Internet Governance: What It Is, How It Works and Who Shapes the Internet

Internet governance is the system of principles, standards, policies, institutions and decision-making processes that shape how the Internet develops, operates and is used.

No single government, company or organization controls the entire Internet.

Instead, the Internet depends on cooperation among many different participants, including governments, network operators, private companies, civil society, technical communities, standards organizations, academics and organizations responsible for globally unique Internet identifiers.

This distributed approach is commonly described as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

Internet governance also extends far beyond laws about online platforms or digital content. It includes the technical coordination that allows thousands of independently operated networks to function together as one global Internet.

That technical layer includes:

• IP addresses
• Autonomous System Numbers
• Domain names
• Internet standards
• Routing
• RPKI
• Registration data
• DNS
• Network security

Understanding Internet governance therefore requires looking at both public policy and the technical coordination systems that keep the Internet interoperable.

For LARUS and network operators, this technical layer is particularly important because governance decisions around Internet number resources can eventually affect routing, registry records, security assertions and infrastructure continuity.

Internet Governance: Quick Answer

Internet governance refers to the shared principles, rules, standards, organizations and decision-making processes that shape the evolution, operation and use of the Internet.

The Internet is not governed by one central authority.

Instead, different organizations and stakeholder groups perform different functions.

• Governments create laws and regulations.
• The IETF develops open Internet technical standards.
• ICANN coordinates important parts of the Internet's unique-identifier system.
• IANA coordinates global pools of IP addresses and ASNs.
• Regional Internet Registries administer Internet number resources regionally.
• Network operators build, interconnect and route traffic across networks.
• Civil society and academia contribute public-interest, research and policy perspectives.

The result is a distributed governance ecosystem rather than a single hierarchy.

The Internet Society describes this open and collaborative approach as the multistakeholder model, while APNIC's Internet governance overview similarly emphasizes participation by governments, the private sector, civil society, academia and the technical community.

Internet Governance: Key Takeaways

• No single organization governs or controls the entire Internet.
• Internet governance combines technical coordination, public policy and institutional processes.
• The multistakeholder model involves governments, businesses, civil society, technical communities and other relevant participants.
• Different organizations have different mandates and responsibilities.
• ICANN coordinates important Internet unique identifiers but does not govern every Internet activity.
• IANA coordinates global IP address and ASN pools.
• The five Regional Internet Registries administer Internet number resources within their respective service regions.
• The IETF develops many of the open technical standards used by Internet networks.
• Technical Internet governance supports uniqueness, interoperability, routing and security.
• Accurate registry information is important for effective coordination.
• Internet governance and Internet regulation are related but are not the same thing.
• For network operators, governance decisions can affect IP resources, routing, RPKI, registration data and network continuity.

What Is Internet Governance?

A widely used definition of Internet governance emerged from the World Summit on the Information Society.

It describes Internet governance in terms of the development and application, by governments, the private sector and civil society in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.

The Internet Governance Forum's overview provides wider institutional context for that multistakeholder approach.

The important part of the definition is that Internet governance is shared.

It does not place every form of authority in:

• Governments
• Technology companies
• Registries
• Standards organizations
• Network operators

Instead, different participants contribute according to their respective roles.

This reflects the architecture of the Internet itself.

The Internet is a network of independently operated networks.

Those networks cooperate because they use compatible standards and globally coordinated identifiers.

Internet governance therefore has to preserve the conditions that allow independent networks to continue interoperating while also addressing legitimate public-policy questions.

Why Does Internet Governance Matter?

Internet governance affects how the Internet develops and who can participate in its future.

Its decisions can influence:

• Connectivity
• Security
• Privacy
• Competition
• Infrastructure
• Digital inclusion
• Technical standards
• Domain names
• IP addresses
• Routing
• Emerging technologies
• Cross-border digital services

For ordinary Internet users, many of these processes are invisible.

A user opening a website generally does not think about:

• BGP
• ASNs
• DNS coordination
• RPKI
• IPv4 allocation
• Internet standards

But these systems help make the connection possible.

