Number Resource Society
WHAT IS A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE?
Do you own your IP address? This question has been a subject of much debate over the years. Ultimately, the answer to this question depends on how Internet governance is shaped. Since the Internet was developed in the United States, the US retains a huge influence on how it should be governed. In 2005, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) suggested that the US relinquish their outsized influence on Internet governance. To take its place would be a UN body that represents a more div...
On this page
Do you own your IP address? This question has been a subject of much debate over the years. Ultimately, the answer to this question depends on how Internet governance is shaped.
Since the Internet was developed in the United States, the US retains a huge influence on how it should be governed. In 2005, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) suggested that the US relinquish their outsized influence on Internet governance. To take its place would be a UN body that represents a more diverse viewpoint.
But instead of pitting one big entity against another, there is a different approach to defining Internet governance: one in which all voices and rights are represented, including your right to own your IP address. It is the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance.
Illustration from the original NRS article.
A Brief Overview of the Multistakeholder Approach
Traditionally, Internet governance was primarily overseen by governments and intergovernmental organizations. However, the multistakeholder approach recognizes that other groups should have a say in shaping Internet policies. These groups include civil society organizations, the private sector, technical experts, academia, and individual users.
Since 2005, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and numerous international organizations have endorsed the multistakeholder approach for Internet governance.
Instead of being a collection of rules, the multistakeholder approach is a set of practices that individuals and organizations can follow to create strategies and policies that enhance Internet governance.
Principles for Internet Governance
To ensure the multistakeholder approach remains effective in our interconnected world, we need to understand its key attributes. The Internet Society has identified these attributes, which enhance organizations' ways of working and their ability to address complex, cross-border Internet issues. The sectors that are included in this model are: the government, private sector, technical community, academic community, and civic society.
The following are characteristics of Internet governance that follows a multi-stakeholder approach:
Open and participative
Decisions are made only when the widest consensus of voices is heard.
Distributed and collaborative
Stakeholders from different sectors and geographical regions are given a chance to express their voice.
Transparent and accountable
Decisions are made using a bottom-up approach, so that the stakeholders that are most affected have the biggest influence.
Equal and equitable
Stakeholders, especially in economically disadvantaged areas, are given a chance to participate. Ultimately, this inclusion will create more opportunities for social inclusion through high-quality access to the Internet.
By using the multistakeholder approach, we can address a wide range of issues that:
- Impact diverse stakeholders
- Involve overlapping rights and responsibilities
- Require different expertise
- Rely on legitimate and accepted decisions for implementation.
If these principles sound familiar, it's because they are nothing new. These are the same principles that created the Internet as it is today: a fair, open, and all-accepting drive towards collaboration.
The aim is to ensure a wide range of viewpoints are considered and that decisions are made collectively, reflecting the interests and concerns of different stakeholders.
NRS advocates for a world where you can have the right to own your IP address. A multistakeholder approach is one way to reach this goal. You are, as an individual, an integral part of Internet governance. Let your voice be heard in the policies that shape the Internet.
Sources and editorial context
NRS first published this article on 17 April 2025. The archive records its last modification on 4 November 2025. This editorial note was prepared on 31 October 2026; the historical English text remains distinct from it.
IP addresses and autonomous system numbers (ASNs) support network addressing and interconnection. Some businesses hold resources directly; others use addresses assigned by an upstream provider. Having to change addresses can mean service migration, customer reconfiguration and lost revenue. A policy dispute does not automatically disconnect a network: resource registration, supply contracts and routing arrangements have distinct responsibilities. Understanding that chain makes governance relevant even when your business is not the registered holder.
The 2005 governance debate included competing proposals about government roles and international cooperation. Its outcome should not be reduced to a single proposal to replace US influence with a UN regulator. The Tunis outcome supported multistakeholder participation and an Internet Governance Forum for dialogue; the IGF is not an Internet oversight authority. The Internet also has a long history of technical and private-sector coordination, not solely governmental administration.
The article argues that resource holders should have the right to own their IP addresses. That is NRS’s reform position, not a claim that universal legal ownership is already established. Broad participation and bottom-up processes should make affected people heard and institutions accountable; they do not automatically guarantee that the most affected group holds the greatest formal power.
Original NRS article · Internet Society: experience at the IGF · Why the multistakeholder approach works · ICT policymaking in the Philippines · NRS · ITU: Tunis 2005 outcome · APNIC policy development process
Choose how to participate
Use the official directory of the five RIRs to identify the relevant institution, then check your resource records and upstream agreement. Policy participation is not the same as membership, and your company’s location alone does not establish a vote. The links below separate policy discussions and proposals from elections and eligibility.
AFRINIC: Policy discussion and proposals · AFRINIC: Elections and eligibility
APNIC: Policy discussion and proposals · APNIC: Elections and eligibility
ARIN: Policy discussion and proposals · ARIN: Elections and eligibility
LACNIC: Policy discussion and proposals · LACNIC: Elections and eligibility
RIPE / RIPE NCC: Policy discussion and proposals · RIPE / RIPE NCC: Elections and eligibility
Start with the current proposals and discussion channels on the policy page. For an election, separately check the position, timetable, eligibility and representation formalities. Official pages may use another language. Linking them here does not mean a ballot is currently open.
Continue with The influence of RIRs or explore Current actions. If resource stability affects your business, read about NRS Shield. Policy discussion, election voting and POA and representation are distinct paths. Proposals follow the relevant institution’s policy process; voting requires the applicable eligibility. Granting a mandate must be a separate, voluntary and informed choice; you may decline. Check its purpose, scope, duration and withdrawal arrangements before deciding. Joining NRS or seeking help does not itself grant a POA. Collecting mandates does not, by itself, confer authority to decide policy.