Internet Management and Digital Society as Seen through the IGF: The Free World of the Internet Shaken by the North-South Problem and Conflicts with Hegemonic States

1. introduction - in the movement of 2024

The year 2024 was also the year in which the geopolitical debate became even more apparent in the Internet world.
NETmundial in Brazil in April 2014.¹NETmundial+10 on April 29 and 30, 2024, celebrating the 10th anniversary of the²was held in Sao Paulo.
WSIS Forum 2024 in Geneva, May 27-31, 2024³was held at the Tunisian Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, on October 1, 2005. This is the WSIS document (Tunis Accord) adopted by the UN (ITU-led) in 2005⁴The meeting is to inspect the implementation of the mandate of the Tunis Accords and discuss any new agreements that may be necessary, in advance of the 20th anniversary of the Tunis Accords. The next meeting will be held in Geneva from July 7-11, 2025. As described in section 6 below, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established by the Tunis Accord and was initially set to meet for 5 years, but was extended twice, once for 5 years and once for 10 years, and the current resolution is to hold the Forum until its 20th meeting in 2025. The main focus of the WSIS Forum in 2025 is whether the IGF will continue beyond 2025, in which case there may be a change of course.
The United Nations Summit of the Future Conference (Summit of the Future), held in New York on September 22 and 23, 2024, with the participation of heads of state and government, including Prime Minister Kishida, was attended by the Global Digital Compact (GDC), which addresses the broad issues of the future digital economy and society. Document⁵The GDC has a number of issues left to consider, including the creation of a UN AI office, and discussions continue on future implementation policies.
The 19th edition of the (IGF) was held in Riyadh from December 15-19. Saudi Arabia, a land where one-third of the world's population still does not have access to the Internet.⁶The issue of the North-South gap and its widening was a symbolic challenge, including the

This paper is about the Internet, which forms the foundation of the digital society.⁷The purpose of this report is to highlight the historical debates and feuds in the international community, starting with the issue of the management of the "Internet of Things" and to explore the direction of the digital society, such as AI and quantum technology, which will further develop in the future. As digital technology is fundamentally transforming human life, we would like to see how it is becoming a new international political arena.⁸The following is a list of the most common problems with the

National Information Infrastructure (NII) and the Digital Revolution

The Internet in use today has its origins in a network developed in the late 1960s to connect computers at U.S. universities and in the military.⁹The following is a list of the most common problems with the
Until the 1980s, the Internet was used as a network for professionals in universities and research institutes to connect their systems to each other. In the 1990s, however, with the commercialization of domain names and the spread of the World Wide Web, use of the Internet by the general public spread rapidly.
In the U.S., when President Clinton and Vice President Gore came to power in 1993, they tried to establish the National Information Infrastructure (NII).¹⁰On September 15, 1993, the Clinton Administration released a document entitled "Agenda for Actions.¹¹. It defines NII as "a seamless network of communication networks, computers, databases, and consumer electronics that can deliver vast amounts of information to the fingertips of consumers. The objectives of the NII are (1) to encourage private sector investment, (2) to expand the concept of "universal service" so that all citizens can receive affordable communication and information services, (3) to promote technological innovation and new applications, (4) to ensure seamless and interactive user-centered operation, (5) to ensure information (5) ensuring information confidentiality and network reliability, (6) improving radio frequency management, (7) protecting intellectual property rights, (8) coordinating with other levels of government and foreign countries, and (9) providing access to government information and facilitating government procurement.¹²The following is a list of the most common problems with the
Interestingly, the original plan of the NII was to create a new high-speed information network throughout the U.S. However, soon after the plan was launched, those involved realized that "the information network itself (what we call the Internet today) already existed, and what was needed was a legal system and other mechanisms to make it work. What was needed was a legal system and other mechanisms to make use of it.
Already even at that time, as the number of NII users increased, many issues such as security, false information, and violation of human rights, including privacy and freedom of expression, were pointed out. Therefore, the Clinton Administration promoted the promotion of the private use of the Internet and developed a number of legal systems to support the use of information networks, including mutual authentication of communications, privacy and security, and protection of intellectual property rights¹³The following is a list of the most common problems with the
At the same time, he actively encouraged the expansion of these new legal systems to other countries.
Thus, as early as 1998, during the second term of the Clinton administration, the Department of Commerce issued a report entitled "the emerging digital economy.¹⁴... It is noted here that a digital revolution is underway, and the explosive expansion of the Internet is driving employment and bringing significant benefits to the economy. In the U.S., the economy experienced a major downturn in the 1980s as manufacturing declined due to imports from Japan and other countries. With new digital technologies, the U.S. was able to revive its economy and once again become a world leader. Google, Amazon, and other companies that are known today as "big tech" were born during this period, along with the digital revolution. The U.S. achieved its economic revival through innovation, reform of business models, and the establishment of a legal system.
The Clinton Administration initially identified three key economic priorities: (1) short-term economic stimulus with emphasis on job creation, (2) promotion of long-term investment to increase productivity (characterized especially by tax incentives for private investment), and (3) reduction of the budget deficit. These policies, especially (2) and (3), were the focus of the "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.¹⁵It was established as a
The Clinton administration, on the other hand, aggressively tried to privatize economic activities and private investment (as had been done in previous administrations). The Internet, then at the center of the digital revolution, was also growing rapidly in this political environment.
Although the technology originated in the United States, the Internet had already penetrated overseas. When other countries see this revival of the U.S. economy, many ask, "Does the Internet belong to the U.S.? Who owns it?" Who should control the Internet? These are the questions that began to emerge. This was the emergence of the initial "Internet management (governance) problem.

