It happened to me to participate in Internet governance agenda, starting with the Okinawa Charter in 2000. I represented Russian Civil Society in DOT-Force, and I was happy to participate in initial discussions how the future digital world should look like.

Twenty years have passed. The Internet from a magic and unclear ‘future’ has become a convenient ‘everyday reality’. Is it managed properly? May its governance be somehow improved?

Well, of course there are evident achievements. The most important one is worth mentioning from the beginning: the Internet is developing rapidly, and it is developing according to the same principles that were laid many years ago. It means that such principles were chosen correctly. It also means that people who are directly involved in governing the Internet turned out to be worthy of this noble task. In addition, it is important to emphasize that all the innovations, all the technological "surprises" that civilization has received from the development of the Internet in recent years, ⎼ have been integrated into the already existing framework of the Net.

Although, as we see, a lot has changed during this time ⎼ the composition of the “big players”: it moved from mainly telecommunication operators and DNS service providers to search engines, cloud computing operators and social services owners, who play an increasingly important role. We also notice radical changes in the preferences (patterns) in using Internet technologies. Unfortunately, there are also changes in positions of many states regarding freedom of information, especially on the Internet. The worst thing is that the discussions about turning the Internet into a war domain have begun and do not stop. And this exactly what cannot be admitted by all means…

The list of issues that remain relevant for Internet governance is very large and it constantly ‘swells’. Therefore, in the next twenty years we will all have a lot of work. What seems most important here?

First, it is a very successful experience of using the principle of multi-stakeholderism. Introduced by WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance under the U.N. Secretary General) in 2005, it has proven to be correct and viable. The participation of various stakeholders in their respective roles, the mandatory consideration of the views of each interested party is definitely a huge step forward. Based on the traditional and time-tested principles of democratic decision-making process, multi-stakeholderism has shown its effectiveness in an environment where there are hundreds of millions and even billions of concerned participants (users). Many types of Internet governance stakeholders (consumers, providers, owners of Internet resources, government bodies, etc.) have similar interests. In existing multi-stakeholder mechanisms (such as the functioning of ICANN or IETF), these interests are reflected in the development and adoption of policies and procedures that ultimately satisfy everyone. This is a perfect example.

Second, what is often forgotten, is a factor of trust. The Internet of the 1970s and 1980s was mostly created on the trust between those who designed and developed this technological system, being primarily outstanding scientists and researchers. They adhered to the highest standards of professional ethics. That is why it is so important that we take into account the factor of trust and pay attention to everything that strengthen trust in all future projects of the digital cooperation. It is not only trust in communication between people, it’s also trust in technologies, their reliability, and in the open and comprehensive development of “rules of the game” for everyone. The more trust we enjoy the greater is the reliability of the system, which includes not only computer devices, but also millions (billions!) of users. I am sure that the development and practical implementation of confidence-building measures, including those applicable by states, will largely prevent or minimize the risk of turning cyberspace into a battlefield.

Third, we need to constantly improve the effectiveness of existing and future Internet governance mechanisms and their institutionalization. It becomes clear that the existing instruments of the international public law are not sufficient to cover the full variety of issues arising with the use of the Internet technologies in social life. Many experts call for the development of Corpus Iuris Internetis, but valuable objections to this idea are also numerous. However, even in the situation of a much sharper global political confrontation during the Cold War, both antagonists managed to find compromises.

Thus, there appeared universal conventions on the partial ban on nuclear tests, on nuclear non-proliferation, in peaceful activities in outer space etc. In my opinion, the multi-stakeholder approach is able here to ensure coordination of the positions of all interested parties. For example, this may be implemented by transforming the Secretariat of the global IGFs (Internet Government Forums) into a platform for drafting a possible universal agreement on the Internet Governance - and the IGFs themselves should then focus on discussing and agreeing the principles and norms of such universal agreement. Of course, any multilateral international legal document can be approved only by the UN General Assembly. Nevertheless, with this approach the drafting process will certainly be balanced and will take into account the interests and wishes of all participants.

Last, but not least. We should engage young people in digital cooperation as much as possible. They have already grown in a world where there are no digital boundaries and everyone can communicate with everyone, which would have been hard to imagine thirty years ago. They are free from psychological limitations and unnecessary prejudices of past eras. Therefore, the more young men and women understand how the Internet works, how it may be governed, and how the Internet governance may be improved, the better and more convenient the Internet will be for the new generations of its users.