Why Effective Digital Governance Begins with Understanding the Internet Itself

Many people use the term "Internet" interchangeably with apps, platforms, or online services. But these are built on top of a deeper infrastructure that must be understood and protected independently. As governments and multilateral institutions increasingly grapple with questions of digital sovereignty, regulation, and governance, it is essential to distinguish the Internet’s core infrastructure from the technologies it enables. Without clarity about what the Internet is, who coordinates it, and how it operates, governance efforts risk becoming misaligned. Sovereignty in the digital age depends on this foundational understanding.

Understanding the Internet as a global infrastructure

The global Internet is built on two core principles. The first is protocol standardisation, which defines how devices communicate over the network infrastructure using a common set of protocols and formats. This ensures interoperability across the thousands of interconnected networks that comprise the Internet. Organisations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) play a crucial role in maintaining the Internet's technical stability by developing open standards that ensure global interoperability and security.

The second principle is the registration of Internet identifiers, including IP address blocks, Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs), port numbers, and domain names. These identifiers are managed through globally coordinated processes that are open and non-commercial in nature. Unlike the proprietary platforms and applications built on top of the Internet, these systems are designed to serve the public interest, meaning the interest of everyone who uses the Internet.

Together, these principles have established the Internet as a permissionless, global platform for innovation.

It is important not to confuse the Internet itself with the digital technologies and services that operate on top of it. The Internet provides the foundational infrastructure, while digital systems such as communication platforms, e-commerce, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence are built to run on top of that infrastructure. The two are distinct and must not be conflated.

Differentiating Internet coordination, Internet governance, and digital governance

Internet coordination

Internet coordination refers to the collaborative technical and administrative processes that enable the global Internet to function as a single, interoperable network. This includes the development of open technical standards, the allocation and registration of Internet number resources, and the stable and secure operation of global systems such as the Domain Name System (DNS). Internet coordination is carried out by an ecosystem of organisations and communities operating through open, transparent, and consensus-based processes that are accessible to all stakeholders with an interest in how the Internet is coordinated.

For example, IANA, a function operated by ICANN, manages the DNS root zone, the authoritative directory at the top of the domain name system. The root zone contains the information needed to resolve top-level domains like dot com, dot org, and country codes like dot uk or dot br. It is essential for ensuring users can reliably reach websites and online services. Because domain names must ultimately resolve to IP addresses, the DNS depends on accurate and reliable number resource management.

IANA is also responsible for the global allocation of Internet number resources, such as IP address blocks and ASNs. These resources are distributed and registered regionally by the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs): AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and RIPE NCC, each of which serves a specific geographic area.

RIR activities include supporting the Internet’s long-term scalability through the allocation, registration and promotion of deployment of IPv6, which vastly increases the available address space as demand grows. They also strengthen routing security through the implementation of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), which allows network operators to request a digital certificate listing the Internet number resources they hold which is then used to verify the legitimacy of route announcements and reduce the risk of hijacks. Resiliency is further enhanced by the allocation and registration of ASNs, which enable redundancy through multihoming, peering and the creation of robust interconnection between networks. Together, these activities ensure that the Internet remains globally interoperable, secure and resilient, evolving to meet the needs of a digital future built on continuous innovation.

Each RIR facilitates a bottom-up, community-driven policy development process, ensuring that decisions reflect regional needs while remaining aligned with global standards. When a policy affects more than one region, it enters a global development process that requires consensus across all five RIRs. This ensures that global decisions reflect the input of diverse communities and remain aligned with the Internet’s decentralised structure. A well-known example is the global policy for allocating the final five IPv4 /8 blocks, which ensured each RIR received an equal share of the last unallocated address space from IANA.

It is important to acknowledge that the institutions responsible for Internet coordination do not operate in isolation. Commercial actors, such as network operators and domain registrars, participate actively in these processes. However, their participation is balanced by open, bottom-up mechanisms that are designed to ensure transparency, technical rigor, and community consensus. Although no governance model is without its challenges, the open structure of Internet coordination remains one of the most effective safeguards against capture or unilateral control.

Internet governance

Internet governance involves the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, and processes that shape how the Internet evolves and is used. It encompasses the policies and frameworks that govern how people, institutions, and societies access, use, and are impacted by the Internet as a global resource. While Internet coordination ensures the infrastructure works, Internet governance addresses how that infrastructure is used, by whom, and under what terms.