Internet governance therefore operates both above and below the application layer.

Some debates are highly visible, such as privacy, AI governance or content policy. Others involve technical infrastructure that receives less public attention but is fundamental to keeping the Internet operational.

Who Governs the Internet?

No single organization governs the entire Internet.

A more useful question is:

Who is responsible for different parts of the Internet?

Governments

Governments develop and enforce laws covering areas such as:

• Telecommunications
• Cybersecurity
• Data protection
• Competition
• Consumer protection
• National security
• Digital services

Their authority is primarily legal and jurisdictional. A government can regulate activities within its jurisdiction, but it does not independently control the global Internet's technical architecture.

Private Sector

Companies build and operate much of the infrastructure and services people use every day.

• Internet service providers
• Telecommunications companies
• Cloud providers
• Hosting companies
• Data centers
• Network-equipment vendors
• Platforms
• Cybersecurity providers

Their technical and commercial decisions can significantly affect network performance and user experience.

Technical Community

The technical community includes:

• Network engineers
• Internet standards developers
• Researchers
• Infrastructure operators
• Security specialists
• Technical organizations

This community contributes the expertise required to keep the Internet technically viable. Internet governance cannot be separated completely from engineering because a policy that cannot be implemented through interoperable systems cannot effectively govern technical reality.

Civil Society

Civil-society organizations contribute perspectives on:

• Human rights
• Privacy
• Digital inclusion
• Public accountability
• Consumer interests
• Access
• Freedom of expression

Their participation helps ensure that Internet governance is not shaped only by institutions with governmental or commercial power.

Academia

Researchers and academic institutions contribute:

• Technical measurement
• Policy analysis
• Institutional research
• Historical understanding
• Governance expertise

Their work can help identify longer-term consequences that may not be obvious from short-term operational or political debates.

What Is Multistakeholder Internet Governance?

Multistakeholder Internet governance is an approach in which different groups participate in Internet-related policy and coordination processes according to their expertise, responsibilities and interests.

These groups may include:

• Governments
• Businesses
• Technical communities
• Civil society
• Academia
• Network operators
• Internet users

The Internet Society describes Internet governance as an open and collaborative process involving many interested actors rather than decisions made by one party alone.

No participant operates the whole system.

Different parties control different networks, technologies, legal jurisdictions and services. A multistakeholder process attempts to bring relevant expertise and affected interests into decision-making instead of assuming that one type of institution has all necessary knowledge.

Does Multistakeholder Mean Everyone Has the Same Authority?

No.

Participation does not mean every stakeholder has identical responsibilities.

• Governments have legal authority within their jurisdictions.
• Network operators control their own routing infrastructure.
• Standards communities develop protocol specifications.
• Registries maintain specific coordination systems.
• Civil society contributes public-interest perspectives.

The strength of multistakeholder governance comes from combining different roles rather than pretending those roles are identical.

Participation, consultation, technical responsibility and institutional authority should therefore be distinguished carefully.

Which Organizations Shape Internet Governance?

What Is ICANN's Role in Internet Governance?

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers coordinates important elements of the Internet's system of unique identifiers.

ICANN's responsibilities relate to areas including:

• Domain names
• IP addresses
• Protocol parameters

For more context, see ICANN's Internet Governance background .

ICANN does not:

• Run the entire Internet
• Control global Internet content
• Operate every network
• Create every country's Internet law

Coordination of globally unique identifiers is an essential Internet function, but it is not the same thing as general sovereignty over Internet activity.

What Does IANA Do?

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions coordinate several categories of globally unique Internet identifiers.

For Internet number resources, IANA is responsible for global coordination of:

• IPv4 addresses
• IPv6 addresses
• Autonomous System Numbers

At a simplified level, Internet number resources move through a hierarchy such as:

IANA → Regional Internet Registries → networks and organizations

IANA allocates pools of unallocated addresses to the RIRs according to applicable global policy and normally does not allocate ordinary address blocks directly to individual ISPs or end users.