3. internet management issues and ICANN

Against this historical background, in October 1998, ICANN¹⁶was established. As already mentioned, the U.S. at that time was strongly seeking social development by promoting free competition in the private sector. The U.S. abandoned its U.S. monopoly on the management of the Internet and¹⁷Unlike many previous international intergovernmental organizations, ICANN was a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of California, with final decision making by a Board of Directors composed of internationally elected directors. The board was composed of private citizens, and national government officials were not directly involved in decision-making, but were consulted for their input through a government advisory committee¹⁸The following is a list of the most common problems with the
In establishing ICANN, we received many submissions from around the world, and the Green Paper¹⁹White Paper²⁰Discussions proceeded through two documents, and the final form was created. The four basic principles were (1) to ensure the stability of the Internet, (2) to introduce the principle of competition (in various areas such as the provision of domain names), (3) to have bottom-up coordination by the private sector regarding decision-making, and (4) to be composed of people who represent the Internet.
Although ICANN aimed to operate democratically, it has been subject to international criticism since its inception, and its mission was originally to provide "technical management of Internet domain names and IP addresses," not to make any decisions on various social issues using the Internet. It is not a place to make decisions on various social issues using the Internet. It is not, of course, an authority on these issues, nor does it assume responsibility for them. However, since its inception, ICANN has been criticized in the ITU and other fora for its strong American flavor (one could say emotional), even though it is an international organization, since its headquarters is physically located in the United States and is based on the laws of the State of California.
The fact that up to 10 of the 13 root name servers at the top of the Internet hierarchy are located in the U.S. and that historically large U.S. companies and universities were given large numbers of IP addresses is often cited in the argument that the Internet is U.S.-centric. In response to such internal and external criticism, ICANN discussed reform, and in 2002, a reform proposal was approved in the name of then-CEO Lynn.²¹The Lynn proposal identified three major problems for ICANN at the time. These were (1) lack of participation by many relevant groups, such as national registries, companies, and general users, (2) excessive emphasis on transparency, which only resulted in procedures being carried out ahead of the work, and (3) lack of funds. In response to these issues, the Lynn proposal targeted the following areas for reform: (1) board reform, (2) policy advocacy group organization reform, (3) organizational reform to ensure transparency, and (4) fundraising.²²The organization of ICANN has undergone a few changes since then. There have been some changes since then, and ICANN is currently organized as follows

Figure 1 shows that ICANN is composed of a Board of Directors, which is the highest decision-making body, a Supporting Organization (SO), and an Advisory Board. Each organization is made up of groups representing different interests, so-called multi-stakeholder (MSH) groups. The GNSO, which has the authority to elect two directors, is composed of a registry, registrars, a business group, and a non-business group, and the business group is composed of three groups: business users, IPR holders, and ISPs. The Business Group consists of three groups: business users, IPR holders, and ISPs. Apart from this, ccNSOs, which consist of regional domain name registration organizations, and ASOs, which are involved in IP address distribution, can each elect two directors. Although there has been some debate as to whether this distribution of authority is appropriate, ICANN has generally maintained this organizational structure since the 2002 Lynn Reform.
ICANN is an organization that is solely responsible for the "technical management of domain names and IP addresses," but its maintenance and management is an aspect that determines the survival of the Internet. In recent years, the issue of the fragmentation of the Internet has been pointed out due to geopolitical problems, and ICANN appears to be fighting against this fragmentation by advocating "One World, One Internet.
However, criticism of ICANN continued after the Lynn reform. Already in December 2001, the United Nations decided to hold the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)²³The Internet management issue was included in the agenda of the meeting. The central issue was whether the management of the Internet, which is rapidly spreading and becoming a social infrastructure, should not be left to private organizations in the United States, but should be discussed and decided by an international intergovernmental organization such as the United Nations.

4. the world of SDGs as a background for MSH's thinking

Since its inception, ICANN has been based on decision-making and management by MSH, a nongovernmental, private entity²⁴The MSH participation mechanism is said to have originated in the late 1980s with a conference related to sustainable development. In fact, the mechanism for MSH participation is said to have started with a conference related to sustainable development in the late 1980s.
For example, the MSH model was widely adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Agenda 21, adopted at the Rio Conference²⁵The importance of MSH's work is noted throughout and each is described in Chapter III (SECTION III. STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF MAJOR GROUPS) of the report. It identifies women, children and youth, indigenous peoples and their communities, non-governmental organizations, local government agencies, workers and unions, business and industry, the scientific and technological community, and agricultural workers, and touches on their roles and contributions.
It is important to note that these various stakeholders did not have direct policy-making authority, but rather the focus was on incorporating stakeholder input on environmental issues and involving them in implementation. Solving environmental problems naturally requires the participation and cooperation of all groups. When discussing the MSH process, the level of participation of multi-stakeholder groups, whether it is simply for listening to their opinions or whether they have specific decision-making authority, and the level of participation in the implementation of the system are all important factors to consider. In the case of ICANN, it is clear that the multistakeholders are directly involved in the final decision-making process of the organization.²⁶The following is a list of the most common problems with the

5. 2 WSIS meetings

At the first WSIS held in Geneva in 2003, developed countries insisted that the current private entities, including ICANN, continue to manage the system, while developing countries insisted that the UN and other intergovernmental organizations should have the authority to manage the system, and the discussion showed aspects of a North-South problem. Among the developed countries, the U.S. and Europe were not necessarily monolithic due to subtle differences in the degree of progress in digital technology and in their approaches to privacy and other human rights issues. Rather, it seemed that Canada, Australia, and sometimes Japan teamed up with the U.S. to actively support the institution of a private-sector-led, open Internet.
The United Nations, led by the ITU, decided to establish a Working Group on Internet Governance (IG) (WGIG) at the direction of the Secretary-General.
The WGIG was charged with (1) developing a definition of IG, (2) identifying public policy issues related to IG, (3) promoting a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of the private sector and civil society in developed and developing countries, existing intergovernmental organizations, international organizations, and other fora and governments, and (4) preparing a report on its findings for consideration and appropriate action at the Second WSIS Conference in Tunis in 2005; and (5) to prepare a report on the results of the WGIG's activities for consideration and appropriate action at the WSIS Conference.
The WGIG was chaired by former UN Under-Secretary-General Nitin Desai and was headed by Marcus Kumar, a former diplomat in the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs and later Secretary General of the IGF. Open meetings were also held on the occasion of these meetings to hear the opinions of non-members.

