Multistakeholder Internet Governance and the Internet We Want

On 25 September 2024, an engagement evening was held in Berlin’s Lützowstrasse, hosted by eco Association, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN Org), and eco member Internet Provider Berlin (IPB). The event gathered Germany’s Internet community members for a roundtable discussion on “Multistakeholder Internet Governance and the Internet We Want.” This theme is particularly timely in light of the current discourse on global digital governance and the need to accelerate digital initiatives through a multistakeholder model. This preserves and strengthens collaboration amid shifting regulatory and geopolitical tides.

The multistakeholder model: Evolution and challenges

From the outset, the roundtable discussion featured the ongoing value of the multistakeholder approach, which has guided Internet governance towards inclusivity, openness, and interoperability over the past decades. Our event’s moderator, Thomas Rickert, Director of Names & Numbers at eco, framed the conversation by emphasizing that “the society, industry and governments each play their respective roles in shaping the Internet the way we want to see it in the next couple of years.” As Rickert emphasized, it is the collaborative spirit that allows us to approach challenges proactively and ensure the Internet serves everyone’s best interests.

Rickert also noted that Germany’s emphasis on fostering cross-sector dialogue emerged as a major advantage, and pointed out that: “We are very privileged in Germany. The collaboration and the interaction between the private sector and the government is excellent.” He referred to Germany’s historical support for multistakeholder governance, particularly during the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition, where eco, DENIC, the government, and many others jointly expressed their support for a multistakeholder approach. “Governments are not the opponents of the other stakeholders; we can work ‘hand in glove’ and come up with great solutions,” he added, noting the importance of constructive cooperation.

Core values: Inclusivity and interoperability

Throughout the event, inclusivity and interoperability were identified as essential values underpinning the multistakeholder model. This all-embracing approach was regarded as being essential in building trust and transparency within the community, thereby safeguarding against fragmentation.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor Emeritus at the University of Aarhus and an early pioneer in Internet governance, highlighted that, despite emerging regulatory challenges, the Internet remains a technical triumph. “The Internet works,” he remarked, drawing parallels to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which envisioned a connected world now realized in the digital realm.

However, with 193 national jurisdictions, regulatory pressures are mounting, threatening the Internet’s foundational openness. As Kleinwächter spotlighted, countries are increasingly asserting “digital sovereignty,” a concept that could disrupt the global, layered system of Internet governance.

Strategic multilateral processes in play

The panel subsequently explored initiatives like the Global Digital Compact, Netmundial+10, WSIS+20, and the UN Summit of the Future, each raising significant questions about balancing multilateral and multistakeholder governance. In particular, WSIS+20 will likely influence future Internet governance structures, but some states advocate for more state-centric governance, potentially constraining multistakeholder involvement.

Irina Soeffky, Director of National and European Digital Policy at Germany’s Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport, underscored the essential role of multistakeholder involvement, pointing out that: “The Internet has remained operational and resilient during various global crises, showing that the multistakeholder approach is working. It’s clear that we don’t need less of this approach; rather, we likely need more.”

Soeffky also stressed the importance of flexibility, as not every governance challenge can be solved with a single framework. “We shouldn’t assume there’s a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution,” she explained, “because multistakeholder governance needs to adapt depending on context—be it international negotiations like those for the Global Digital Compact or national strategy development.” This adaptability, she emphasized, requires close and early coordination, especially as geopolitical complexities grow.

Furthermore, in addressing the intricate dynamics at play in current global negotiations, Soeffky observed that geopolitics heavily influence discussions around digital governance. As she stated, “The Internet’s future governance often involves power plays and shifting alliances, which makes early engagement and proactive collaboration essential.”

In addition to these geopolitical challenges, it was acknowledged that the risk of Internet fragmentation poses a significant threat to the multistakeholder model. Christopher Mondini, Vice President of Stakeholder Engagement and Managing Director for Europe at ICANN, highlighted a critical aspect of current challenges: the risk of fragmentation within the Internet. He warned that this fragmentation is not an abrupt phenomenon but rather a gradual process, akin to “death by a thousand cuts,” where each action diminishes trust and threatens the integrity of the system. 

Mondini stressed the importance of recognizing these subtle erosions and the potential for a tipping point where the cumulative effects could lead to systemic collapse. He urged the need for proactive intervention and suggested that measures such as banning virtual private networks (VPNs) or countries attempting to assert digital sovereignty can be more detrimental to their own interests than to the global infrastructure. By raising awareness of these dynamics, he underlined that we can better understand the importance of collaborative efforts to safeguard the Internet’s foundational principles.

Bridging technical realities and policy ambitions

From his perspective, Peter Koch, Senior Policy Advisor at DENIC, underscored the unique and critical contributions of the technical community to Internet governance. Koch highlighted the longstanding independence of DENIC, the German country code top-level domain (ccTLD) registry, remarking, “We’re fortunate in Germany to have a structure where the technical operation of our ccTLD is independent of government influence, as protected under our Telecommunications Act.” He noted that this operational model enables the technical community to focus on stability and resilience without the friction that can arise when policy outpaces technical realities.

Reflecting on the origins of the multistakeholder model, Koch also explained: “The Internet began with engineers, academics, and technicians building and maintaining the network for research. The technical community, including ICANN, regional registries, and TLD registries, carries the responsibility for planning and maintaining core Internet resources—names, numbers, and protocols.”

However, he also observed that maintaining multistakeholder representation has grown more challenging with the rise of geopolitical tensions and alternative governance proposals. In this context, Koch discussed the recent formation of the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism (TCCM) to reinforce the technical community’s role. “Our purpose,” he shared, “is to ensure that technical voices, with our responsibility for Internet operations and global network, are part of any regulatory conversations.”

