ZACR forward at every opportunity, even signing a registry agreement before DCA’s IRP was resolved.

Then, DCA won the IRP,

A three Judge IRP Panel stated that ICANN Violated it bylaws in the processing of the DCA Application

ICANN then forced itself to restart the evaluation, only to apply the most rigid possible reading of the “government support” rule to ensure DCA fails with the collaboration of a corrupt evaluation panel, which forced DCA to go to court.

A U.S. federal court later independently confirmed what DCA had been saying all along — finding explicitly that “the AUC’s relationship with ZACR, and its interest in preventing the delay of issuing rights to .Africa, creates a conflict of interest.“

That is not an allegation. That is a federal court’s own words.

The fix was in. The rulebook was ignored. And the architect was locked out.

The Rigged RFP at AUC Level

ZACR was selected through an AUC-led Request for Proposal process. But here’s what the AUC never disclosed:

ZACR was the only participant in the bid.

Why? Because the AUC’s RFP contravened ICANN’s own RFP process, making it impossible for other qualified applicants, including DotConnectAfrica, to participate in good faith.

DotConnectAfrica had raised concerns about the RFP’s alignment with ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook. When those concerns were ignored, DCA made the strategic decision not to participate in a process that was already structurally compromised.

The AUC’s RFP documents, published in November 2011, revealed a process designed to produce a predetermined outcome. And the evaluators?

They were the same people who had publicly aligned themselves with ZACR.

In July 2012, a select group from the African Internet community circulated a document titled “Facts Regarding the African Union Commission (.Africa) application.” The document, also shared by Alice Munyua, laid out the AUC/ZACR position point by point; all were known supporters of the AUC/ZACR position. All signatories were known supporters of the ZACR bid.

What was not disclosed at the time, but was later established in deposition testimony, carrying the same legal weight as the Mwencha deposition — is that Alice Munyua was a paid consultant to ZACR. She was not a neutral observer. She was an advocate on ZACR’s payroll, participating in what was presented as an independent community process.

The evaluators were not neutral arbiters. They were advocates — embedded in the very process they were supposed to oversee objectivly

This was not an open and transparent RFP. This was a closed-door alignment dressed up as a competitive process.

The Rigged RFP at ICANN Level

The rigging did not stop at the AUC. At ICANN, ZACR executed a strategic two-step process that the system allowed.

Step One: The “Community Application” Masquerade

ZACR campaigned aggressively as a “community application” — a special designation under ICANN’s rules that carries advantages in the evaluation process. They claimed the majority support from African governments and positioned themselves as the authentic voice of the continent.

Step Two: The Switch

When it came time to apply, ZACR did not apply as a community application. They applied as an individual applicant, in the same category as DCA.

This was not an accident. It was a calculated move to:

• Use the political cover of community support during campaigning

• Avoid the strict scrutiny that comes with community applications

• Benefit from the endorsements without the obligations

ICANN knew this. And ICANN allowed it.

Meanwhile, DCA’s application was subjected to relentless scrutiny. ICANN delayed its evaluation at every turn — asking for more documentation, more proof, more endorsements — while ZACR’s application moved forward on a parallel track.

The result? DCA was held to the highest standard. ZACR was held to none.

The .ZA Credential — Unverified Then and Now

ZACR’s primary credential for winning the .africa bid was their management of .ZA — South Africa’s country code. In January 2015, they announced that .ZA had surpassed 1 million domains.

The press releases celebrated. The headlines were written. But the question no one asked at the time — and few have asked since — is: how many of those were actually active?

Industry observers at the time suspected that a significant portion of the 1 million figure consisted of dead or unpaid registrations — domains that had expired but remained in the count. Domain Incite, an active industry publication, noted with pointed skepticism that the registry’s reporting might not be entirely reliable.

The exact words:

“So perhaps the numbers the company are reporting are not entirely reliable.”

No independent audit was ever produced. No verification was ever offered. The 1 million figure was simply asserted, then repeated, then treated as fact.

What we know today, from subsequent reporting, is that CO.ZA — the largest component of .ZA — saw deletions surpassing creations in 2023, resulting in a net loss of nearly 15,000 domains. That is not the behavior of a healthy, growing namespace. It is the behavior of a registry propped up by numbers that were never fully vetted.

The 1 million figure may have been true in the narrowest sense — domains ever registered, including those long expired. But as a measure of active, paying, operational registrations, it was always questionable.

