In a world where the internet is central to communication, innovation, and economic growth, governing this vast digital ecosystem is a complex challenge. The multi-stakeholder approach, which involves governments, private entities, civil society, technical experts, and end-users, has long served as the cornerstone of Internet governance, ensuring that decision-making remains open and inclusive. As Pari Esfandiari noted during the ICANN80 panel discussion in Kigali in June 2024, this model “has evolved considerably since its organic birth over 50 years ago,” but now stands at a “critical juncture,” facing serious challenges from those advocating for a more centralized, government-led approach.

The essential role of the multi-stakeholder model in fostering diverse perspectives and inclusive governance was emphasized throughout the discussion. The approach allows decisions about the internet to reflect the needs of a broad spectrum of users and avoid top-down policies that may be disconnected from real-world needs. Manal Ismail argued that it is “the most appropriate way to address the continually evolving internet and the challenges that come with it.” Amrita Choudhury added that forums like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) act as “open platforms where issues that the community wants to discuss are being addressed” offering developing nations a voice in international debates they might otherwise be excluded from.

However, the multi-stakeholder model faces increasing threats, particularly from a growing shift toward multilateralism, which risks marginalizing non-governmental voices. Esfandiari warned that this trend threatens to erode the openness and inclusivity that have been key to the internet’s growth. Chris Disspain further highlighted the risks posed by “UN-led initiatives, such as the GDC,” which favor a multilateral governance model, potentially undermining the broader participation that defines the multi-stakeholder approach. He also warned against individual governments attempting to regulate the internet from a sovereign perspective, as well as coalitions of governments seeking to impose extraterritorial legislation.

While the multi-stakeholder model is invaluable, the panel acknowledged that it is not always the best or only solution. Disspain pointed out that “some internet governance issues might be better handled in a multilateral environment,” particularly when legal frameworks or formal regulations are necessary, such as in cybersecurity or cross-border data flows. Esfandiari argued that the multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches should complement each other, a view shared by Jorge Cancio, who suggested that multilateral forums can “take inspiration from the innovations developed in multi-stakeholder forums” to ensure inclusivity in formal agreements.

There was a clear consensus that by working together, these two governance approaches can create a balanced system where both efficiency and inclusivity are achieved. Ana Neves emphasized that while Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) members are key government representatives, many do not attend ICANN meetings. She argued that it is essential for these members to engage with both internet communication technology experts and foreign affairs ministers to ensure effective multi-stakeholder influence on foreign policies.

Adding to the discussion, Nigel Hickson explained that the WSIS Forum, involving the technical community and ICANN, had raised the idea of issuing a collective statement on key geopolitical developments related to the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS processes. Such a statement could clarify the technical community’s stance and foster greater understanding among stakeholders. Lise Fuhr highlighted that ongoing processes related to digital governance, including discussions on emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), will significantly impact ICANN. She stressed that the multi-stakeholder model remains critical, but it is essential to recognize how interconnected these processes are. To strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a place to discuss these issues, particularly emerging technologies like AI, they are working on a framework called “The Internet We Want,” which has been open for consultation and will be further discussed in a multi-stakeholder manner. By embracing both multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches, and by fostering better engagement and coordination among all parties involved, the Internet governance community can address current challenges more effectively. This collaborative effort is crucial for creating policies that are not only efficient and enforceable but also inclusive and reflective of the diverse needs of the global internet community.

The conversation also highlighted the model’s challenges in ensuring inclusivity and meaningful participation, particularly for stakeholders from developing countries or resource-poor organizations. Manal Ismail emphasized the need for reforms to make the process “open, inclusive, transparent, accountable, agile, adaptable, effective, and efficient.” Additionally, better financial support and stronger coordination across forums were identified as crucial for preventing fragmentation. Rodney Taylor and Russell Woruba pointed to the limited resources of small states as a barrier to full participation, advocating for the strengthening of groups like the GAC in underserved regions to enhance engagement from marginalized communities. Annaliese Williams stressed the importance of building relationships with national governments to influence multilateral processes and ensure that diverse perspectives are included in policy discussions. Jordan Carter argued that constructive engagement between national governments and stakeholders could result in a deeper understanding of issues discussed at the UN, leading to more informed and effective policy development. However, Fiona Asonga noted that governments, particularly in Africa, often resist feedback in multi-stakeholder discussions, making it difficult for stakeholders to have a meaningful impact on policy. She called for greater openness from governments to accommodate multi-stakeholder input.

In contrast, Abdulkarim Oloyede disagreed with the notion that African governments are unresponsive, asserting that many do listen to feedback. He argued that the problem lies within the multi-stakeholder model itself, citing inefficiencies such as ICANN’s board overriding decisions made through the bottom-up process. These actions, he explained, create frustration and erode trust in the model. Sébastien Bachollet countered this argument by pointing out that the ICANN board is composed from the bottom up, meaning that its decisions reflect the broader community’s stance. Thus, according to Bachollet, the board’s actions are a legitimate representation of the wider internet community’s views.

The role of ICANN as a defender of the multi-stakeholder model was a key focus of the discussion. Esfandiari pointed out that ICANN has both the interest and responsibility to safeguard this approach. Jennifer Chung expanded on this, arguing that ICANN should take a more active leadership role in global digital governance debates and amplify the voices of the technical community in discussions like the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS+20. Chris Disspain expressed concerns that ICANN seemed to be leaving advocacy to individuals, asking, “Why does it seem like ICANN is now leaving it up to individuals to advocate for the model themselves?” Veni Markovski affirmed that ICANN actively defends the model through public positions and outreach. Discussion underscored the idea that defending the multi-stakeholder model should not rest solely on ICANN but be a shared responsibility across the broader community.

As the discussion concluded, Jordan Carter emphasized that “everyone here has the power to make a difference in these discussions,” whether through direct engagement or by forming coalitions. Pari Esfandiari closed with a powerful call to action: “Our work has just begun… let’s carry this momentum forward and ensure this approach thrives.” The future of the internet, its accessibility, openness, and inclusivity, depends on the resilience and continued evolution of the multi-stakeholder model.