Multistakeholder Internet governance at a crossroads

Two reports of interest

The multistakeholder approach to Internet governance helps ensure the Internet remains open, global, interoperable, and secure — accessible to everyone. In our last Internet governance blog, we shared an update on the World Summit on the Information Society: 20-year review (WSIS+20 Review), the United Nations process that could impact the future of multistakeholder Internet governance and determine the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This time, we’re sharing two reports that directly address the issues being covered in those negotiations.

Looking back on 20 years of the IGF

The most recent report, IGF Achievements and Impact (2005–2025),  comes from the IGF Secretariat and reflects on two decades of IGF history. For those who may not be aware, the IGF is the global meeting place for anyone with a stake in the evolution, use, and governance of the Internet. It’s not a decision-making body. Instead, it is a forum where governments, the private sector, civil society, academia, and the technical community come together to exchange views, share good practices, and collaborate on shaping the future governance of the Internet. That open space for dialogue has been critical in shaping better policy decisions elsewhere. 

The report explains the IGF’s origins, who participates, and how the process has helped improve Internet-related policymaking in other forums over the years. It highlights the network of National and Regional IGFs — known as NRIs — that ensure global debates are made relevant to specific countries and communities, facilitating dialogue and cooperation on Internet issues most pertinent to those communities. In our part of the world, NRIs include the Asia Pacific Regional IGF (APrIGF), the Pacific IGF (PacIGF), and the Australian IGF (auIGF, previously NetThing). Here in Aotearoa, NetHui has played this role, drawing people together to discuss Internet issues in our context.

The report also describes the year-round work that takes place between IGF meetings, including working groups (known as ‘policy networks’) on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and Internet fragmentation. The Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation, for example, facilitates dialogue and collaboration on how to preserve a unified, interoperable Internet.

Importantly, the report sets out the IGF’s impact. A standout example is the catalytic role it played during the IANA transition — a two-year global process (2014-2016) that shifted oversight of key Internet functions away from the US Government to an affiliate of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IGF provided an open venue for debate, allowing all stakeholders to participate without the pressure of formal negotiations. That kind of inclusive, trust-building dialogue is precisely what the IGF was created for, and the report makes clear how valuable it has been over the past 20 years. 

Strengthening the multistakeholder model

Another publication, Strengthening and Improving Multistakeholder Internet Governance—How the Technical Community Can Help, commissioned by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), looks forward and asks how the multistakeholder model of Internet governance can be improved so that it continues to deliver benefits. InternetNZ contributed to this report through a questionnaire and an in-person technical community summit held on the sidelines of ICANN82 in Seattle.

The report argues that the multistakeholder model is worth protecting, but not by standing still. Instead, it addresses four key themes: how to make processes more inclusive and transparent, how to enhance agility and responsiveness, how to ensure technical expertise is considered in policymaking, and how to secure sustainable funding.

In discussing the theme of technical expertise, for example, the report highlights the concern that policymaking often overlooks technical realities or inadvertently compromises the critical properties of the Internet. When policymakers overlook technical input, they risk creating unintended disruptions to the open, global, secure, and trustworthy nature of the Internet. 

The report presents proposals and outlines the next steps to address the identified challenges. For example: developing deeper exchanges between decision-making and dialogue-driven forums such as ICANN and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) with the IGF, fostering multistakeholder approaches in public policy-making, and continuing to innovate and evolve technical governance models. The central message is that multistakeholder Internet governance must adapt to remain credible and effective. 

Keep the conversation going

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in these reports, or learn more about InternetNZ’s role in global Internet governance, please reach out to our Internet Governance Lead at internet.governance@internetnz.net.nz