In today’s rapidly shifting digital landscape, the question of whether the Internet can retain its foundational values has never been more urgent. As it increasingly permeates every aspect of human activity—from communication and commerce to governance and geopolitics—the Internet has evolved into both a shared global commons and a contested arena of power. At stake are its core values: global connectivity, openness, interoperability, decentralization, the end-to-end principle, robustness and reliability, and freedom from harm.

In response to escalating threats to these principles, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convened a landmark plenary session at ICANN82, titled “Core Internet Values: Evolution and Challenges for ICANN.” Moderated by Pari Esfandiari, the session brought together a distinguished panel of global leaders in Internet governance—including Internet pioneer Vint Cerf; ICANN Board Chair Tripti Sinha; ITU Strategy Executive Preetam Maloor; and Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values—to examine the evolution of these values and the urgent threats they now face.

Esfandiari opened by reminding participants that these values were not the product of top-down design, but the result of decades of organic collaboration among engineers, civil society, businesses, and governments. They have allowed the Internet to flourish as a resilient, open, and innovative global system. Yet today, they are under significant strain. Though never intended as a political construct, the Internet is now deeply entangled in complex questions of sovereignty, economic influence, and geopolitical rivalry. Governments increasingly assert control through national regulation, while private corporations entrench power through proprietary ecosystems and algorithmic governance. Meanwhile, emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and blockchain introduce new governance dilemmas that outpace existing institutional capacities.

At this pivotal moment—particularly in the lead-up to WSIS+20—ICANN faces mounting pressure to reaffirm its multistakeholder model and safeguard global interoperability. The future of a user-centric, open Internet depends on our collective ability to recognize these threats and respond with deliberate, inclusive, and strategic action. Without such commitment, the Internet’s original promise—of democratized knowledge, open communication, and collaborative innovation—risks being supplanted by a fragmented, commodified, and increasingly manipulated digital environment.

Preserving the Heart of the Internet: An Argument for Core Values in a Fragmenting Digital Age

Esfandiari further framed the session by connecting technical values to broader societal stakes. Concepts like openness, decentralization, and interoperability, she argued, are not merely architectural attributes—they are normative commitments that shape how power, knowledge, and access are structured in the digital age. End-users, she noted, are the first to suffer when these principles erode, facing increased surveillance, restricted access, and declining trust in the digital ecosystem.

Olivier Crépin-Leblond opened the panel discussion with a stark warning: core values such as openness, the end-to-end principle, and user-centricity are steadily being eroded. He pointed to the growing adoption of proprietary technologies and the spread of AI-powered algorithms as major threats to openness. Network address translation, traffic filtering, and the increasing role of content delivery networks have weakened the end-to-end principle, sidelining users in favor of intermediaries. User control is shrinking, and legislation—often national and fragmented—cannot effectively manage a borderless Internet. His call to action: voluntary, collaborative stewardship across all stakeholder groups.

Vint Cerf reinforced the need for multi-stakeholder governance, arguing that policy must be shaped through diverse perspectives to reflect the Internet’s global and inclusive nature. He emphasized preserving end-to-end connectivity, promoting cryptographic tools for security rather than censorship, and ensuring user-centric design in an age of AI. Cerf also introduced the critical issue of accountability, proposing internationally accepted norms to address malicious anonymity. The Internet must remain an empowering, not exploitative, space.

Preetam Maloor turned attention to the global frameworks that underpin cooperative governance: the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Though voluntary, these frameworks shape multilateral efforts at ITU, UNESCO, and beyond, providing essential principles like openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholderism. Maloor emphasized vigilance ahead of WSIS+20, urging continued evolution and defense of these foundational norms.

Tripti Sinha brought the discussion back to technical fundamentals, arguing that despite growing political narratives around fragmentation, the Internet’s core infrastructure—especially the unique identifier system managed by ICANN—remains intact. ICANN’s technical stewardship, multistakeholder policymaking, and commitment to a single, coherent DNS are critical defenses against fragmentation. She also noted that privacy concerns can be addressed through cryptography, allowing global flows of information without compromising sovereignty.

Strategic Collaboration to Uphold Core Internet Values Pari Esfandiari set the tone by asking: “Can we foster cross-border, cross-sector collaboration rooted in shared values rather than competition—and resist the urge to territorialize what should remain a global commons?” This question captured the session’s central challenge: how to build trust and transparency in an increasingly fragmented digital policy landscape.

Building on this, Vint Cerf stressed the need for enhanced technical integrity and user protections, calling for wider deployment of tools like BCP38 and RPKI. He underscored the importance of preserving the Internet’s single identifier space and suggested that ICANN may require expanded authority to meet today’s complex governance demands. Together, these contributions framed strategic collaboration not just as desirable, but as essential to safeguarding the Internet’s core values.

