Who Runs the Internet? Misconceptions About ICANNVeni Markovski

A recent article published on the Russian Foreign Affairs Council (RFAC) website critiques the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and Internet governance, focusing on ICANN and its subsidiary, Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). The RFAC article contains several inaccuracies about ICANN's role and Internet governance overall.

It is necessary to address these misconceptions and clarify ICANN's role.

ICANN's Role: Clarifying Misconceptions

Assertion 1: ICANN and PTI Manage "the Internet Infrastructure"

The article states:
"Currently, the technical management of the Internet infrastructure is carried out by ICANN's US-registered subsidiary Public Technical Identifiers (PTI)..."

Clarification:
This is incorrect. The infrastructure of the Internet comprises numerous systems managed by governments, private companies, and other entities. ICANN's role is specific: it coordinates technical functions, such as domain name and IP address assignments through PTI. It does not control or manage the entire Internet infrastructure.

Assertion 2: The U.S. Controls Internet Governance via ICANN

The article asserts:
"This gives Washington the ability to influence significant political and economic decisions related to Internet governance-primarily, the control over the domain name system and the allocation of IP address blocks."

Clarification:
This reflects a misunderstanding. The report of the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance specifically explains that Internet governance includes more than names and addresses. Moreover, ICANN operates under a global multistakeholder model, ensuring no single stakeholder or single government can dominate. Governments participate in ICANN's work through the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

Assertion 3: Internet Governance Needs "Internationalization"

The article argues:
"Russia consistently proceeds from the need to adapt the U.N. to the current realities of a multipolar world, including in the digital space. This implies, among other things, the internationalization of Internet governance."

Clarification:
The term "internationalization" has often been used in Russian discourse to imply that the current system is overly influenced by Western countries. However:

• Internet governance has long been shaped by collaborative global processes, involving intergovernmental and international organizations, as well as many other stakeholders, each with a clearly defined role.
• Multiple high-level U.N. agreements, like the WSIS Tunis Agenda and the Global Digital Compact, recognized that Internet governance must continue to be global and multistakeholder in nature, with full involvement from all stakeholders, including governments.

Over the past two decades, global initiatives such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) have ensured diverse global participation. Current processes already reflect international collaboration. Claims of insufficient internationalization ignore these significant achievements in fostering inclusivity.

Assertion 4: Misinterpreting "Internet Governance" and Misrepresentation of the U.S. Role

The article states:
"In the Clarification of Internet governance, the GDC underscores that 'Internet regulation should remain inherently global…'"

It also concludes:
"This broad formulation does not explicitly address the internationalization of Internet governance that Russia insists on, leaving the West, and particularly the US, the room necessary to maintain its leading role in Internet governance through the previously mentioned ICANN and its subsidiary PTI."

Clarification:
These statements reflect recurring misunderstandings about Internet governance, which refers to global collaboration on technical and policy issues, not regulation or centralized control. Misinterpretations-often due to mistranslation-have led to misleading claims that conflate governance with government-imposed rules.

The assertion about the role of the U.S. also misrepresents the process. Internet governance has evolved through global initiatives such as the two-phase U.N. Summit, the WSIS+10 Review by the U.N. General Assembly, and numerous intergovernmental gatherings. These efforts bring diverse stakeholders to ensure that no single actor dominates the process.

Why This Matters

Misunderstandings like those that appear in the RFAC article show the need for clearer communication about ICANN's role and Internet governance. Misrepresentation can lead to confusion and hinder effective collaboration. ICANN will continue to:

• Engage in diplomatic outreach to clarify its mission and role.
• Strengthen collaboration with governments, the technical community, and other stakeholders.
• Promote awareness through the Governmental Advisory Committee, ICANN constituencies, and forums like the Internet Governance Forum.
• Respond directly to inaccuracies to set the record straight.
• Call for broader participation from all stakeholders in discussions about the future of Internet governance, including within the U.N. and its agencies, through appropriate channels.

Addressing these misconceptions requires a collective effort. While ICANN takes these steps, your participation is needed to make them effective. Stay informed by following ICANN updates and attending public discussions. Share accurate information within your networks to help foster understanding and tackle misinformation. Bring your voice and expertise to the conversation by joining ICANN working groups, the GAC, or forums like the IGF.

Ultimately, the GDC recognized that the Internet must be open, global, interoperable, stable and secure. By addressing the misconceptions today, we are creating a stronger framework for Internet governance rooted in understanding and informed decision-making, to ensure the Internet remains a shared global public resource.