And yet, that unverified number was used to persuade the AUC that ZACR had the capacity to run .africa.

What They Promised vs. What They Delivered

When ZACR applied to run .africa, they pointed to their management of .co.za as proof of capacity. At the time, .co.za had grown to 842,000 registrations over 17 years — serving a country of 63 million people at a rate of nearly 50,000 domains per year.:

The Numbers — 10 Years Later

What we can verify, through multiple independent sources, is this:

Note: In its first year, .africa typically saw ~22,000 registrations — many of them defensive registrations on reserved names. Subtract those, and the organic growth over the remaining nine years drops to ~33,000 domains, or just ~3,700 per year.

For a market 25 times larger, ZACR delivered a growth rate 9 times slower — and without the initial defensive registrations, nearly 13 times slower.

If ZACR had performed for Africa at even half the rate they claimed for South Africa, .africa would have over 200,000 domains today. Instead, they’re at 55,000 — and celebrating.

That is not growth. That is stagnation.

The Phantom Ranking (76th)

Registry Africa claims .africa ranks 76th among new gTLDs, citing NTLDStats.com. But they provide no link to this data. The proof is in their own website. In July 2024, they published a celebration on their website, repeating the same 76th-place claim — still with no link, no source, no verification.

But before ZACR existed, during the Yes2DotAfrica campaign— six years of global awareness built by DCA — .africa was already ranked among the top 50 most attractive domains in preregistration, in joint marketing with United Domains, a leading global registrar.

ZACR inherited a top‑50 market – The attention wasn’t theirs. It was inherited. A decade later, ZACR sits at unverified 76th — a 26‑place decline. If they had built on your success, they should have moved up, not down.

ICANN- are you reading?

Therefore, the numbers they now claim as success — the rankings, the awareness, the global interest — did not even come from them.

ZACR inherited a market it did not build and has failed to grow.

When we checked NTLDStats for the registry group “ZA Central Registry NPC,” the page showed 3 TLDs and 9,727 domains — their city TLDs (.capetown, .joburg, .durban). .africa is not even in that count.

The 76th place ranking is impossible to prove. They have offered no verifiable source, no direct link, no screenshot.

If 55,000 domains does place .africa around 76th, that only makes their refusal to provide a link more telling.

The City TLDs — Put in Context

ZACR also manages three South African city TLDs. Here is what their performance looks like against the population of each city:

Three of South Africa’s largest cities. Combined population over 14.7 million people. Combined domains after 10 years: shallower than 10,000. To put this in perspective: A city the size of Johannesburg — a major economic hub — has not even reached 3,000 domain registrations under ZACR’s management.

Source: Sources: ZA Cities (domains), Worldometer 2025 est. (population)

Again, that is not scale. That is stagnation.

---

What Happens When You Block Competition

The numbers tell a simple story:

• .africa — 10 years, 55,000 domains

• .capetown — 4.5 million people, 4,409 domains

• .joburg — 7.1 million people, 2,812 domains

• .durban — 3.2 million people, 2,083 domains

This is what happens when a process is designed to exclude competition and deliver a monopoly to a predetermined winner.

No competition means no incentive to perform. No incentive to innovate. No incentive to market, to grow, to serve.

The AUC and ICANN colluded to hand .africa to ZACR on a silver platter. They blocked the architect. They silenced the opposition. They rigged the RFP at every level.

And this is the result:

No service. No value. No growth.

A continent of 1.4 billion people, served by a registry that can barely manage a single South African city.

That is not success. That is a monopoly without accountability — and the numbers prove it.

The Conflict of Interest We Predicted — and the Silence That Followed

When the AUC chose ZACR to run .africa, DCA Trust raised a simple question that was never answered:

Why would a South African company, already managing .za — one of Africa’s most successful country-code TLDs — ever prioritize .africa over its home turf?

The rules of ICANN’s new gTLD program did not allow for a “community asset” in the way some imagined. But they did require a fair process, transparent evaluation, and an operator with no structural conflict of interest.

TLD Active Domains Operator

.za -1.37Million ZACR ( via Uniforum)

.africa -55,000 ZACR

Source: ZA Domain Stats, DomainMetaData, netapi.com

South Africa, a country of approximately 60 million people, has 25 times more domains under ZACR’s management than the entire continent of 1.4 billion people. The .za namespace, which ZACR has administered since 1995, now exceeds 1.4 million registered domains (Source: ZARC). The .co.za domain alone continues to show year-on-year growth, reflecting strong local trust and adoption (Source: ZA Domain Stats).

