Russia’s Internet Governance Model Hailed as the Most Effective

They explained why a unified mechanism for governing the global internet has yet to emerge.

Maria Bolshakova, Deputy Director General of the Regional Commonwealth in the Field of Communications, who moderated the discussion, invited participants to consider whether a single set of rules for the internet is possible and where the line lies between technological sovereignty and isolationism.

Juan Alfonso Fernández González, adviser to the Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba, said that attitudes in the international community have changed significantly. Governments are calling for internet regulation, he noted, but the question is how to achieve it.

“As we are seeing with AI, it is perfectly normal for every country to want to use it according to its own needs, traditions and technologies. But how can we expect AI to create a harmonized global community? Many internet-related processes are unfolding in parallel. The challenge is to figure out how to make them work together as a single system.”

Cynthia Lesufi, chair of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and the Sustainable Development Goals (South Africa), emphasized that developing countries need support, including access to documents, technical and regulatory expertise, and funding. They must also have an opportunity to help shape the agenda.

Roman Chukov, programme expert at the Secretariat of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), expressed his intention to engage in dialogue with colleagues working on internet governance. He announced that the IGF would take place in Kenya this December. Several hundred experts are expected to attend, and their participation could help Kenya make a breakthrough in global internet governance, he said.

Vyacheslav Erokhin, head of the laboratory at the Telecom Research Center, identified what he sees as the central problem in governing the internet:

“The root of the problem is that developed countries, which pioneered the internet and are home to the major global internet platforms, have an interest in preserving the status quo. The existing system of internet governance is somewhat chaotic because, when the internet emerged in the 1980s, no one knew what it would become. We have enough forums, including the IGF, various UN platforms and the ITU, but these discussions keep reaching a dead end. As soon as we say that internet governance needs to evolve, we immediately hear the objection that the internet should not be governed. No one is trying to restrict new services or technologies. But we should not confuse the governance of critical infrastructure with the governance of the internet as a whole. When we say there is no fair governance model, we are referring specifically to critical infrastructure.”

Andrey Vorobyev, director of the Coordination Center for the .RU and .РФ domains, argued that Russia’s system of internet governance is the most effective. He explained that several governance models exist. For generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and new gTLDs, the mechanisms have been developed by the community itself and rely primarily on horizontal relationships between experts and participants in the domain registration market. National domain zones, by contrast, tend to give law enforcement agencies and national centers a much greater role.

“Russia has a hybrid model. All requirements imposed by law enforcement agencies are mandatory, but the rules also recognize organizations that have demonstrated their expertise. These organizations can communicate directly with registrars, which have the authority to block domains. In my view, this hybrid model is the most effective approach,” Vorobyev said.

Summing up the discussion, the experts noted that the tools needed to govern the internet already exist, but the question of whether to put them into practice remains open. The debate over how responsibilities and roles should be divided in this area may continue in Kenya in December.