This global coordination helps ensure that Internet number resources remain unique.

What Are the Regional Internet Registries?

There are five Regional Internet Registries:

• AFRINIC
• APNIC
• ARIN
• LACNIC
• RIPE NCC

RIR functions can include:

• IP address registration
• IPv4 and IPv6 administration
• ASN administration
• Resource-transfer processing
• RDAP and registration data
• Reverse-DNS coordination
• RPKI services
• Policy-development processes

These functions are important because Internet number resources require globally coordinated uniqueness.

Registries therefore perform an important coordination function. At the same time, registry administration should be distinguished from actual network operation.

For organizations depending on IPv4 infrastructure, LARUS examines the operational side of this dependency in How LARUS Mitigates Registry Governance Risk for Customers .

What Does the IETF Do?

The Internet Engineering Task Force develops many of the open technical standards used by Internet systems.

Its work covers areas such as:

• Routing
• Transport protocols
• DNS
• Addressing
• Security
• Internet architecture
• Protocol behavior

Many Internet rules become meaningful through interoperable implementation rather than centralized command.

Networks adopt compatible protocols because interoperability creates value. Without compatible standards, the global Internet would fragment into disconnected systems.

What Is the Internet Governance Forum?

The Internet Governance Forum is a United Nations-convened global multistakeholder platform for discussion of digital and Internet public-policy issues.

Participants include:

• Governments
• Civil society
• Businesses
• Technical communities
• International organizations
• Researchers

The IGF facilitates dialogue, exchanges of best practice and common understanding. It does not operate as a global Internet regulator that issues binding rules for the entire Internet.

Internet Governance vs Internet Regulation

Regulation is therefore one part of Internet governance, not its entirety.

What Is Technical Internet Governance?

Technical Internet governance refers to the coordination needed for independently operated networks and systems to remain interoperable.

It includes areas such as:

• IP addressing
• ASNs
• DNS
• Internet standards
• Routing coordination
• Registration data
• RPKI
• Reverse DNS
• Protocol parameters

Its central questions include:

• Are identifiers globally unique?
• Can independent systems interoperate?
• Can networks verify important security assertions?
• Can operators find accurate coordination information?
• Can routing continue reliably?

Why IP Addresses Are Part of Internet Governance

IP addresses are technical identifiers required for Internet communication. Publicly routed addresses must remain globally unique.

If unrelated networks attempted to use the same globally routed prefix independently, the rest of the Internet would not have a reliable way to interpret the conflicting routes.

That is why IP addressing requires coordination.

Historically, this coordination developed through:

IANA → Regional Internet Registries → networks and organizations

Modern IP address governance now intersects with a much wider operational environment.

IPv4 blocks can be:

• Allocated
• Assigned
• Transferred
• Leased
• Routed from different networks
• Protected through RPKI
• Represented in IRR databases
• Used across multiple geographic markets

How Does IPv4 Scarcity Affect Internet Governance?

IPv4 contains a finite 32-bit address space.

As available pools became constrained, existing IPv4 resources gained greater operational and economic importance.

Today, organizations may obtain additional IPv4 capacity through:

• Existing allocations
• Transfers
• Leasing
• Provider-assigned resources
• Address-sharing technologies

A transferred IPv4 block can involve changes across registry data, RPKI, IRR, reverse DNS and routing.

For a practical transaction-oriented explanation, i.lease examines what happens to IPv4 records after an IP address transfer .

An IPv4 prefix may eventually become connected to:

• Customer allowlists
• BGP routing
• RPKI
• DNS
• Reverse DNS
• APIs
• Firewalls
• Security systems
• Geolocation databases
• Reputation databases
• Business contracts

Once that happens, an address block is no longer merely an entry in a registry database. It becomes an operational dependency.

How Are IP Addresses Governed in Practice?

At a simplified level, number-resource coordination looks like:

IANA
↓
Regional Internet Registries
↓
Resource holders / network operators
↓
Operational routing

Registration

Registry systems record information associated with number resources.