6. the WGIG report and the birth of the IGF

In July 2005, the WGIG published its report, which was followed by the third WSIS preparatory meeting in September, and the second WSIS was held in Tunis for three days from November 16, 2005.
The WGIG report is relatively short, 24 pages including the list of members and glossary, and less than 20 pages of text.²⁷and a separate 76-page background report has been issued.
First, (1) IG is defined as "the development and application of shared principles, standards, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the deployment and use of the Internet by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles." The IG's report states. In particular, it notes that the IG discussion is not limited to the issue of domain names and IP addresses handled by ICANN (i.e., what should be done with ICANN is not the essence of the IG discussion).
(2) Regarding the IG's public policy issues, those of particular priority are (i) root zone file and system management, (ii) interconnection costs, (iii) Internet stability, security and cybercrime, (iv) spam, (v) meaningful participation in international policy development, ( (vi) human resource development, (vii) domain name allocation, (viii) IP addresses, (ix) intellectual property rights (IPR), (x) freedom of expression, (xi) data protection and privacy rights, (xii) consumer rights, and (xiii) multilingualization, are identified. It further notes that there are other important issues such as convergence, next generation networks, trade, and e-commerce. Again, it makes clear that the IG issue is not only the ICANN issue of technical control of domain names and IP addresses.
Many of these issues are items that have been discussed in the past as institutional issues for the Internet and e-commerce. In particular, the cost of connection to the Internet²⁸It is interesting to note the inclusion of the hitherto unregulated issue of "participation," as well as the inclusion of demands from civil society, such as "participation," freedom of expression, and consumer rights.
(3) It is noteworthy that although the Internet has been developed under the leadership of the private sector, the roles of government and civil society have been widely and clearly identified with respect to the respective roles of government, the private sector, and civil society.
(4) The WGIG report makes two important "recommendations". One is to establish a "forum" for continuing IG discussions in the future. This would be a forum for international dialogue on public policy issues such as those pointed out in (2) above, and although it would be desirable to link it to a UN body, the form is an issue for future consideration.
The second concerns the functioning of international public policy oversight (Oversight). The report points out that a form of oversight that includes government, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations is needed. And in response, it proposes four different models of governance for the future. These models range from a UN agency directly overseeing ICANN to a forum that retains the current form of ICANN but creates a completely different forum for discussion.
At the second WSIS in Tunis, this WGIG report was basically adopted, and the second of four models was chosen to establish a forum for IG discussions (later IGF). (See Figure 2)

7.IGF Meetings and Internet Management Issues

After two WSIS meetings, the Tunis Agreement allowed ICANN to maintain its current form of private initiative. At the same time, the IGF meeting was to be held annually.
Tunis, the site of the second WSIS meeting in 2005, is the site of Carthage, which once threatened Rome in B.C. A year after WSIS, history took us back even further. The venue for the first IGF was Athens, the cradle of democracy across the Mediterranean.
From the WSIS meeting in Carthage to the IGF meeting in Athens. There, the Internet management issues changed as well: as a result of the decision to maintain the current structure of ICANN, the focus of IG issues shifted from ICANN's administrative duties for domain names and IP addresses to a broader consideration of the Internet system in general.
Although some "criticism of ICANN" was voiced at the first IGF meeting, most discussions were based on the premise of ICANN's management structure and addressed more general, broad-based institutional issues such as security and access. This trend continued in subsequent IGF meetings, where the IGF became a forum for discussion of all Internet-related issues. The IGF has been a forum for discussion of "emerging technologies" such as IoT, cloud computing, and, more recently, AI. At the Kyoto Conference in 2023, there will be many sessions on AI, and some newspapers reported that an "international UN conference on AI" will be held.
However, the IGF, which has been held for nearly 20 years, has not completely eliminated criticism of ICANN and the problem of international control of the Internet. The Tunis Agreement includes the phrase "enhanced cooperation."²⁹Some argue that this is the basis for a member state to establish a new international government agency (to replace ICANN) at any time.³⁰. On the other hand, many have said that the meaning of this provision has been ambiguous since the beginning of the Tunis Agreement and that it is unlikely to be the basis for any kind of discussion³¹The following is a list of the most common problems with the
The fact that the IGF is "a forum for discussion and information exchange (a forum) and not a resolution body" also seems to have played a role in mitigating criticism of Internet management issues through the IGF. If the IGF had been a forum for directly forming international consensus on the many institutions involved in the Internet, I suspect that governments would probably have been more willing to create an international organization for the Internet. Thus, the IGF has extended its initial five-year term by five and then ten years, and has continued through its 20th session in 2025.

8. rekindling the international intergovernmental organization debate?

There was a lot of activity in 2024, as the IGF reached its 20th anniversary in 2025 and entered a period of debate over whether to continue or not.
NETmundial+10, held in São Paulo in April, issued 13 guidelines for the MSH process and 12 proposed steps in the process ("NETmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement")³². These are only ideological guidelines, such as transparency and diversity requirements, and do not go into legal details, such as whether binding decisions should be made at MSH. In this sense, it is a statement of the concept of MSH in the broadest sense. This statement has been cited frequently in similar subsequent discussions and serves as one guideline confirming the concept of MSH. It should not be overlooked that the statement was made at the initiative of Brazil in response to the Western movement, and that the idea of MSH also carries the message that the North-South problem and the digital divide should be transcended. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that NETmundial does not see any discussion of the need for an international intergovernmental organization to realize MSH.
Global Digital Compact (GDC) document at the UN's Future Summit in New York in September.³³The GDC defines principles and action plans to realize the following five goals, as well as
(1) To close all digital gaps and accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
(2) Ensure that all people can participate in and benefit from the digital economy.
(3) Foster inclusive, open, safe and secure digital spaces that respect, protect and promote human rights.
(4) Promote a responsible, equitable, and interoperable data governance approach. And,
(5) Strengthen international governance of AI for the benefit of humanity.
Since the first draft (zero draft) of the GDC was issued as of April 1, until the final version (fourth draft) was finalized, many concerns were expressed and opinions were expressed from around the world. The New York organization of the United Nations was in charge and the work was done through the old process of consultation among member governments, which resulted in very little transparency for private stakeholders. The content also initially suggested that many things related to digital would be handled by the UN, an intergovernmental organization, and it is said that government officials, especially from developed countries, ended up working to "push back" the process.
The document that was finally adopted, after much criticism, calls for activities with the participation of MSH, but³⁴However, as a result of the GDC's creation itself being done through a less than transparent process, there are continuing concerns about its future implementation and operation. In relation to AI, the report also specifically mentions the establishment of an independent international scientific panel within the UN and the promotion of international dialogue on AI governance, among other things. Questions have been raised about the need for and role of a new mechanism.
There is a great deal of concern from UN member states, especially developing countries, that AI will create a new North-South divide. If the UN, an international intergovernmental organization, were to be the center of discussion on the governance of AI, would it really be an efficient and socially beneficial mechanism for its implementation and use? Here, too, it appears that a debate will arise, similar to the debate that took place more than 20 years ago on the issue of Internet management, in which the developed world was criticized. Webinar at Columbia University, October 2024.³⁵At the meeting, experts from various countries discussed the evaluation of the GDC and other issues, and one expert commented, "I have concerns about a government organization like the UN taking the lead in dealing with digital issues on a broad scale. What has been done (adopted by the UN General Assembly) cannot be helped. The dominant opinion was that we should carefully monitor the implementation and operation of the GDC from now on.

