According to the Draft Declaration on Internet Governance^[1] ⎼ it was acknowledged that Africa’s voice in global Internet Governance is critical to the stable development of the global economy that is intertwined with Africa’s economy and needs to be significantly elevated.

A new global governance approach that flows through various administrative structure continues to be a gospel that is preached across the globe in which a team of corporate executives, leaders of civil society organizations, officials from governments, academics and other players take on the governance of a specific international challenge defining Multi Stakeholderism.^[2]

AU in collaboration with the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and civil society organizations continue to strengthen African participation in global Internet governance and related public policy discussions. The AfrIGF^[3] remains a center of discussion of issues related to Internet Governance in Africa but have limited actionable items which are to be implemented. After Fora, follow-up items implementation mechanisms are minimal. This brings an agenda to review the mandate and implementation procedures of policy development process in relation to review outcomes or recommendations that come from biggest consortium of multistakeholderism in Africa.

The Internet is often cited as not only one of the prime examples of multi stakeholder participation in governance but sometimes described as inherently ‘multistakeholder’. The Internet is defined by open, distributed, interconnected, participatory, and bottom-up processes – features that match multi stakeholder participation in specific regard to its governance. Vint Cerf, one of the authors of the Internet Protocol (IP), has similarly noted that.

The biggest challenge of Multistakeholderism is driving consensus or agreement. With African disintegration in administration which affects policy development, it is difficult to achieve a unique value proposition of the approach. With the challenges faced in connectivity - less than 20% of Africans are online^[4], the majority of those not connected are women and the rural poor, and that the average cost of fixed line and mobile internet exceeds 50% of average per capita income poses a paradigm shift in the representation of the regional voices in the global internet policy making process.

This shows a need to enhance internet development in the region. The business models that drive connectivity are linked to where there is a return on investment in Infrastructure. Where the returns are low and cannot match the operational expenses limit the growth^[5]. Will policy solve the challenge? This becomes a question that drives the collaboration between corporate companies and government legislatures as majority of the African economies are driven by the Non-Government companies and nonprofit organisations. Nonprofits in Africa are more of Humanitarian which drive the needs of livelihood enhancement contributing less to the Multistakeholder models of internet governance.

What is the future of Multi-Stakeholderism in Africa?

The biggest challenge to the present Internet governance models are related to accountability, which is affected by weaknesses of transparency with respect to deliberations of the decision making bodies in Internet governance. ^[6]

Multi-stakeholder contribution to global policies is influenced by super countries who contribute to the development of Internet infrastructure in Africa with low cost solutions deployed. ^[7] These solutions are also subject to surveillance and remote monitoring.^[8]

“Most policymakers and politicians in Africa don’t really care. Africa is a pawn on the global chessboard in the ongoing geopolitical context. Everybody spies on Africa,” Emeka Umejei (journalism Lecturer, American University of Nigeria.)^[9]

Although secrecy clauses are legitimate, there should be more transparency on how decisions are made, i.e. on what grounds, with which objectives. In Africa there is a still a challenge of judicial review given in Internet governance matters; governance rules are therefore not accountable to judges. Though there is still a claim that the Multistakeholder model of Internet governance remains a key drive to appropriate policies and internet governance.

There are up to 16 national^[10], sub-regional and regional^[11] IGFs in Africa. These numbers continue to grow. Of the African countries that hosted^[12] forums during 2016, most were civil society led with some support from government reported – for instance in Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda. However, there was limited participation by the judiciary and law enforcement, youth and the private sector.^[13] This portrays the need to drive participation from the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. Of late the African youth started the Africa Youth Internet Governance forum^[14], contributing to the Internet Governance in Africa which has contributed to the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance.^[15]

Speaking at the African Union (AU) session^[16] at the IGF, Olugbile stated that bringing more stakeholders to the table on internet governance in Africa requires “embracing” policy documents from the continent, such as the African Union Convention on Cyber Security^[17] and the African Declaration on Internet Rights^[18] – less so international instruments – so as to ensure contextual understanding of key concerns. This would contribute to a demonstration of value in participation for the stakeholders currently not participating. Furthermore, it would ensure that agendas for debate are localized to suit African needs and follow ups on recommendations are directly linked to the mandate of the relevant stakeholders. This portrays an African framework that could be implemented which creates a link between the IGF and the regional IGFs.

