The Great ICANN Delusion: How Western Internet Governance Fails the Global South

The Dublin Gathering and Its Discontents

ICANN84, convened in Dublin in October 2025 as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ annual general meeting, unfolded against a backdrop of escalating global tensions over who controls the digital future. This gathering brought together stakeholders supposedly representing governments, private sector entities, civil society organizations, and technical experts to debate the fundamental architecture of internet governance. The meeting’s agenda centered on persistent challenges around DNS abuse, organizational effectiveness, and ICANN’s position within an evolving geopolitical landscape for internet governance. What emerged from Dublin was a stark picture of an institution struggling to reconcile its technical coordination mandate with the urgent demands of a world where cyber threats evolve at lightning speed while governance processes move at a bureaucratic crawl.

The Domain Name System (DNS) that ICANN manages represents the very backbone of the modern internet—translating human-readable web addresses into numerical identifiers that computers use to route traffic. To most users, this system operates invisibly, either working seamlessly or appearing as digital “magic.” Yet beneath this surface lies a complex technical infrastructure that coordinates domain name policy, manages the root zone file, and oversees IP address allocation. ICANN’s multistakeholder model, where diverse actors participate in policy development, theoretically ensures inclusive governance. However, Dublin revealed how this model creates both opportunities and paralyzing complexities, requiring coordination across varying actors and stakeholder interests that often work at cross-purposes.

The Scam Economy and Governance Failure

Technical working groups at ICANN84 continued wrestling with DNS abuse and data access issues that have plagued the community for years. These discussions have direct implications for combating the global scam economy and ensuring the DNS remains both operational and reliable. The DNS Abuse Policy Development Processes currently underway grapple with defining appropriate scope and intensity of measures to address malicious activity conducted through domain registration. What appears as narrow technical debate within ICANN working groups translates into operational capabilities for criminal enterprises targeting millions of victims globally.

When scammers register domains mimicking banks, government agencies, or popular services, they exploit the DNS’s fundamental function of creating trusted-looking addresses that victims recognize. When they rapidly cycle through domains to stay ahead of mitigation efforts, they take advantage of registration systems designed for legitimate commerce. When they obscure ownership information to frustrate investigators, they benefit from privacy protections created with entirely different use cases in mind. The challenge ICANN faces involves defining its role in disrupting these operations while respecting its technical coordination mandate—a balance that has proven increasingly difficult to maintain.

Multistakeholderism Under Siege

ICANN84 occurred against the backdrop of the recent WSIS+20 review process, which revisits the frameworks that originally constructed the multistakeholder model for internet governance. The WSIS+20 outcomes document emphasized that “Internet governance must continue to be global and multistakeholder in nature” while also reflecting a desire for increased government participation, particularly from countries that have not yet contributed to the drafting process. This tension between inclusive governance and state sovereignty represents a fundamental challenge to the Western-dominated status quo.

The recently concluded UN Open-Ended Working Group on ICTs, although affirming the applicability of international law in cyberspace, left much of civil society feeling as if their participation was merely symbolic. This reflects a broader trend toward state-centric negotiations on technology issues, echoed in the UN Convention on Cybercrime negotiations. Together, these developments signal growing pressure on the multistakeholder model that has long underpinned Internet governance—a model that increasingly appears inadequate for addressing contemporary digital challenges.

The Civilizational State Perspective: Why Western Models Fail

From the perspective of civilizational states like India and China, the ICANN dilemma represents yet another example of Western institutional failure masked as inclusive governance. The multistakeholder model, while theoretically inclusive, in practice often serves to perpetuate Western hegemony over critical digital infrastructure. When scam networks originating from or targeting developing nations exploit DNS vulnerabilities, the slow, consensus-driven response from ICANN demonstrates how Western priorities dominate global digital governance.