9. IGF meeting in Riyadh

These concerns surfaced quite clearly at the IGF meeting in Riyadh, creating a confrontation in the discussion.
Opening SpeechLi Junhua, UN Under-Secretary-General (U.N.) at the GDC, touched on the GDC, noting that the discussion of the WSIS review is important, and that Internet governance is spreading throughout the digital world, especially with the progress of AI. He also noted that the widening North-South divide is a challenge.
The Saudi Minister of Digital then pointed out, in fluent English, that there are three debates: the digital divide, the global divide, and the gender divide.
The ITU Secretary General noted that at the time of the Tunis Accords in 2005, the Internet was only used by 1 billion people; today it is used by more than 5 billion people. However, it is not used by a third of the world; 5G is not yet widespread in developing countries; more than 200 submarine cables have been cut by 2023; GDC is a key mileage and MSH's ideas will continue to be important, he noted.
Then came politicians from developing countries, including the Polish Minister of Digital, the Moroccan Minister of Women's Affairs, and a female senator from Pakistan. The only address from a developed country government was from the Norwegian minister who will host the IGF in 2025, and he insisted on the importance of the IGF and its continuation beyond its 20th year. The guests of honor were the CEO of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary General of UNESCO, the Chinese representative of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, an international organization of engineers, and the privacy and AI officer of WIPRO, an Indian IT company, and a relatively The number of people present was relatively limited. In general, many points were made about bridging the divide and women's participation, and there were few remarks that seemed to be in favor of digital or IGF.

Afternoon main session of Day 1The discussion on the evaluation and continuation of the IGF took place at the The first Saudi minister to speak expressed the opinion that the IGF should continue beyond 2025. The UN Under-Secretary-General stated that the MSH process of the IGF is an important one and will continue to serve as a premium forum. The representative of the Internet Society of Japan (ISOC) stated that he strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as it is a good forum to include all stakeholders. Mr. Imagawa, Deputy Director-General of Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), also referred to last year's Kyoto Conference and said that the continuation of the IGF is essential and that the IGF should be used to lead the implementation of the GDC. Representatives from the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom also praised the achievements of the IGF and insisted on its continuation.
During the five-day meeting in Riyadh (including Day 0), there were no statements that squarely rejected the continuation of the IGF beyond its 20th year. Rather, the IGF should be a permanent conference, not a time-limited one, with a budget set aside for it.³⁶Some argued that the secretariat function should be further strengthened.
The focus of the discussion is on whether IGFs should continue beyond the 20th year, assuming they continue,
(1) Are we going to modify the nature of the IGF (e.g., by giving it some authority beyond just being a forum for discussion)?
(2) What is the relationship with the proposed international discussion forum for AI at the GDC, etc.? In other words, do we create a separate discussion forum or process within the UN (centered on the New York group)? Or will the IGF play a certain role in the mandate of the GDC?
(3) There are many statements praising the participation of MSH, but what will be done about the reality and substance of this participation? Even if it is just an opinion hearing, how do we ensure that the process is incorporated into decision-making?
This is becoming a point of contention.

Behind these questions, there still seems to be pressure to "discuss important issues such as AI in an international intergovernmental organization, rather than in private-sector-led, voluntary rule-making mechanisms such as ICANN and IGF, which have been led by developed countries. For developing countries, if new technologies are freely operated without regulation (led by large international corporations), there is a concern that disparities will widen further. From the perspective of some hegemonic states, it would also be politically significant to involve developing countries in spreading systems that are favorable to their countries. Even if we only take matters related to human rights such as privacy and freedom of expression, history has proven how important institution building is.
Throughout the five days, we did not see any statements that squarely rejected the MSH concept. However, we felt that there were differences in the definitions and meanings they gave to the concept. Those who point out disparities argue that we need to get MSH to participate in order to correct the disparities. However, for example, can women really have a voice in institutional reform in countries that claim gender disparities?Under the MSH approach, there is a great deal of significance in ensuring the process. As we saw in section 4 above, there are various levels of MSH participation³⁷The term "MSH" without such a specific explanation is dangerous. There is a danger in using the term MSH without such specifics. Promises to submit public comments and hold public hearings are meaningless without a commitment to a process to incorporate those comments. The same is true in developed countries, where MSH participation is promised, but only the interests of large corporations and bureaucrats are involved in the process. This will surely be the target of criticism from developing countries. We are keenly aware of the need to further discuss the definition, content, and process of MSH.