Meanwhile, .africa — a continental TLD launched with great fanfare in 2017 — has languished at approximately 55,000 active domains after nearly a decade (Source: DomainMetaData, netapi.com). In its first year, there were more than 22,000 registrations (Source: netapi.com), many of them defensive registrations on reserved names. Growth has since stagnated.

We warned the AUC that ZACR’s dual role would create exactly this conflict. We asked for the RFP to be reviewed. We asked for transparency.

Those questions were ignored.

We didn’t need a “community asset.” We needed an operator with no incentive to put South Africa first. The AUC gave us the opposite.

In 2011 DCA observed and said: ‘Before Africa does brand.africa — let it do goodgovernance.africa.’ The argument was never against Africa. It was about preventing the handover of Africa’s digital identity to a conflicted operator through a flawed process.

In 2026 the registration data confirms what good governance would have delivered — and what its absence cost. The result was a registry that served its own market — .co.za — more effectively than the continental mandate it was given.

And the continent has paid the price ever since

The Photo That Says Everything

In July 2024, at ICANN80 in Kigali, ZACR celebrated its 10-year milestone. They gathered for a photo — the “pioneers and visionaries” of .africa.

Look closely at that photo.

• Not a single AUC representative is in the frame. The very body that endorsed them, that ran the rigged RFP, that was supposed to oversee the continental interest — absent.

• None of the real pioneers who first envisioned .africa, who spent years building awareness, who fought for the vision — not there.

• The faces in the frame are divided. On one side, the South African registry owners (Afrikaners) who run the operation. On the other, the Black African faces who aligned with them.

It is a visual confession: .africa is not a united continental project. It is a divided room — a few holding the power, the rest standing in support, and the architect locked out entirely.

No AUC. No pioneers. No accountability. Just a closed circle celebrating itself.

Source: Registry Africa website (July 2024). Screenshots taken by the author for critical commentary purposes.

The Post-Media Coverage

For a panAfrican domain meant to represent 54 African nations, the media coverage of its 10-year celebration was remarkably narrow.

A search turns up only two outlets: one South African blog (mybroadband.co.za) and a Nigerian site whose page no longer loads. The only other “coverage” came from ICANN’s own blog — the co-conspirator, patting itself on the back.

The only African Union figure mentioned anywhere is Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma — the AUC Chairperson at the time the contract was awarded to ZACR.

That is not a celebration of “self-styled visionaries.” That is a political reunion dressed up as an anniversary.

The AUC owes the African public an explanation:

Why the Courts Closed — Not Because the Facts Were Wrong

A reader might ask: “If DCA’s case was so strong, why didn’t they win in court?”The answer is not in the merits. It’s in the procedural warfare ICANN waged to ensure the merits never saw a jury.

Here is what the court record shows — and what ICANN hoped you’d never see:

Why was ICANN so desperate?

Because if DCA had won, every past and future IRP claimant could have used the same playbook. ICANN would have faced dozens of fraud claims, unlimited legal exposure, and potentially bankruptcy.

They didn’t beat DCA on the facts. They beat DCA by changing the bench and closing the courtroom door. That is not justice. That is institutional self-preservation. And now, the AUC, which enabled this from the start, must decide whether to keep standing with a registry that required such tactics to survive.

The Verdict

ZACR was chosen because they claimed they could deliver over the existing African ccTLDs. The .ZA numbers — unverified then and unverified now — were offered as proof of operational capacity.

But capacity is not the same as will.

---

A registry that claimed to have grown one namespace to 1.3 million (at the time of ICANN application) should have grown .africa to at least 300,000 by now. Instead, they’re at 55,000 — and asking us to celebrate.

The city TLDs tell an even bleaker story.

Johannesburg — a metropolis of over 7 million people — has not reached 3,000 .joburg domains in a decade. Cape Town, with 4.5 million residents, sits at just over 4,000 .capetown domains. These are not the numbers of a competent registry. They are the numbers of a caretaker going through the motions.

The AUC endorsed a predetermined outcome. ICANN enabled a rigged process. And together, they excluded the architect who first envisioned .africa, built six years of global awareness through the Yes2DotAfrica campaign, and won an IRP proving ICANN violated its own bylaws.