Routing

The Border Gateway Protocol allows Autonomous Systems to exchange route reachability information.

Routing Policy

Internet Routing Registries can contain published routing-policy information. LARUS explains this layer in What Is an IRR Route Object?

Routing Authorization

RPKI provides a cryptographic framework that can be used to verify route-origin authorization.

A Route Origin Authorization identifies an ASN authorized to originate specified address space.

Reverse DNS

Address administrators may also need mechanisms for reverse-DNS delegation and PTR records.

Transfers and Leasing

Commercial relationships can change who uses address space and how it is routed. These systems interact, but they are not the same thing.

Registry Records vs Operational Routing

These layers should ideally reflect the intended network consistently, but they perform different functions.

A registry record does not itself inject a route into BGP. Likewise, seeing a BGP route does not by itself prove that every underlying administrative or authorization relationship is correct.

LARUS explores this directly in BGP, IRR and RPKI Mismatch: What Happens When Routing Records Disagree?

Why Accurate Registry Data Matters

Internet governance depends heavily on reliable information.

For number resources, records can help operators understand:

• Registered organizations
• Technical contacts
• Abuse contacts
• Address ranges
• Routing relationships
• Security authorization
• Reverse-DNS arrangements

LARUS examines the problem in Outdated WHOIS and RDAP Records: A Hidden Risk in IPv4 Transfers .

A coordination record is most useful when it accurately describes the relevant reality it is intended to record.

Internet Governance and Network Continuity

Internet governance may seem abstract until an administrative change affects a running network.

Consider an organization that has used the same public IPv4 prefix for several years. That prefix may now be embedded in:

• Customer configurations
• Partner allowlists
• Banking systems
• APIs
• DNS
• Firewalls
• Monitoring
• Compliance documentation

Replacing it may require a major infrastructure migration.

How should coordination systems remain accurate while minimizing unnecessary disruption to legitimate running networks?

The answer requires balancing:

• Uniqueness
• Security
• Accurate records
• Legitimate authorization
• Accountability
• Operational continuity

What Is Thin Coordination?

One perspective relevant to technical Internet governance is the concept of thin coordination.

In this framework, the globally shared technical layer focuses on the minimum common functions needed for independent networks to interoperate safely.

These can include:

• Uniqueness
• Proof of control
• Accurate records
• Security assertions
• Transfer records
• Auditability
• Routing-adjacent continuity

Questions that do not require a single global technical answer can remain closer to network operators, customers, markets, local legal systems and individual technical environments.

Coordination genuinely required for interoperability

should be distinguished from:

Decisions that do not need to be centralized for the Internet to function.

This distinction is developed further in Lu Heng's work on Running-Code Primacy .

It should be understood as a governance perspective and design proposal rather than an established universal rule of the current Internet governance system.

What Is Running-Code Primacy?

Running-Code Primacy is a framework proposed by Lu Heng for evaluating technical Internet coordination systems.

It starts from the observation that the Internet ultimately functions because independent networks run compatible systems and exchange packets.

Under this framework, Internet number-resource coordination should remain focused on:

• Uniqueness
• Interoperability
• Routing-adjacent continuity
• Security assertions
• Proof of control
• Minimum common semantics

This does not mean every live route is automatically legitimate.

A BGP route may result from:

• Misconfiguration
• A route leak
• Unauthorized announcement
• Security incidents

Instead, the principle argues that administrative systems should be reconciled with legitimate intended operational reality rather than treating documentation alone as sufficient evidence of what a network ought to be doing.

Participation Does Not Automatically Mean Ownership

Multistakeholder participation is an important part of Internet governance.

Communities can:

• Discuss
• Advise
• Develop policy
• Coordinate
• Share expertise

However, participation and consultation are not necessarily identical to ownership or unlimited institutional authority.

Lu Heng's number-resource governance framework makes this distinction explicitly:

• Consultation from ownership
• Coordination from sovereignty
• Registry administration from operational routing

This is a specific perspective within the wider Internet governance debate, not a statement that every current Internet institution has adopted the same interpretation.