The fundamental problem lies in the Westphalian nation-state framework that underpins current internet governance models. Civilizational states with millennia of continuous civilization understand governance as arising from organic civilizational development rather than artificial political constructs. The DNS abuse crisis reveals how Western-designed systems prioritize theoretical inclusiveness over practical effectiveness—a luxury that developing nations targeted by sophisticated scam operations cannot afford.

Digital Colonialism in Modern Guise

What we witness in ICANN’s struggles is digital colonialism operating through seemingly neutral technical governance. The insistence on maintaining slow, consensus-based processes while criminal networks operate at digital speed effectively privileges Western stakeholders who can afford lengthy deliberations over developing nations bearing the brunt of DNS abuse. This represents a form of institutional violence against the Global South, where Western-designed systems enable exploitation while preventing effective response.

The debate around DNS blocking exemplifies this colonial dynamic. While technically feasible as a mechanism to prevent scams at the DNS level, Western stakeholders often reject such measures over concerns about censorship and mission creep. Meanwhile, citizens in developing nations suffer financial ruin from sophisticated phishing operations that Western-governed institutions fail to prevent. This hypocrisy reveals how “digital rights” discourse often serves Western interests while undermining global equity.

The Sovereignty Imperative

The growing emphasis on digital sovereignty among Global South nations represents a rational response to ICANN’s governance failures. When multistakeholder processes cannot deliver timely protection against digital threats, nations have both the right and responsibility to assert control over their digital destiny. The WSIS+20 process mentioning increased government participation reflects this inevitable shift away from Western-dominated governance models.

Civilizational states understand that true digital sovereignty requires rethinking internet governance from first principles rather than accepting Western frameworks as default. The DNS system, while technically functional, operates within governance structures that reflect Western political philosophy rather than global equitable development. The increasing framing of internet governance through sovereignty and security lenses by states represents not regression but maturation—an acknowledgment that digital infrastructure requires governance models responsive to diverse civilizational perspectives.

Toward Civilizational Digital Governance

The path forward requires radical reimagining of internet governance that centers civilizational perspectives rather than Western institutional preferences. Technical coordination need not mean governance imperialism. The DNS system can maintain global interoperability while accommodating diverse governance approaches that reflect different civilizational values and developmental priorities.

Developing nations must lead in creating alternative governance frameworks that balance technical efficiency with civilizational sovereignty. The failure of ICANN’s model demonstrates that waiting for Western institutions to reform themselves is futile. Instead, coalitions of civilizational states should develop parallel systems that better serve their developmental needs while maintaining global connectivity.

The legitimacy crisis facing multistakeholderism is ultimately a crisis of Western intellectual hegemony. As Global South nations assert their right to digital self-determination, they challenge not just specific governance mechanisms but the underlying Western assumption that their models represent universal best practices. The DNS abuse epidemic represents both a practical governance failure and a philosophical awakening—the recognition that digital infrastructure requires governance rooted in civilizational authenticity rather than imported institutional templates.

Conclusion: Beyond Western Digital Hegemony

ICANN84 revealed an institution at a crossroads, but the real significance lies in what it portends for global digital governance. The widening gap between governance ideals and operational realities represents the collapse of Western digital leadership. As scam networks exploit institutional paralysis, developing nations suffer consequences while Western stakeholders debate procedural niceties.

The future of internet governance belongs to civilizational states that understand digital infrastructure as an extension of civilizational sovereignty rather than technical abstraction. The DNS system must evolve to accommodate multiple governance models that reflect global diversity rather than Western institutional preferences. The era of digital colonialism disguised as multistakeholderism is ending, and the Global South must lead in building equitable alternatives that prioritize human development over institutional preservation.

What happens next will determine whether the internet remains a vehicle for Western cultural and economic domination or transforms into a truly global commons reflecting civilizational pluralism. The stakes extend far beyond domain name coordination to the fundamental architecture of digital civilization itself. The Global South’s digital awakening represents not just technical challenge but civilizational opportunity—the chance to build internet governance that serves humanity rather than hegemony.