Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
When you're tested on technology policy, you're not just being asked to name organizations—you're being asked to demonstrate that you understand how the internet is actually governed and why that governance model matters. The internet operates without a single central authority, which makes it fundamentally different from traditional infrastructure like roads or telephone networks. Instead, a complex ecosystem of organizations handles different pieces: technical standards, resource allocation, policy coordination, and advocacy. Understanding who does what reveals the tensions between technical efficiency, national sovereignty, and democratic participation that show up repeatedly in policy debates.
These organizations also illustrate key governance concepts you'll encounter throughout the course: multi-stakeholder models versus traditional intergovernmental approaches, the role of technical communities in shaping policy, and how legitimacy gets established in global governance without formal treaties. Don't just memorize acronyms—know what type of governance function each organization performs and how they interact with each other.
These organizations define how the internet and web actually work at a technical level. They create the protocols and standards that allow different systems to communicate, operating largely through voluntary consensus rather than legal mandates.
Compare: IETF vs. W3C—both create technical standards through open processes, but IETF handles internet infrastructure (how data moves) while W3C handles web technologies (how content displays). FRQs may ask you to distinguish between internet and web governance.
These organizations manage the internet's critical resources—the unique identifiers that allow devices and websites to find each other. Without coordinated allocation, the internet would fragment into incompatible networks.
Compare: ICANN vs. IANA—IANA performs the technical operations (actually updating databases), while ICANN provides policy oversight and stakeholder coordination. This separation matters for understanding accountability in internet governance.
These organizations represent the traditional multilateral approach to governance, where nation-states are the primary actors. Their involvement in internet governance creates ongoing tension with the multi-stakeholder model.
Compare: ITU vs. ICANN—both claim roles in internet governance, but ITU uses one-country-one-vote while ICANN uses multi-stakeholder consensus. This reflects a core policy debate about whether internet governance should follow traditional international relations models.
These organizations don't set standards or allocate resources directly—instead, they shape the conversation about how the internet should be governed and ensure diverse voices participate in that conversation.
Compare: IGF vs. ISOC—IGF provides a neutral forum for stakeholders with different interests, while ISOC actively advocates for specific values (openness, accessibility). Both advance multi-stakeholder governance but through different mechanisms.
| Governance Function | Key Organizations |
|---|---|
| Internet protocol standards | IETF, IAB |
| Web standards | W3C |
| Domain name governance | ICANN, IANA |
| IP address allocation | IANA, RIRs |
| Intergovernmental coordination | ITU, WSIS |
| Multi-stakeholder dialogue | IGF |
| Advocacy and education | ISOC |
| Technical oversight | IAB |
Which two organizations both develop technical standards but focus on different layers of internet/web technology? What distinguishes their scope?
If an FRQ asks about the tension between multi-stakeholder and intergovernmental governance models, which organizations would you use as contrasting examples and why?
IANA operates under ICANN's oversight—what specific functions does IANA perform, and why does this organizational relationship matter for internet stability?
Compare the roles of IGF and ISOC in internet governance. How do their approaches to influencing policy differ?
A policy question asks about managing the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 addressing. Which organizations are most directly involved, and what governance challenges does this transition illustrate?