internet governance: definition

Internet governance is the set of rules, practices and organizations that shape how the internet develops and is used. No single body runs it. domain name A readable internet name made of labels separated by dots. Full definition of domain name are one part, coordinated by ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers The nonprofit that coordinates the global DNS and gTLD policy. Full definition of ICANN; standards, telecommunications and public policy are handled elsewhere, and countries disagree about how much say governments should have.

What internet governance means

A working definition comes from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), whose members the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) appointed during the WSIS World Summit on the Information Society The United Nations summit of 2003 and 2005 that framed the global debate on internet governance. Full definition of WSIS (WSIS). As quoted by ICANN: “Internet governance is the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles.”

According to ICANN, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda made clear that this reaches well beyond ICANN’s work on names and addresses. ICANN also stresses that governance means global collaboration on technical and policy issues, not regulation or centralized control.

The multistakeholder model and its alternatives

In the multistakeholder model A bottom-up model of internet governance in which many groups shape decisions together. Full definition of multistakeholder model, governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia all take part in making policy. ICANN presents itself as an example: its policies for coordinating the DNS Domain Name System The internet's directory that links domain names to computer addresses. Full definition of DNS come from a community-based, consensus-driven process. ICANN argues that the model suits a network of networks, where “no one stakeholder has the control or knowledge about everything that makes the Internet work.”

The main alternative is a multilateral approach, in which states decide together in intergovernmental bodies. Some UN member states support it. ICANN warns that it could shift decision-making to a single body, such as the UN, and exclude other stakeholders. These accounts come from ICANN, which is itself a party to the debate.

Key forums: WSIS, IGF, ITU and others

WSIS. A UN summit in two phases: Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005. Tunis produced the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda, in which, according to ICANN, governments committed to the multistakeholder model, and it led to the creation of the IGF Internet Governance Forum A yearly United Nations forum to discuss internet policy, with no binding decisions. Full definition of IGF. It has been reviewed twice: WSIS+10 in 2015 and WSIS+20, whose outcome document the UN General Assembly adopted in December 2025.

IGF. The Internet Governance Forum is convened by the UN Secretary-General; ICANN’s glossary dates its establishment to July 2006. It brings governments, intergovernmental organizations, civil society, business and the technical community together as peers, and it makes no binding decisions. The 2026 forum has a Multistakeholder Advisory Group. As of October 2026 it is a permanent UN forum, under the WSIS+20 outcome.

ITU International Telecommunication Union The United Nations agency for telecommunications, often cited in debates on who should govern the internet. Full definition of ITU. The International Telecommunication Union is a UN specialized agency that develops international technical standards so networks can interconnect, and works on radio spectrum. As of October 2026 it has 194 Member States. Its highest governing conference, the Plenipotentiary, meets every four years and ends in a treaty, the Final Acts; Sector Members attend as observers.

ISOC Internet Society A global nonprofit that supports the open internet and is the parent of the .org registry. Full definition of ISOC and the IETF Internet Engineering Task Force The open body that writes internet standards such as DNS, EPP and RDAP. Full definition of IETF. The Internet Society, founded in 1991, is open to anyone. According to RFC Request for Comments A numbered document in the series recording the internet's technical standards and practices. Full definition of RFC 8711 (February 2020), ISOC gives the IETF’s administrative company its legal home and significant financial support. The IETF, founded in 1986, writes internet standards, and anyone interested can take part.

Where the DNS fits in the bigger picture

ICANN describes its role as specific: it coordinates technical functions such as domain name and IP Internet Protocol The internet's basic rules for sending data, using numeric addresses for every connected device. Full definition of IP assignments, through PTI Public Technical Identifiers The ICANN affiliate that performs the IANA functions, including root zone changes. Full definition of PTI, and does not manage the whole internet infrastructure, which governments, companies and others run. Governments take part in ICANN through the GAC Governmental Advisory Committee ICANN's committee of governments that advises the Board on public policy. Full definition of GAC, which advises the ICANN Board ICANN's board of directors, which adopts policies and approves key decisions. Full definition of ICANN Board on public policy.

Until 2016, ICANN performed the IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority The functions that coordinate the root zone, IP addresses and protocol numbers. Full definition of IANA under a contract with the NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration The United States government agency for internet policy, which oversaw IANA until 2016. Full definition of NTIA, part of the US government. ICANN announced on 1 October 2016 that the contract had expired, and said users would see no change online.

A worked example: a company holds example.com, and many of the rules that apply to it come from ICANN’s multistakeholder process. A government that disagrees with one of those rules has routes of different weight:

advise the ICANN Board through the GAC;
raise the issue at the IGF, which discusses but does not decide;
table proposals at the ITU Plenipotentiary, where only Member States decide.

Recurring debates: state control versus open coordination

The question keeps returning: should states set internet policy alone, or with other stakeholders?

In 2012, ITU member states split over whether the International Telecommunication Regulations should cover the internet, which led to two versions of the treaty.
At WSIS+10 in 2015, according to ICANN, some UN member states wanted the Tunis Agenda to be “more multilateral and less multistakeholder”. The proposals failed to gain support.
On 22 September 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted the Global Digital Compact, which, as quoted by ICANN, says internet governance “must continue to be global and multi-stakeholder in nature”.
In December 2025, the WSIS+20 outcome, as ICANN describes it, reaffirmed the multistakeholder approach and the technical community as a distinct stakeholder group.

As of October 2026, the next meeting where these questions are on the table is the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2026 (PP-26), from 9 to 27 November 2026. One open question is the future of the ITU Council Working Group on international Internet public policy related issues (CWG-Internet), which only governments can join. Proposals range from keeping that structure to widening its scope, participation or role in decision-making. The outcome is not yet known.

internet governance