Maloor presented a diplomatic path forward: cooperative education and engagement, such as ITU and ICANN’s “Demystifying Digital” series. Informal settings where diplomats learn technical basics build trust and alignment around shared values. Collaboration doesn’t always require binding treaties; it requires dialogue, trust, and shared purpose. Crépin-Leblond highlighted the need to monitor, document, and analyze threats to internet openness and decentralization. He argued that this would transform the defense of Internet values from abstract principle to evidence-based advocacy, helping policymakers understand the impact of national actions on global infrastructure.

Sinha emphasized deeper coordination between technical bodies such as ICANN, IETF, ITU, and the RIRs. Interoperability is a political necessity as much as a technical one. ICANN’s model of inclusive governance, weekly collaboration with RIRs, and high-level meetings with international bodies like the UN provide a replicable framework for institutional synergy.

Mobilizing the Public: Why Internet Values Must Become a Civic Cause

Pari Esfandiari steered the discussion toward public mobilization, emphasizing that defending core Internet values requires more than technical precision or institutional alignment—it demands civic engagement and broad-based awareness. She asked: How can we engage citizens in the preservation of an open, inclusive Internet? How can grassroots action influence global policy?

Cerf supported Crépin-Leblond’s call for monitoring, documenting, and analyzing threats to internet core values. He further stressed that the defense of Internet values requires public engagement. The public must understand what is at stake. He proposed an “Internet driver’s license” approach to digital literacy and called for greater storytelling to humanize the issues. Metrics such as affordability, access, and exposure to harm must be tracked and communicated. Documenting relationships among Internet institutions would also promote transparency and accountability.

Maloor emphasized opening global governance institutions to civil society and grassroots actors. The ITU’s inclusion efforts—open access to documents, virtual participation, and informal consultations—show that institutions evolve.

Crépin-Leblond reminded attendees that grassroots campaigns have successfully defended Internet freedoms before—citing SOPA/PIPA and net neutrality battles in the U.S. Campaigns today, however, must be focused, timely, understandable, and well-funded to compete with well-resourced opponents.

Sinha urged technical communities to engage directly with policymakers to prevent misinformed legislation. ICANN’s educational outreach, partnerships with the GAC and UN, and initiatives like ICANN Learn Days are vital examples of technical diplomacy.

Community Reflections and the Broader Imperative

The community members offered valuable insights, reinforcing the session’s core themes. Adiel Akplogan stressed the importance of separating Internet infrastructure from its usage in policy debates to avoid harmful regulatory impacts and called for stronger local engagement in defending Internet values. David Lawrence reflected on the Internet’s early spirit of collaboration and, despite growing misuse, expressed optimism about the enduring power of individual action. James (Jim) Galvin warned of two major threats: restrictive security practices and walled gardens, urging deeper collaboration between policymakers and technical experts to protect user experience and openness.

Olga Cavalli advocated for sustained dialogue among key governance bodies (ICANN, ITU, IETF), emphasizing public education and broader participation, especially from underserved regions. Jennifer Chung highlighted the diversity of multistakeholder models and called for clearer communication between technical and policy communities, along with ongoing engagement. Tijani Ben Jemaa championed the Internet’s uniqueness, neutrality, and inclusivity, warning of new risks from AI, IoT, and blockchain, and underscoring the need for stronger user data protection. Alejandro Pisanty echoed Crépin-Leblond’s call for monitoring, documenting, and analyzing threats to internet core values. In addition, he urged ICANN to remain focused and avoid mission creep, and proposed shifting from digital sovereignty to digital agency—particularly for developing nations—as a means to preserve interconnectedness while empowering local governance.

Conclusion: From Principle to Public Power

The discussion made clear that preserving the Internet’s core values is a civic imperative that transcends technical realms. Defending these principles now demands strategic coordination, public engagement, and institutional accountability. To do so, the Internet community must:

• Strengthen technical stewardship with updated tools and legal protections
• Deepen collaboration between multilateral and multistakeholder institutions
• Monitor and respond to threats to Internet values
• Engage the public through digital literacy and accessible advocacy
• Bridge gaps between technical expertise and policymaking

To conclude, core values are not nostalgic artifacts—they are the ethical bedrock of a just and inclusive digital future. In defending them, we are not only safeguarding freedom of expression, access to knowledge, and democratic participation—we are shaping the moral architecture of our digital society. It is through the deliberate preservation of these foundational principles that we ensure the Internet remains a force for human flourishing. In this light, Internet governance is far more than a regulatory concern; it is a profound reflection of who we are—and who we aspire to be—in the digital age.