As Kleinwächter added: “While ICANN has to operate in the public interest—and the purpose of ICANN is not to make money—if the stakeholder in ICANN sees it primarily as a money-making machinery, then it becomes something different from a stakeholder corporation.” Consequently, he stressed that we must therefore recognize the realities of the money stakeholder approach while ensuring it serves the public interest.

Audience feedback further underscored the need for bridging regulatory aspirations with technical feasibility. In this context, Thomas Rickert noted that German Internet stakeholders benefit from a productive dynamic with the government, allowing for Internet governance shaped through shared goals and constructive collaboration. As he additionally underscored, inclusivity and interoperability emerged as core values underpinning the multistakeholder model. In particular, Rickert noted that, “An Internet that truly serves society means inviting voices from all walks of life to be part of the process.” This approach, he added, has built trust and transparency within the community, safeguarding against fragmentation.

Challenges and next steps for Global Internet Governance

Bruna Santos, a prominent civil society advocate, reflected on achievements and challenges in implementing Netmundial+10’s guidelines. “We’ve seen progress, but if we look at the national level, the final outcomes in the decision-making process are not transparent,” she noted, adding that, “Governments continue to drive critical decisions with limited transparency and insufficient input from non-state actors.” Santos pointed out that this imbalance raises concerns about the accountability and effectiveness of multistakeholder forums.

Thomas Rickert echoed Santos’ perspective, magnifying that ICANN must balance its foundational technical responsibilities with rising government pressures to expand its role in content regulation. However, Rickert cautioned that broadening ICANN’s remit in this way could risk its global trust, underscoring the importance of developing governance mechanisms tailored to specific regulatory needs.

Expanding on Rickert’s concerns, Peter Koch stated that simply applying ICANN’s model to content or AI-related issues might actually backfire. As he argued, “I don't believe that you can take ICANN alone and then apply it to everything else, as ICANN is very unique.” As he noted, the structure that empowers ICANN for technical roles, like managing domain names, doesn’t easily translate to areas like content regulation, and each domain requires unique approaches to stakeholder engagement and accountability. As such, he advocated for creating issue-specific governance frameworks that respect the complexities of different challenges.

From this angle, in providing a historical perspective, Wolfgang Kleinwächter emphasized the need to adapt governance frameworks in response to evolving challenges. He supported a balanced approach with diverse, stakeholder-specific contributions, especially for complex issues like cybersecurity and AI. Kleinwächter underlined that continuous evaluation is essential to ensure that governance frameworks remain inclusive, effective, and regionally adaptable.

Moving forward: Digital acceleration

As Internet governance evolves amid geopolitical and technical challenges, the full set of panelists therefore agreed that no single model will suffice. To maintain an open, resilient, and inclusive Internet, stakeholders must continuously refine multistakeholder approaches. By adapting frameworks like Netmundial+10, the Internet community can foster inclusivity, transparency, and accountability across sectors and regions.

Final reflections

The event concluded with moderator Thomas Rickert inviting panelists to present an appeal to the United Nations for supporting multistakeholderism.

• Bruna Santos urged maintaining an accessible and interoperable Internet, asserting that continued collaboration is essential. While regulation is necessary, multilateral processes must keep channels open for coordinated action.
• From a government standpoint, Irina Soeffky highlighted a “don’t fix what isn’t broken” approach. She underscored that multistakeholder collaboration improves solution quality and emphasized the need for governments to avoid overreach, focusing instead on enhancing efficiency. She closed with a reminder that a broad and inclusive approach is often best.
• From his angle, Wolfgang Kleinwächter expressed concern over funding imbalances, noting that while the new UN office on digital cooperation is based in New York, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat depends on voluntary contributions. He proposed that digital platforms benefiting from the Internet should make substantial contributions. As he commented: “We must summarize our experiences and take the next step forward to achieve higher quality at the end of the day.”

• Finally, Peter Koch called on states to focus on the benefits gained from the multistakeholder model in terms of knowledge, trust, and collective commitment, rather than perceived losses. By prioritizing collaborative governance, the Internet community can secure an open and adaptable Internet that meets the needs of its diverse users. As Koch remarked, “Governments should not only focus on perceived losses in shared governance but recognize the gains in knowledge, commitment, and trust.”

Conclusion: A collaborative path forward

As the global Internet community faces evolving geopolitical and technological challenges, the insights shared during the event underscore the critical need for a robust multistakeholder approach to governance. The diverse perspectives from experts highlight several key takeaways:

• Inclusivity and transparency: Emphasizing inclusivity and transparency is vital for building trust among stakeholders and ensuring that all voices are heard in shaping the future of the Internet.
• Flexibility in governance: There is no one-size-fits-all governance solution; governance frameworks must adapt to the unique challenges posed by different contexts, from international negotiations to national policies.
• Balancing interests: While regulatory frameworks are necessary, it is essential to maintain a collaborative spirit that prioritizes the Internet’s foundational principles of openness and interoperability.
• Proactive engagement: Early and proactive engagement among stakeholders is crucial to navigating power dynamics and ensuring effective governance.

As we stand at these crossroads, let us reaffirm our commitment to multistakeholderism, leveraging its principles to secure an open, resilient, and inclusive Internet for future generations.

Lars Steffen is Head of International, Digital Infrastructures & Resilience at eco – Association of the Internet Industry (international.eco.de), the largest Internet industry association in Europe. At eco, he coordinates all international, infrastructure and security-related activities of the association and takes care of the members from the domain name industry. He is also the Vice-President of EuroISPA, the umbrella organization of European provider associations.