10. digital debate at IGF Riyadh is a microcosm of contemporary international politics

Let's look at some more of the political discussions at the IGF Riyadh meeting.
The Day 1 workshop, "From WSIS to GDC-Harmonising strategies towards coordination," was moderated by Anriette Esterhuysen, one of the long-time opinion leaders on ICANN and IGF issues and a native of South Africa. Anriette Esterhuysen, a long-time opinion leader on ICANN and IGF issues and a native of South Africa, moderated a frank exchange on the evaluation of the GDC and the future of the IGF.³⁸She asked the audience to stand. She began by asking everyone in the audience to stand and asked if they thought the GDC provided any guidance to the IGF, and asked everyone to move to this side if they thought so and to that side if they did not. Almost everyone in the audience of about 60-70 people, which included many experts, moved to the No side. The next question was, "Is the call to be inclusive in WSIS now obsolete?" to which the majority also responded No. Anriette also sought comments from audience participants, including experts from the U.S. State Department and the Egyptian government, but also noted that the objectives of WSIS have not yet been fully achieved It was also noted that the objectives of WSIS have not yet been fully achieved. The final question was, "Do you think the MSH approach defends against and counteracts (entrenches) existing power and influence?" Again, the value of the MSH approach was discussed, but it was also pointed out that the MSH approach is meaningless without substance (context), not just words.
Regarding the evaluation of the GDC, an expert from a developed country government who is deeply involved in the GDC and WSIS+20 said, "Among those considering the GDC, the multilateral process³⁹It is true that there are ideas in favor of the IGF and ICANN, and it is crucial to understand that among the countries considering the GDC there were always those who wanted to weaken the IGF and ICANN. This is something that is not reported in the news and is not readily apparent from the final document." He commented. He added, "We need to continue to pay attention to the WSIS review process: there is a statement in the GDC document that the IGF is a "primary multistakeholder forum," but the G77 countries voted to remove the word primary. While everyone knows that the GDC's final document is a compromise, it is clear that months of negotiations have been heated and the causes have not been contained.
Another session of note is that of the United Nations (ITU), the organizer of WSIS⁴⁰The UN is planning WSISForum2025 in July 2025, and will host several Open Consultation Process meetings for reporting and hearing opinions before that. This session was the second in the series, and the organizers began by explaining the history of WSIS from 20 years ago to the present and their plans for the next year.⁴¹UNESCO, the co-sponsor, also expressed its full support for the Consultation Process.
It was explained that the July 2025 high-level session is intended to be as inclusive as possible, as the first session in November 2024 was limited in terms of speaking time due to time constraints, and participants expressed much dissatisfaction.

A participant from UNDP stated that it is important for WSIS and IGF to work in tandem to realize the MSH process and that they fully support the activities of ITU and UNESCO. The participants from U.N. Trade and Development also pointed out the importance of hearing a wide range of opinions and the need for the various UN agencies to cooperate in promoting the implementation of WSIS. In response, ITU explained that various UN agencies can work together to implement WSIS issues, for example, UNDP for ICT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and capacity building, UPU and ITC for e-business, and UNESCO for the knowledge society field. UNESCO in the field of knowledge society.
ITU participants welcomed the adoption of the GDC and pointed out that the GDC has many issues in common with WSIS, including capacity building, protection of human rights, innovation, knowledge sharing, ethical use of technology, AI, inclusivity, and bridging the digital divide. In addition, ITU participants welcomed the adoption of the GDC and pointed out that it has many issues in common with WSIS, such as capacity building, protection of human rights, innovation, knowledge sharing, ethical use of technology, AI, inclusivity, bridging the digital divide, etc. They also stated that they intend to implement it in coordination within UN agencies.
One comment from the audience was that WSIS should not rehash a discussion forum that already exists. In addition to other comments, such as support for MSH, some pointed out that WSIS should also address environmental issues in ICT, IoT and AI technologies, and new technology issues such as optical cables. It was also pointed out that the method of implementation of the GDC is not clear and there are concerns. These points will be pointed out in the future WSIS Consultation Process, which is expected to become the WSIS in 2025. Based on past experience, it is unclear to what extent transparency will be maintained, but it is expected that participants will continue to participate in this process and express their opinions.

11. evolution and contribution of IGF

　International rule making

Since its inception in 2006, the IGF has been criticized by some as "a big festival or an Expo," where "discussions only diverge and nothing is decided," and "participating in the IGF may be meaningless. Certainly, it cannot be denied that one of the weaknesses of the IGF is that it is compared to various organizations of the United Nations and international intergovernmental organizations such as the OECD, ASEAN, and recently the G7, and that it does not have a concrete decision-making process such as the conclusion of treaties. This is also relevant to the discussion of whether international rule-making should be conducted by an international intergovernmental organization based on legal systems such as treaties, or by a nongovernmental organization with contracts as its main subject. Although the process of international standardization is often classified into de jure standards, forum standards, and de facto standards⁴²The question is whether, given the objective of de jure standards, even in the case of ICANN, it is an international decision based on the sovereignty of a nation.⁴³The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which is a voluntary privacy protection regulation of the EU and the U.S., is a good example. However, for such international rulemaking, for example, the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, a self-regulation for privacy protection in the EU and the U.S.⁴⁴The number of cases in which so-called "soft law" systems, such as the "soft law" system, have been adopted in recent years has been increasing.
IGFs are quite different from these international intergovernmental organizations in that they are not decision-making organizations in the first place. However, it is not necessarily true that IGFs did not contribute to international rulemaking.

　Dynamic Coalition (DC)

In the IGF, the Dynamic Coalition (DC)⁴⁵In the past, groups have been formed to address specific issues, such as the Dynamic Coalition on Children's Rights in the Digital Environment (DC), which makes concrete recommendations and conducts international activities. Those interested in exchanging views, making statements, or international collaboration through the DC The IGF Secretariat will register the DCs based on the information provided, and will then provide them with the necessary information to organize sessions at the IGF and other international activities, As of November 2023, 28 DCs have been registered. It is noteworthy that these DCs were in fact already started from the first Athens IGF meeting, and to that extent, the IGF is a meeting in action.
In accordance with the principles of the IGF, the DCs will conduct their activities in an open and public manner, and their mailing lists will be open to the public. The IGF itself is a forum for the exchange of information and the expression of opinions, but in reality, international groups are formed on a case-by-case basis, influencing national governments and other international fora as needed. The coordination group was formed at the 10th IGF and continues to meet and communicate among the DCs on a monthly basis.