What Is Number Resource Portability?

Another proposal in Lu Heng's Internet-resource governance framework is number-resource portability.

The concept is that a legitimate network could have a mechanism to move the administrative registration of IP addresses or ASNs between registries if an existing registry became unable to provide required functions reliably.

Potential triggers might include:

• Operational failure
• Institutional instability
• Loss of necessary service
• Governance breakdown

Universal cross-registry number-resource portability is not an established right in the current RIR system.

It is a proposed resilience and accountability mechanism.

Lu Heng develops the argument in Number Resource Portability and the ICP-2 Revision .

Should critical network resources have credible exit or failover mechanisms when they depend on an institution that may itself fail?

What Is ICP-2 and Why Does It Matter?

ICP-2 has historically provided criteria relating to the establishment and recognition of Regional Internet Registries.

Questions around RIR recognition matter because the RIR system supports critical coordination functions involving:

• IP addresses
• ASNs
• Registration data
• RPKI
• Reverse DNS

LARUS examines the subject in detail in Understanding ICP-2 and ICANN Policies .

How should critical number-resource coordination continue if an institution responsible for those functions becomes unable to perform them reliably?

Registry Continuity vs Institutional Continuity

An institution and the technical function it performs are related, but they are not exactly the same thing.

Important number-registry functions can include:

• Preserving uniqueness
• Maintaining registration data
• Providing RDAP
• Supporting reverse DNS
• Operating RPKI services
• Recording legitimate resource changes
• Preserving continuity for dependent networks

Lu Heng's Registry Continuity Fallacy argues that resilience should focus on preserving critical functions rather than assuming continuity of one institutional structure is automatically identical to continuity of the Internet.

A practical resilience assessment can ask:

• Can critical data be exported?
• Can state be audited?
• Can services be restored?
• Is there a contingency plan?
• Can running networks continue through institutional disruption?

Internet Governance and Number Resource Rights

As Internet number resources have become more operationally and economically important, questions about control, portability, registry responsibility and operator continuity have become more visible.

Organizations such as NRS.help focus specifically on Internet number-resource issues and practical registry-related guidance.

These debates often involve several distinct questions:

• Who administers the registry record?
• Who can demonstrate control?
• Who is authorized to route the resource?
• Which contractual rights apply?
• What happens during a dispute?
• How should operational continuity be protected?

A registration entry, commercial agreement, routing authorization and live BGP announcement may all provide relevant information, but they describe different layers.

What Principles Should Good Internet Governance Protect?

1. Interoperability

Independent systems and networks need to communicate using compatible standards.

2. Uniqueness

Globally unique identifiers must remain unique.

3. Accuracy

Coordination data should accurately reflect the relationships it is intended to describe.

4. Security

Systems should help operators verify relevant security and authorization information.

5. Openness

Open technical standards have been central to the Internet's growth.

6. Accountability

Institutions performing important governance functions should have mechanisms for scrutiny and accountability.

7. Transparency

Affected stakeholders should be able to understand important processes and rules.

8. Participation

Relevant stakeholders should have meaningful opportunities to contribute.

9. Operational Continuity

Administrative processes should take account of legitimate networks and users already dependent on critical infrastructure.

10. Adaptability

Governance frameworks should evolve as technology, markets and operational realities change.

Internet Governance and Decentralization

The Internet's architecture is fundamentally distributed.

Thousands of organizations independently:

• Operate networks
• Select upstreams
• Peer with other networks
• Run infrastructure
• Adopt standards
• Choose services

This decentralization is an important source of resilience.

At the same time, complete absence of coordination would not work.

The Internet still needs common mechanisms for:

• Unique identifiers
• Technical standards
• Security
• Routing-related coordination

Which functions genuinely need common coordination, and which decisions can safely remain distributed?

Internet Governance and Internet Fragmentation

Poorly coordinated policy or incompatible technical systems can contribute to fragmentation.