The numbers are public. The RFP was rigged. The photo tells the story.

And history — unlike a celebration in Kigali — does not forget who built the foundation.

#dotAfrica #ZACR #AUC #ICANN #InternetGovernance #Accountability #DigitalSovereignty #Yes2DotAfrica #TheArchitect #AfricaRising #LegalHistoryMatters #JudicialIntegrity #AfricaGovernance #HistoryCannotBeBlocked

Sophia Bekele
Founder, DotConnectAfrica Trust
Lead Claimant, .africa IRP Case
Internet Governance and .africa Pioneer | ICANN Reform Veteran
Founder, DotConnectAfrica Group and CBSegroup | 20 years shaping digital policy

This article is part of the .Africa Commentary Series, a living archive of analysis, precedent, and warning from the architect of the .africa domain. Read more analysis here →

Charles Mok’s recent CircleID article, “Do We Need Alignment Between Internet Governance and AI Governance?”, raises important questions about whether the multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet can—or should—guide the emerging architecture of AI governance.

But his analysis contains a striking omission. And that omission is not minor. It is the very evidence that would answer his questions.

Mok writes that he has “never heard” the view that “multi-stakeholder” masks corporate or state capture. He questions whether ICANN’s accountability mechanisms are “performative,” and says he does not agree with that characterization.

With respect, the record suggests otherwise. And that record is public.

What the IRP Docket Shows

Since the 2012 new gTLD round, more than a dozen Independent Review Processes have been filed against ICANN. Filing an IRP costs millions of dollars in legal fees—so people did not file because they had nothing better to do. They filed because they were aggrieved. Because the system had failed them.

Some cases resulted in published determinations. Others were settled behind closed doors. Several produced evidence of institutional failure that was never adjudicated on its merits.

• Take .africa – my case. We won an IRP, proving the ICANN Board violated its own bylaws. Discovery revealed staff misconduct, panel corruption, and a CEO quietly rewriting endorsements. That evidence never saw a trial. A procedural doctrine called Judicial Estoppel blocked us—not because our facts were wrong, but because our Lawyers had truthfully argued, during the IRP, that we had no other forum.

• Take .amazon – which built directly on the precedent we established. A years-long fight involving a multi-country dispute, resolved only after political intervention.

• Take .persiangulf – Take .persiangulf—filed the same year as .africa, cited our precedent. The case dragged on for years. In January 2026, it was finally dismissed—not because the claims lacked merit, but because the claimant company had been legally dissolved in Bahrain since 2018. For eight years, no one—not ICANN, not the panel, not the lawyers—noticed that the claimant had no legal standing. Eleven years, over $274,000 in panel fees, and the case ended not with a ruling, but with a corpse. That is not a failure of one party. That is a system-wide collapse of due diligence.

• Take .registry – won its IRP, was named prevailing party, and ICANN was ordered to pay $235,000 in fees. The applications for .INC, .LLC, and .LLP? Still denied. Winning meant nothing.

• Take Namecheap—where the claimant prevailed on transparency claims, yet the contracts at issue were maintained without change.

The common thread is not failure to win. It is a failure of the system to provide a meaningful remedy even when claimants prevail.

The full docket is public. Anyone can review it: ICANN.org/irp

Why This Silence Matters

Mok asks whether “civil society was a decorative layer” in Internet governance. In case after case, it was not decorative—it was excluded, despite winning on merit. That is not a theory. Those are the docket numbers.

He asks whether the multi-stakeholder model masks capture. The IRP record answers: yes, it can—and the documentation exists to prove it.

He asks how to prevent “digital colonialism 2.0” in AI governance. The .africa case offers a warning:

The African Union was advised by ICANN to join ICANN as a member and then oppose DCA’s .africa—not on technical grounds, but through the Governmental Advisory Committee. An African body, turned against an African applicant, using global governance procedures. That is not multi-stakeholderism. That is sovereignty subcontracted.

That is the documented truth.

That is the architecture of exclusion. And it is not accidental. It is structural.

ICANN’s Limited Mandate – And Why AI Needs Something New

Mok holds up ICANN as a potential model for AI governance. But this comparison ignores a fundamental truth: ICANN’s mandate was never designed to govern content, data, cybersecurity, or digital markets.