　NRI (National and Regional Initiatives)

The IGF additionally includes the National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs)⁴⁶As of January 2025, 17 regional meetings and 85 country-specific activities are registered. At the Riyadh IGF in December 2024, many participants pointed out the importance of NRI involvement in digital policy. Even if the IGF is just a forum for exchanging information, it would be very meaningful to encourage those who actually establish legal systems to do so from experts and officials in their own countries.⁴⁷The following is a list of the most common problems with the

　Digital Governance Forum (DGF)?

The broadening of the issues addressed by the IGF should not be overlooked: the definition of IG was already broad in the Tunis Agreement of the WSIS, but⁴⁸
In the early IGFs, the major focus was on Internet infrastructure issues (i.e., issues related to ICANN management issues). While the issue of "management of critical Internet resources," as defined by this narrow IG definition, remained a subtheme for more than a decade, Emerging Issues became a subtheme from the beginning, with specific themes of "The Internet of Tomorrow" in the third IGF, "The Impact of Social Media" in the fourth, and "The Internet of Tomorrow" in the fourth. Emerging Issues (Emerging Issues) became a sub-theme from the beginning, with "The Internet of Tomorrow" and "The Impact of Social Media" becoming specific themes in the third and fourth sessions, respectively. More recently, AI has become a central issue of the IGF as a whole, and future issues such as the interplanetary Internet and quantum computers are also being addressed.
The IGF has dealt with a very wide range of issues, especially those related to human rights such as freedom of expression and privacy, correcting vulnerable groups including women and children, and the divide that prevents people from benefiting from the Internet and the digital society.
In the declaration of NETmundial+10 held in Brazil in April 2024, the subject of discussion was changed to "Internet Governance and Digital Policies"⁴⁹The problem is that the term "Internet management problem" is now obsolete. It means that the term "Internet management issues" is no longer old. In response to these circumstances, at the Riyadh IGF meeting, there was a suggestion that the name of the IGF should be changed to "Digital Governance Forum" when the future of the IGF is reviewed at WSIS+20. I think it is now widely recognized that the issues that the IGF has been dealing with are issues for the digital society as a whole.
The fact that the IGF will address a wide range of digital issues could be significant. For example, the MSH process could allow for the IGF model to be tried out in which everyone is involved in discussions on issues that could be considered specialized, such as AI, cyber security, and handling of false and misleading information. At the same time, it could generate a discussion about the extent to which MSH thinking can be applied to such a wide range of issues.

　Expansion of MSH-ism

The IGF is a conference that requires multi-stakeholder (MSH) participation and assumes the participation of many people, including civil society. In the case of the NRI, an important requirement for its establishment is the organization of an Organizing Team consisting of three or more stakeholders.⁵⁰The following is a list of the most common problems with the
Of particular note is the recent surge in the number of sessions and projects involving young people. Groups called "youth" have been formed in countries and beyond, and are active in IGF and NRI meetings.⁵¹The following is a list of the most common problems with the
It is also important to note that MSH participation has created cross-national collaboration of the same stakeholders. For example, citizen groups for the protection of children from harmful online information could work internationally and participate in policy making and implementation in their respective countries. By sharing common issues and experiences across countries, it is expected that national political rules will naturally mature.

　The number of participating countries

The IGF is characterized above all by the large number of participating countries. For example, it is a forum where most countries participate, including China, Russia, Middle Eastern countries, and countries of the Global South⁵²The 2023 Kyoto conference was also reported to have attracted people from 179 countries to the Kyoto venue. The 2024 Riyadh Conference also had 11,853 registered participants, with 7,194 actual on-site participants from 144 countries and more than 2,800 online participants. In an increasingly geopolitically divided international community, such a forum for dialogue is unparalleled.

12. issues to be considered in the future

The above has followed the IG discussion around the IGF. What has been discussed here has proven to provide extremely important issues, including the struggle for supremacy among nations and the new North-South divide, as humanity has entered the digital society. Many of the issues still seem far from conclusive. These are issues that should continue to be examined as we see further developments in the digital society. Below, we will discuss some perspectives that should continue to be examined.

　(1) Participation in WSIS+20 and expression of opinions

Looking at the arguments made by countries at the 2024 Riyadh IGF meeting, it has become quite clear that the IGF will continue beyond 2025. Rather, the discussion centered on the future of the IGF, such as whether it will continue permanently, including its secretariat functions, and if so, how it will be coordinated with the New York entity of the United Nations, which is promoting the GDC.
We believe that those involved in the IGF should point out more clearly the significance of the IGF as exemplified in paragraph 11 above, and insist on its continuation and strengthening. At the same time, it is necessary to make the IGF an even more meaningful venue by presenting a "new mandate" that takes into account the current state of digital society, which has greatly progressed since the days of the Tunis Agreement 20 years ago.
The "new mandate" could include: addressing the one-third of the world's population that is still unconnected, how to bridge the divide that threatens to widen further, proposals for specific rule-making mechanisms for individual policy issues handled by the IGF, coordination with other multilateral international forums for discussion, proposals for activating NRI and youth activities, concrete proposals for realizing the mandate, mechanisms for verifying the realization of the mandate, etc. Proposals for activating the mandate, concrete proposals to realize the mandate, a mechanism to verify the realization of the mandate, and many other things could be considered.

　(2) Definition of MSH, analysis of various international organizations

Although everyone at the IGF asserts MSH, the meaning of MSH is not always the same. For example, even if civil society representatives from developing countries seek a forum to express their views from an MSH perspective, it may be a matter of domestic political process or a criticism of big tech in developed countries. In addition, when it comes to MSH participation, there is a difference in whether it is merely consultation, securing decision-making authority, requesting participation in implementation, or even ensuring verification of the implementation status.
In order to advance the idea of MSH, it would be necessary to establish that MSH participation is meaningful and effective vis-à-vis state sovereignty and governmental power. To establish this, it may be possible to analyze various international rule-making cases and classify those in which MSH is functioning and those in which it is not. Currently, research in this area has just begun, and there are no outstanding results. It would be worthwhile to collaborate with researchers in other countries to further research in this field.⁵³The following is a list of the most common problems with the

　(3) Japan and Asia should further participate in Internet and digital discussions.