Internet fragmentation can occur when users or networks can no longer participate in the same global Internet consistently.

Potential pressures include:

• Technical incompatibility
• National network restrictions
• Conflicting standards
• Routing isolation
• Platform fragmentation
• Policy-driven technical barriers

Internet governance therefore has to balance legitimate national and public-policy concerns with the value of maintaining a globally interoperable network.

Why Internet Governance Matters to Network Operators

Network engineers may not spend every day discussing Internet governance, but governance still affects the environment in which their networks operate.

It can influence:

• IP resource administration
• ASN management
• RPKI
• Registration records
• Transfers
• Reverse DNS
• Routing-related policy
• Resource continuity

Questions worth asking include:

• Which RIR administers our resources?
• Who controls the registry account?
• Are RDAP and contact records accurate?
• Who controls RPKI?
• Who can change a ROA?
• Are IRR records correct?
• Who manages reverse DNS?
• What happens during an administrative dispute?
• What happens if a critical service becomes unavailable?
• How difficult would renumbering be?

These are Internet-governance questions expressed as operational-risk questions.

Why Internet Governance Matters to Businesses

Businesses increasingly depend on stable public network identity.

Fixed IP addresses can become embedded in:

• APIs
• Customer allowlists
• Cloud services
• Banking systems
• VPNs
• Security policies
• Enterprise integrations

An unexpected infrastructure or governance change can create costs through:

• Renumbering
• Customer reconfiguration
• DNS changes
• Firewall updates
• Routing migration
• Support incidents

This is why businesses evaluating network infrastructure should consider not only cost and capacity but also:

• Administrative control
• Routing authorization
• Registry accuracy
• Provider continuity
• Migration options

Internet Governance and Digital Inclusion

Internet governance is also about who understands and participates in the systems shaping the digital world.

Many people affected by Internet policy do not have equal access to:

• Technical education
• Policy processes
• International forums
• Institutional networks
• Governance expertise

The LARUS Foundation approaches Internet governance from a public-interest perspective that includes digital inclusion, education, rights and sustainable Internet development.

That complements the infrastructure-focused perspective of LARUS.net.

Current Challenges in Internet Governance

AI Governance

Artificial intelligence is creating new questions about infrastructure, competition, security, data, accountability and digital policy.

Cybersecurity

Governments and network operators continue to balance security requirements with openness and interoperability.

Internet Fragmentation

Different national approaches can create pressure toward a less globally consistent Internet.

Digital Inclusion

Meaningful and affordable Internet access remains uneven across the world.

Infrastructure Resilience

Cloud platforms, DNS systems, registries, routing and number-resource systems have become critical dependencies.

IPv4 Scarcity

IPv4 transfers and leasing continue to raise operational, commercial and governance questions.

RIR Accountability and Continuity

As Internet number resources become more operationally significant, networks increasingly examine how registry governance affects infrastructure risk.

IPv6 Transition

IPv6 expansion remains necessary, while IPv4 continues to support substantial existing infrastructure.

A Practical Internet Governance Framework for Network Operators

This is a practical LARUS framework rather than an official universal Internet-governance model.

Its purpose is to connect governance discussions to observable operational outcomes.

A governance system is most useful to network operators when it helps them:

• Interoperate
• Coordinate
• Verify
• Recover
• Continue operating

How LARUS Approaches Internet Governance

LARUS operates at the intersection of Internet infrastructure and IPv4 resource management.

From that perspective, Internet governance is not only about international policy discussions. It also creates practical questions:

• Can a network obtain the number resources it needs?
• Can those resources be routed correctly?
• Are registry records accurate?
• Is the correct ASN authorized?
• Who can update the ROA?
• Who manages IRR records?
• Can reverse DNS be maintained?
• What happens when administrative circumstances change?
• Can production infrastructure continue operating?

Coordination systems should help legitimate networks remain unique, interoperable, secure and operational.

For a more specific thought-leadership perspective on resource portability, registry accountability and network continuity, read Lu Heng on Internet Governance .