Internet governance covers a wide range of policy areas including cybersecurity, privacy, online safety, cross-border data flows, access and connectivity, intellectual property, and content regulation. These issues sit at the intersection of technology, public policy, and human rights.

Internet governance is founded on the multistakeholder approach, engaging governments, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community according to their respective roles and expertise.

Multistakeholder processes like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), launched in the wake of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), provide a space for all stakeholders to engage on equal footing. While the IGF itself does not create binding policies, it fosters dialogue, builds consensus, and helps shape global agendas around Internet-related public policy issues.

The multistakeholder model, while essential, is not without its critics. Concerns over uneven participation, lack of representation from the Global South, or perceived dominance by powerful actors are valid and must be addressed. Yet these challenges are not a flaw of the model itself, but a reflection of the broader inequalities it operates within. Strengthening multistakeholderism means investing in capacity building, ensuring more inclusive participation, and evolving institutional practices to meet today’s realities. A stronger multistakeholder model is one that continuously evolves to reflect the full diversity of global Internet users.

National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs), such as national and regional IGFs and youth dialogs, provide inclusive, decentralised spaces for local stakeholders to engage in Internet-related public policy. Network Operator Groups (NOGs), on the other hand, are technical communities focused on the operational stability and growth of the Internet’s infrastructure. Together, NRIs and NOGs bridge the gap between high-level governance discussions, development goals and real-world implementation.

Internet governance also plays out through national and regional processes, treaties, and policy frameworks. For example, debates around net neutrality, intermediary liability, or state surveillance all fall under the umbrella of Internet governance. Increasingly, issues such as algorithmic transparency, platform accountability, and digital rights are also being discussed in Internet governance spaces when directly tied to Internet-based services and infrastructure.

What distinguishes Internet governance from digital governance is its grounding in the unique characteristics of the Internet as a global, interoperable, decentralised network. While digital governance might address broader questions of digital transformation, Internet governance focuses specifically on how the Internet as a networked system is governed in relation to users, institutions, and society.

Digital governance

Digital governance refers to the broader governance of the digital ecosystem, including digital platforms, technologies, and data-driven services that rely on, but are not limited to, the Internet. This includes areas such as artificial intelligence, big data and cross-border data governance. Unlike Internet coordination, which is rooted in technical interoperability, or Internet governance, which focuses on policy issues specific to Internet use, digital governance extends to how digital technologies reshape economies, societies, and governments.

Digital governance is often addressed through national legislation or intergovernmental processes, such as the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and regional frameworks like the Digital Services Act adopted by the European Union, rather than through technical forums. The risk arises when digital governance decisions begin to interfere with the Internet's technical layer without fully understanding or respecting how Internet coordination functions. Governing platforms or applications is not the same as governing the infrastructure they depend on. Conflating the two can undermine the global interoperability and openness that make the Internet possible.

None of this should be read as an argument against the importance of digital governance. Indeed, as societies confront the challenges of misinformation, algorithmic discrimination, and platform accountability, regulatory intervention becomes increasingly vital. But technical infrastructure should not be collateral damage in the process. Attempting to “fix” issues related to platforms and applications by targeting the Internet’s core infrastructure risks undermining the very interoperability that makes the digital ecosystem viable. Effective governance must be layered, proportionate, and based on a clear understanding of how the Internet actually works.

As governments respond to the growing societal reliance on the Internet, they are moving rapidly to legislate in these areas, sometimes in ways that directly or indirectly affect the Internet's foundational infrastructure. Without close engagement with the Internet coordination bodies and their bottom-up structures, such regulations can become inconsistent, duplicative, or even harmful to the Internet’s interoperability and the integrity of its registration systems.

Internet coordination: Keeps it running
Internet governance: Shapes how it’s used
Digital governance: Shapes what it becomes

Understanding Internet fragmentation - a multilayer challenge

The risks of misaligned governance are not just theoretical. One of the clearest manifestations is the growing threat of Internet fragmentation, which refers to the breakdown of the Internet’s global integrity and trustworthiness, undermining its function as a single, interoperable system. Fragmentation can occur at the technical, governance, or user-experience layer, each with distinct causes and consequences.