The MSH discussion is meant to connect national sovereign governments with international rule-making mechanisms. The basis for this would be to expand and utilize opportunities for discussion in countries and regions.
In Japan, NRI has been holding the Japan IGF Conference every year as an NRI, but the activities still do not seem to be sufficient. In particular, the participation of young people is a major issue.
The IGF is also active in the Asia-Pacific region, where further Japanese contributions are expected.⁵⁴Japan also hosted the 3rd APrIGF in Tokyo in 2012. Japan also hosted the 3rd APrIGF in Tokyo in 2012, but has yet to necessarily take a leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region, including in the planning and organization of subsequent conferences.
Another challenge in Japan is the lack of participation from business. In Europe and the U.S., the International Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICC/BASIS) is the main organization (of business stakeholders) and is very active⁵⁵Many of the institutional issues discussed in the IGF are in fact important policy issues for the Japanese business community as well, and it is essential to know the international trends, advocate for Japan in particular, and create an international network in order to develop a business advantage. Japan is expected to be more active in this field, as seen in the example of the U.S. in the 1990s, when the U.S. economy was revitalized by the digital revolution.

　(4) Need for broader, comprehensive research on digital society

To answer the question of whether the IGF is a meaningful venue and whether the MSH-like approach seen at the IGF is an appropriate one, it may be necessary to have a higher level of discussion, such as where the digital society is ultimately headed, whether it can contribute to human society, and what is necessary for it to be able to contribute. What is needed to contribute to human society? At the same time, it seems to me that the current geopolitical situation requires an evaluation of old democracies, and even a discussion of how digital technology might change that.
It seems to me that the IGF (which may be reborn as the DGF in the future) needs to take up these discussions as well, and I hope that the Oslo IGF in June 2025, followed by WSIS+20 in Geneva, will provide some direction for future digital society research.

