- Internet governance relies on legacy centralised bodies that may now present structural vulnerabilities, according to experts
- Advocates argue for a shift toward decentralised control of core internet identifiers, but questions remain about legal and coordination challenges
“True decentralisation is not a buzzword but a necessary evolution. It means shifting control of core identifiers from private or semi-private institutions to models where networks and users have real, enforceable ownership and governance rights. “
——Lu Heng, CEO at Cloud Innovation, CEO at LARUS Ltd, Founder of LARUS Foundation.
Commentary warns internet governance remains overly centralised and vulnerable to capture
On 17 September 2025, commentator Lu Heng published a detailed analysis arguing that the current governance framework of the global Internet remains overly centralised and vulnerable to capture. The piece, titled Decentralising the Internet’s Governance, highlights concerns about how foundational internet identifiers—such as numbers and names—are governed through legacy structures known as Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).
According to Lu Heng, these institutions were created in the early days of the network when technical cooperation was informal, but they now represent points of unilateral control that can be susceptible to opaque decision-making and political pressure.
Lu Heng describes true decentralisation as more than a catchphrase; it involves shifting control of core resources to systems where networks and users exercise enforceable governance rights rather than relying on a small set of private or semi-private organisations.
He argues that decentralisation should not discard coordination or stability, but rather clearly separate administrative functions from enforcement powers, embed robust legal frameworks when needed, and build structures that can accommodate the global diversity of internet stakeholders.
The commentary comes amid broader debates about how to balance global interoperability with sovereignty and multistakeholder involvement in internet governance—topics that have been prominent in international forums such as the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum and organisations like the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
Also read: Portability of internet number resources: Why ICP-2 revision must guarantee mobility
Also read: IP address market under scrutiny: Critics call purchases a ‘scam’ and hint at trillion-dollar telecom potential
Why decentralising internet governance could reshape control of core online infrastructure
Internet governance determines who controls the technical foundations of the network and how policy decisions affecting billions of users are made. At present, five RIRs oversee the allocation of critical internet resources such as IP addresses, a model that Heng and others argue may be outdated in an era of rapid technological change and increasing geopolitical tensions.
Proponents of decentralisation point to technological trends such as blockchain and distributed ledger systems that already shift other internet layers—like applications and identity—toward more distributed models. These technologies suggest possible alternatives where control is not vested in a few central bodies.
However, the push for change raises practical questions. Decentralising governance of essential identifiers involves complex legal, technical and operational challenges, and there is no consensus on how to balance decentralisation with the need for global stability and interoperability. Current multistakeholder models involving governments, the private sector, and civil society have struggled with inclusivity and equitable representation, especially for developing economies.
Moreover, any shift away from established institutions like the RIRs could disrupt existing coordination mechanisms, potentially affecting everything from domain name resolution to internet security protocols. Critics might ask whether decentralised alternatives are mature enough to manage these critical functions without introducing inconsistency or fragmentation.
In essence, the debate about decentralising governance reflects broader tensions in how the internet should evolve—whether toward greater community empowerment and distributed control, or through stabilised global frameworks that balance participation with operational reliability.