Conclusion

Internet governance is not the rule of the Internet by one institution.

It is the distributed system through which many independent participants coordinate the technologies, identifiers, standards, laws and policies that allow the global Internet to function.

Independent networks cooperating through common technical foundations.

Good Internet governance therefore has to balance:

• Participation
• Technical expertise
• Accountability
• Security
• Accurate coordination
• Global interoperability
• Institutional resilience
• Operational continuity

For Internet number resources, the challenge becomes especially clear.

IPv4 addresses and ASNs require global uniqueness. Registries provide essential coordination. RPKI can provide verifiable route-origin authorization. IRR systems can publish routing-policy information. BGP provides operational routing. Network operators build and run the infrastructure.

These functions depend on one another, but they should not be confused with one another.

From LARUS's infrastructure perspective, the long-term goal should be coordination systems that remain:

accurate, interoperable, secure, accountable and resilient.

Lu Heng's proposals around thin coordination, portability and Running-Code Primacy offer one perspective on how number-resource governance could evolve. They should be understood as contributions to an ongoing governance debate rather than descriptions of universal current policy.

Can the Internet's coordination functions remain reliable through technical, market and institutional change without unnecessarily disrupting the networks that depend on them?

As the Internet becomes more important to economies, governments, cloud services, AI infrastructure and everyday life, that question will only become more important.

Internet governance should ultimately help preserve an Internet that remains global, interoperable, secure, accountable and operational.

Frequently Asked Questions About Internet Governance

What is Internet governance?

Internet governance is the collective system of principles, standards, policies, organizations and decision-making processes that shape how the Internet develops, operates and is used.

Who governs the Internet?

No single organization governs the entire Internet. Responsibilities are distributed among governments, businesses, technical organizations, network operators, civil society, academia and other stakeholders.

What is the multistakeholder model?

The multistakeholder model is an approach in which relevant groups participate in Internet-governance processes according to their expertise, responsibilities and interests.

Does ICANN control the Internet?

No. ICANN coordinates important parts of the Internet's unique-identifier system, but it does not control every network, Internet service, law or piece of online content.

What does IANA do?

IANA coordinates globally unique Internet identifiers, including global pools of IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers.

What are Regional Internet Registries?

Regional Internet Registries administer Internet number resources across five service regions. The five RIRs are AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE NCC.

What does the IETF do?

The IETF develops open technical standards that influence how Internet technologies are designed, implemented and operated.

What is technical Internet governance?

Technical Internet governance is the coordination required to keep Internet systems interoperable, including standards, IP addressing, ASNs, domain names, routing-related systems and security mechanisms.

Is Internet governance the same as Internet regulation?

No. Regulation is one component of Internet governance. Internet governance is broader and also includes technical standards, institutional processes, infrastructure coordination and voluntary cooperation.

Why are IP addresses an Internet governance issue?

Public IP addresses must remain globally unique and operationally routable. Their allocation, registration, transfer, routing authorization and use therefore require coordination.

Does a registry record create a network route?

No. Registry information and operational routing are different layers. BGP announcements are exchanged by networks and determine operational route visibility.

Why does registry accuracy matter?

Accurate records make technical coordination, security verification and troubleshooting easier. Outdated information can create uncertainty and operational friction.

What is number-resource portability?

Number-resource portability is a proposed model under which a legitimate network could move administrative registration of IP addresses or ASNs between registries. Universal cross-RIR portability is not currently an established right.

What is Running-Code Primacy?

Running-Code Primacy is Lu Heng's proposed principle that technical coordination systems should remain focused on supporting legitimate running networks, interoperability, uniqueness, security assertions and proof of control.

What is thin coordination?

Thin coordination is a governance approach in which the common technical layer focuses on the minimum functions needed for interoperability, uniqueness, verification, security and continuity, while other decisions remain distributed where possible.

Why does Internet governance matter to businesses?

Businesses depend on Internet infrastructure, stable addressing, routing and digital services. Governance decisions affecting those systems can create operational, financial and continuity risks.