January 6, 2025
© Masanobu Katoh, 2025

• 1 Net Mundial | Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance　See also. Organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and 1net (a volunteer group of multi-stakeholder involved in the Internet). It was invited by then Brazilian President Girma Rousseff and was said to have an anti-American flavor. The official name of the meeting was the "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance," and it was characterized by the fact that the idea of multistakeholder The meeting was characterized by its up-front expression of the multistakeholder viewpoint.
• 2 In this issue, we present principles for a multi-stakeholder processOutcomeDocument-20240430.docxwas presented. This principle has been cited frequently in subsequent conferences.
• 3 Also known as WSIS+20, since the review is 20 years after WSIS (United Nations International Summit on the Information Society).
• 4 WSIS related documents are,World Summit on the Information Society (itu.int) See also.
• 5 The GDC document takes the form of an attachment as Annex 1 to the overall document called The Pact for the Future.
• 6 Statistics　See, as of 2024, the Internet is used by 5.5 billion people, or 68% of the world's population, but 2.6 billion people still do not have access to it.
• 7 Many people who are familiar with the use of short messages (sns) and other forms of communication via smartphones may think of the Internet only in terms of the international communication network they use to send e-mail and view websites on their personal computers. However, the foundation of the Internet supports the provision of digital society (application) services such as search engines, sns, and e-commerce, and its management affects the provision of all these services. Furthermore, data, which is the source of AI applications, is often provided through these infrastructures. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the Internet infrastructure is the foundation of the entire digital society. As discussed in Section 11 and elsewhere, the IGF has dealt with many institutional issues of the digital society.
• 8 See Figure 3 below for the dates of upcoming relevant international conferences.
• 9 A Brief History of the Internet - Internet Society　See also. The first network (ARPANET) was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and connected four universities, including UCLA. Using the then-new packet switching technology, a number of computers were successfully connected. Later, the TCP/IP protocol was adopted, giving it the form it has today.
• 10 Hyperperformance Computer Act of 1991,STATUTE-105-Pg1594.pdf　Measures based on.
• 11 clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1993/09/1993-09-15-the-national-information-infrastructure-agenda-for-action.html　See also.
• 12 Ibid, Tab A pp. 1, 2.
• 13 It was around this time that Ira Magaziner was named as an evangelist for e-commerce.Ira Magaziner - Wikipedia　See also.
• 14 The Emerging Digital Economy (July 1998) 　See also.
• 15 Text - H.R.2264 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 | Congress.gov | Library of CongressThe following is a list of the most common problems with the
• 16 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) See also.
• 17 Some argued that the U.S. government's control remained unchanged, as the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) maintained oversight authority over IANA (until its transfer on October 1, 2016) thereafter.
• 18 ICANN's current organizational structure is described below in "Figure 1."ICANN Organization - JPNIC　See also.
• 19 Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule | National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( ntia.gov) Japanese translation is available at The Japanese translation isGreen Paper - JPNICSee also.
• 20 Statement of Policy on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses | National Telecommunications and Information Administration (ntia.gov) Japanese translation is available at The Japanese translation isWhite Paper - JPNICSee also.
• 21 The self-improvement by ICANN was carried out by JPNIC's website (http://www.jpnic.jp/ja/icann/reform/overview.html(See.
• 22 For the Board of Directors, the size was reduced from 19 to 15 members and the composition of appointments was changed. The Policy Advocacy group has had three supporting organizations: addresses, protocols, and domain names. The Lynn proposal would reorganize these and the country-specific registrars and other technical groups to create three policy councils (addresses and IP numbers, global and regional) and two advisory committees (technical and government).
  Lynn's proposal suspended the international elections to elect the Director, but proposed the appointment of a permanent ombudsman with the ability to handle objections to ICANN activities and audit functions, as well as support personnel. It also proposes a system of managers to gather input from Internet stakeholders around the world and to manage events such as public hearings and debates in various regions.
  Regarding funding, in addition to the existing collection from gTLDs and ccTLDs, etc., the committee proposes that funding be provided by national governments through a mechanism in which the amount is determined in stages according to the size of GDP. It also proposes the establishment of a reserve fund (equivalent to one year's operating funds) so that ICANN's activities can be promoted in a stable manner, and also suggests the provision of funds to root server operators. At that time, ICANN had a budget size of only a few million dollars and was severely underfunded; today ICANN is a huge organization with a budget size of more than $150 million and more than 400 staff members.
  annual-report-2023-en.pdf (icann.org) See, e.g.
• 23 WSIS-related documents are,World Summit on the Information Society (itu.int) See also.
• 24 ICANN's bylaws mention multi-stakeholder six times. For example, Section 1.1. MISSION (a) (i) states that "In this role, ICANN's scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies - That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process.
• 25 Agenda21.doc　See also.
• 26 Professor Milton Mueller of Georgia Tech, who has been involved in institutional issues such as MSH and ICANN from early on, has pointed out through these historical reviews that MSH should refer only to cases where MSH has legal decision-making authority, such as ICANN.The debate over "multistakeholderism" - Internet Governance Project See, e.g.. In contrast, the author believes that whether to call it MSH or not is a matter of definition of MSH. Many people, including politicians and high-ranking officials, have already mentioned MSH at IGF and other conferences, and they are quite broad terms. In some respects, the term has begun to take on a life of its own. We believe it is worthwhile to examine the level, content, and function of each MSH while considering the definition broadly.
• 27 https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/pc3/off5.pdf
  The document adopted in Tunis in response to the WGIG is called the Tunis Agenda.WSIS: Tunis Agenda for the Information Society　See also.
• 28 The world of telegraph and telephone, under the jurisdiction of the ITU, has always dealt with the issue of international connection fees. In the case of the Internet, this issue is done through contracts between companies, an aspect that is difficult to see externally.
• 29 supra, note 27; see Tunis Agreement, paragraphs 69 and 71. The purpose of this provision differs from the provision in the European Union that allows cooperation or association with the cooperation of at least one-third of the member states.
• 30 For example, the report of an international conference organized by the ITU in 2013:backgrounder-wtpf-13-enhanced-cooperation-en.pdf　See also.
• 31 For example, the opinion of Markus Kummer, the first Secretary General of the IGF:Internet Governance: What is Enhanced Cooperation?　See also.
• 32 See references above, note 2.
• 33 See above, note 5.
• 34 For example, Principle: (k) Governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and international and regional organizations, in their respective roles and responsibilities, are essential to advance an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital future. Our cooperation will be multi-stakeholder and harness the contributions of all;.
• 35 Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) 　Digital Multilateralism After the UN Summit of the Future conference, organized by the UN Summit of the Future, available on YouTube: Digital Multilateralism After the UN Summit of the Future
• 36 Vint Cerf, Chair of the Leadership Panel of the IGF, explained (during the Day 4 closing session) that they are discussing making the IGF a permanent event and securing an annual budget of $3 million. At the time of this writing (January 6, 2025), discussions among member states regarding the budget and the structure within the UN appear to be ongoing.
• 37 Avri Doria describes the maturity of MSH in six stages (including zero level).Multistakeholder models: Maturity Levels　See also.
• 38 IGF 2024 WS #143. From WSIS to GDC-Harmonising strategies towards coordination IGF 2024-Day 1-Workshop Room 6- WS143 From WSIS to GDC-Harmonising strategies towards coordination | Internet Governance Forum There is a video recording at
• 39 In IGF and other discussions, multilateral is often distinguished as a forum for state-to-state government-to-government discussions, while multi-stakeholder is a forum for discussions that include nongovernmental participants.
• 40 Day 3 Open Consultation Process Meeting for WSIS Forum 2025.
  IGF 2024-Day 3 -Workshop Room 10 -OF 33 Open Consultation Process Meeting for WSIS Forum 2025 | Internet Governance Forum　There is a video recording at
• 41 For the flow of the Open Consultation Process,Open Consultation Process (OCP) | WSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025　See also.
• 42 For example, the Japanese Standards Associationmd_5514.pdf　(METI data on page 75 and below)Microsoft PowerPoint - A_Summary of Standardization (R30201 modified).pptx　See etc.
• 43 In the case of ICANN, it appears to be a legally stable mechanism, as it is contractually bound by rules determined by California law under the U.S. Constitution to foreign (registry and other) institutions. Of course, there could be issues of private international law and problems when a state that does not recognize it asserts its sovereignty.
• 44 The EU allows U.S. companies to transfer information from the EU as long as they meet certain criteria and are in compliance with EU privacy protection regulations.Adequacy decision for safe EU-US data flows　See also.
• 45 For more information about the Dynamic Coalition, visit the IGF website:Dynamic Coalitions | Internet Governance Forum (intgovforum.org) 　See also.
• 46 For NRIs, visit the IGF website:Frequently Asked Questions about the NRIs | Internet Governance Forum (intgovforum.org) 　See also.
• 47 In Japan, NRI has also continued its activities as an NRI by holding the Japan IGF every year. In addition, the "Domestic IGF Activity Activation Team for IGF 2023" (Team for Activating IGF Activities in Japan for IGF 2023 :: JapanIGF　There is also an attempt to incorporate and further activate IGF organizations in Japan, mainly through the IGF (see
• 48 See Figure 2 above, Working Definition of Internet Governance, ref.
• 49 See note 2 above.
• 50 The Tool Kit, which shows the requirements for establishing an NRI, is,NRIs Toolkit | Internet Governance Forum　See also.
• 51 Youth Initiatives | Internet Governance Forum　shows that in many countries, young people are organizing and leading IGF activities. It is expected that such a movement will be promoted in Japan as well.
• 52 There are some restrictions, such as the fact that Taiwan cannot participate as a country due to the fact that it is an organization under the United Nations.
• 53 Currently, organizations that mention this field include a group at Columbia University in the United States (About Us | Columbia Business School ), the Georgia Institute of Technology group (Internet Governance Project | Georgia Tech School of Public Policy), Diplo Foundation (DiploFoundation | Leaders in digital diplomacy and global governance) and others. In addition, as a network of researchers, GIGANET (Global Internet Governance Academic Network) are listed.
• 54 Home Page - APrIGF.　See also. The APrIGF secretariat is currently being handled by a Hong Kong-based group that operates dotasia. The group that plans and manages the event has also recently been led by representatives from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries.
• 55 Internet Governance - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce　See also.