Internet governance: Keeping the internet open, free and unfragmented

The internet is a decentralized network of networks, governed from its inception by a wide range of stakeholders—governments, private companies, the technical community, and civil society. This diversity fuels an ongoing global debate: should states have a dominant role in internet governance, or should all stakeholders participate equally?

Two Opposing Approaches

There are two primary models of internet governance: the multilateral model, where states lead decision-making, and the multistakeholder model, where governments, businesses, technical experts, and civil society collaborate as equals.

The European Union (EU) strongly supports the latter. It advocates for an open, free, and unfragmented internet in which all actors have an equal say. In contrast, countries like China and Russia favor state-centered control, asserting greater authority over internet infrastructure, content, and norms within their borders.

Key Stakeholders and Organizations

Internet governance is carried out by various organizations, including:

• ICANN – manages domain names and IP addresses through global consensus.

• IETF – develops foundational internet protocols via open working groups.

• ISOC – promotes a free, open, and secure internet worldwide.

• W3C – creates web standards like HTML and CSS.

• ITU (a UN agency) – regulates telecoms and radio frequencies globally.

• IGF – a dialogue-based forum uniting stakeholders to discuss policy challenges.

The EU as a Guardian of Internet Openness

The EU plays a key role in promoting net neutrality and consumer rights. Regulations like the Open Internet Regulation, Digital Services Act, and Digital Markets Act aim to create a fairer, safer digital space. The EU also engages in global dialogues and helps shape international standards for internet governance.

Challenges from Authoritarian Models

China and Russia are advancing a “sovereign internet” vision—restricting content, monitoring users, and building national infrastructures. China’s controversial proposals, such as the “New IP” standard by Huawei, sparked fears of centralized state control and fragmentation of the global internet. Though rejected, these proposals continue to surface under new names, such as IPv6+.

Such initiatives raise the risk of creating multiple incompatible networks or “splinternets”, undermining the open exchange of information, trade, and cybersecurity cooperation.

A Global Digital Compact

In 2024, the UN adopted a Global Digital Compact (GDC) to promote a safe, inclusive, and rights-based internet. While it supports the multistakeholder model and condemns internet shutdowns, some critics argue that its development lacked sufficient non-governmental involvement, and its voluntary funding mechanisms for initiatives like IGF remain unstable.

Conclusion

Internet governance is a complex, evolving process involving actors with competing values and interests. The EU plays a leading role in defending a free and open internet through inclusive, expert-driven processes. However, divergent approaches from authoritarian states challenge this vision, requiring ongoing diplomatic efforts and global cooperation to preserve the internet as a shared, open resource for all.

You can find the full document in the details below or HERE.