Recommendations

Internet Governance discussions in Africa should be further developed in the next decade through feedback and response to the bottom up process; and policy registries shared to various stakeholders which include the Ministerial meeting that are held to include strongly the agenda of Internet Governance and how to effectively regulate internet governance principles and practices.

Multistakeholderism is the dominating mode of governance that has been shown in various fora^[19]. There is a need for a holistic approach to Internet Governance, taking into account the interdependence of stakeholders (governments, business, civil society, technical community) and the interdependence of sectors (cybersecurity, digital economy, human rights, technology as the main four baskets of the global Internet Governance Ecosystem) remains a key drive for making African voices be heard.

Appropriate jurisdictions and community deliberations are important in the drive of better and enhanced internet policies in Africa. With unified model for eccentric development of internet policies which stream across various boundaries, clear and open standards are pertinent in the drive of these models. These call for collaborations between various stakeholders, legal entities and key drivers on a common round table based on their respective strengths.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the idea of enhancing existing or creating new global mechanisms to frame the future development of digital cooperation remains a key issue when it comes to global engagement of African opinion and position in global issues of internet governance.

Various (multi-stakeholder) institutions that have contributed to the Internet’s global growth and while advocating for their continued role as the core of the global Internet governance ecosystem are not global in their operations and processes. There is a need of institutional transformations to be more inclusive and represent African citizens, taking into account the regional concerns and needs.

^[1] See https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/31357-wd-au_declaration_on_internet_governance_draft_v21072015_21.pdf

^[2] See https://www.passblue.com/2019/09/02/they-call-it-multistakeholderism-where-does-that-leave-the-un/

^[3] See https://www.afigf.africa/

^[4] See https://www.passblue.com/2019/09/02/they-call-it-multistakeholderism-where-does-that-leave-the-un/

^[5] Investments are driven by growth and investors target Return on Investment in a particular infrastructure. Following the Uganda IGF it is quoted that where there is limited returns, the cost of infrastructure growth tends not to match the returns hence limiting the growth or internet penetration is some regions.

^[6] Discussion paper on Mapping Multistakeholderism in Internet Governance: Implications for Africa by Enrico Calandro, Alison Gillwald & Nicolo Zingales

^[7] In January 2018, the French newspaper Le Monde reported that Beijing had bugged the headquarters of the African Union—whose construction was paid for and built by China. Every night for five years the entire contents of the building’s computer systems—which were installed by Huawei—were reportedly transferred to China. Microphones were found embedded in the desks and walls, according to the report. Both China and the African Union dismissed the allegations.

^[8] See https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/01/26/a-addis-abeba-le-siege-de-l-union-africaine-espionne-par-les-chinois_5247521_3212.html

^[9] See https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/19/for-africa-chinese-built-internet-is-better-than-no-internet-at-all/

^[10] See http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/national-igf-initiatives

^[11] See http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/regional-igf-initiatives

^[12] See https://igf2016.sched.com/event/8ht6/national-and-regional-igfs-nris?iframe=no&w=100%25&sidebar=yes&bg=no

^[13] See https://cipesa.org/2016/12/how-applicable-is-the-multi-stakeholder-approach-to-internet-governance-in-africa/

^[14] See https://yigf.africa/

^[15] See https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/youth-coalition-on-internet-governance-ycig

^[16] See https://igf2016.intgovforum.org/

^[17] See https://cipesa.org/2014/01/civil-societys-proposals-on-the-african-cybersecurity-convention/

^[18] See http://africaninternetrights.org/

^[19] These For an include and are not limited to Africa IGF, AFRINIC Meeting, AfPIF, Community Network summit, etc as some of the events that have brought together various multi-stakeholders to discuss a common goal related to the Internet and its respective policies in Africa region