ICANN’s mission, as defined in its Bylaws and reaffirmed in the Affirmation of Commitments, is narrow and technical: coordinate the global DNS, ensure its stable and secure operation, and maintain a unique authoritative root. When the Internet became commercial in the 1990s and content—data, commerce, communication—began flowing through the pipes ICANN manages, the organization wisely did not extend its mandate to govern that content. It stayed at the tool level.

That was the right decision. ICANN coordinates the address book. It does not—and should not—tell you what to write in the letter.

Yet now we are told that this same institution, with its narrow technical remit and its documented accountability deficits, should serve as a template for governing artificial intelligence—a technology that shapes labor markets, electoral integrity, military strategy, and the very boundaries of human cognition.

The scholar Chen Jian has written that digital colonialism in the AI era operates through “monopoly control of digital technology and data resources” to construct a “digital colonial system subservient to Western powers.” If AI governance simply replicates ICANN’s structure—with its unaccountable staff, its procedural traps, its gap between winning and remedy—it will not prevent this colonialism. It will encode it.

AI governance does not need a photocopy of ICANN. It needs an honest institution—one with no baggage of policy abuse, no decades of documented failures, no IRP docket full of claimants who won but walked away empty-handed.

There are capable institutions that could take up this mantle. Or new ones could be built. But the starting point must be different: a mandate that reaches conduct, not just board decisions. A forum where evidence is heard, not blocked. A structure where the Global South has a voice—not as a decorative layer, but as co-author of the rules.

The question Mok should have asked is not whether ICANN can be a model for AI governance. It is: who will build the institution that can actually govern, without replicating the immunities of the past?

The Geopolitical Context Mok Avoids

Mok writes from Stanford, citing ICANN as a potential model for AI governance. But one must ask: why this framing, and why now?

When India hosted the AI Impact Summit in February 2026 and secured 88 signatories—including the US, China, Russia, and the EU—for the New Delhi Declaration on AI governance, it signaled something significant: developing nations want a seat at the table. They want AI governance that serves the many, not just the few.

The declaration’s emphasis on democratizing AI resources, affordable connectivity, and locally relevant innovation stands in stark contrast to the “innovation first, regulations never” posture that has defined certain approaches.

And when the US delegation explicitly rejected “global governance of AI” at the same summit, the message was clear: some powers want to keep control centralized.

Mok’s framing—holding up ICANN as a model while dismissing critiques of it—fits a pattern. It suggests that Western-designed institutions, with all their flaws, should set the template. It ignores that the Global South has its own experiences, its own grievances, and its own vision for governance.

What AI Governance Must Build Instead

Mok is right that AI governance cannot simply copy Internet governance. The starting points are different. The stakes are different. The power asymmetries are deeper.

But if AI governance looks to ICANN for lessons, it must look with open eyes—at the docket, at the cases, at the gap between winning and being heard. That gap is not a bug. It is the design.

What AI governance needs is not a replica of ICANN. It needs:

1. Reachability of conduct. A forum that cannot examine misconduct beyond boardrooms is not a forum—it’s a filter.

2. Anticipation of procedural traps. Doctrines like Judicial Estoppel can be weaponized to foreclose scrutiny. Future models must build safeguards.

3. The record as remedy. When courts close, history remains. Documented evidence of misconduct must not disappear because a procedural door shuts.

4. Standing for the excluded. The Global South must have a voice—not as a “decorative layer,” but as co-author of the rules.

A Closing Note to Charles Mok

Charles, your article asks the right questions. But the answers lie in places you have not looked—in the IRP docket, in the testimony of those who tested the system and were blocked from being heard, in the evidence that never saw trial.

The view that multi-stakeholderism masks capture is not new. It is not a fringe opinion. It is documented. It is the docket numbers. It is the .africa case, the .amazon case, the .persiangulf case, and others.

I do not offer this as a grievance. I offer it as documentation. If AI governance is to avoid the same traps, it must begin not with theory, but with the record of what actually happened when people tried.

That record exists. It is public. And it tells a story your article left out.

Sophia Bekele
Internet Governance Pioneer | ICANN Reform Veteran
Founder, DotConnectAfrica Group & CBSegroup | Publisher, The Ethical Technocrat

Read the full article, with all sources and context here:

Explore more writings and analysis at:
sophiabekele.com/writings-and-public-commentary/