Technical fragmentation arises when core systems, such as routing, addressing, or naming, are no longer globally interoperable. This can happen if alternative root zones are introduced, regional IP address registries are disconnected from global coordination, or incompatible technical standards are deployed without coordination. When the infrastructure itself is fractured, the Internet stops behaving as a single, end-to-end network. Technical fragmentation directly undermines Internet coordination and must be addressed by preserving the integrity of open, interoperable technical systems through global collaboration.

Governance fragmentation occurs when different jurisdictions impose conflicting or incompatible legal and regulatory requirements on how the Internet operates. Examples include data localisation mandates, divergent cybersecurity regimes, or extraterritorial sanctions that block access to coordination systems. These governance conflicts can spill over into the technical layer, preventing accurate registration of resources, interfering with routing integrity, or constraining cross-border infrastructure operations. Governance fragmentation falls within the realm of Internet governance, where harmonised multistakeholder dialogue is needed to avoid regulatory overreach that undermines the Internet’s global nature.

For instance, data localisation laws and cross-border reporting obligations, although typically part of digital governance, can have unintended consequences for Internet governance. When such measures disrupt coordination functions such as the accurate registration or transfer of IP address resources, they create legal uncertainty for the neutral and reliable management of the Internet’s core infrastructure. Similarly, sanctions that prevent registry updates or proposals to introduce national root server systems and uncoordinated standards threaten the global consistency and trustworthiness of naming and routing systems.

User experience fragmentation is felt when end-users in different parts of the world have vastly different experiences of the Internet. This includes content blocking, platform restrictions, or application incompatibilities imposed by local policies, censorship, or market segmentation. While the Internet may remain technically interconnected, the lived experience of users can vary widely based on national laws, corporate practices, or platform-specific policies. These differences are not typically caused by changes to the Internet’s underlying infrastructure, but by governance decisions related to digital services, data regulation, and content control. As such, user experience fragmentation is increasingly shaped by digital governance. It reflects broader policy choices about speech, competition, and access that must be made with an understanding of their ripple effects on the Internet’s openness and universality.

Internet fragmentation cuts across the layers of Internet coordination, Internet governance, and digital governance. Addressing it effectively requires coordinated action across all three layers and must be grounded in a strong foundation of technically sound Internet coordination.

Effective governance begins with technical coordination

The global Internet is, by design, borderless and extraterritorial. Its core resources, such as IP addresses and domain names, are used across borders and must be managed through globally coordinated processes. When national or regional digital governance measures fail to account for this, they risk disrupting the very infrastructure that enables their digital economies to function. Internet coordination is not simply a technical detail or administrative task. It is the precondition for the Internet’s existence as a single, global, interoperable network.

In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, the integrity and trustworthiness of the Internet as a global infrastructure depends on our ability to differentiate between its core and the services it enables. Internet coordination, Internet governance, and digital governance are not interchangeable. They represent distinct layers, each with its own responsibilities, communities, and processes.

A failure to recognise these distinctions risks undermining the very foundations on which digital governance relies. If Internet coordination is politicised or fragmented by misapplied regulatory agendas, the integrity of the global Internet, along with the digital services and economies it supports, could be at stake. Conversely, when coordination remains technically sound and globally consistent, it enables more effective governance at every layer above it.

As international processes such as the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS+20 review move forward, it is crucial that governments, intergovernmental bodies, and stakeholders of all kinds recognise this layered reality. Digital governance strategies must build on the foundational systems of Internet coordination, not be imposed upon them.

Tools such as the Internet Society’s Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit can help evaluate how policy proposals may affect the Internet’s core properties, while ICANN’s Human Rights Impact Assessment framework offers a lens for considering the societal implications of governance decisions. Preserving the Internet’s technical operations, global interoperability, and permissionless innovation requires vigilance, clarity, and a shared commitment to keeping technical coordination as the first principle of digital governance.

A trusted, global, and technically sound Internet depends on recognising what makes it work and governing accordingly.

Author’s note:

As with many topics in Internet governance and digital policy, reasonable people may disagree on certain interpretations or emphases presented here. Engaging with differing views is not only expected, but essential to refining our shared understanding. I offer this piece as a contribution to that ongoing conversation, with full openness to thoughtful critique and discussion.