Internet and Technogeopolitics: Governance Patterns and Processes

Introduction
The term "Internet" is used as a paradigm for flexibility, creativity, and freedom for development and evolution, freedom of expression, freedom of information, and free flow. This paradigm is sometimes referred to as the "open and free Internet" and refers to a broad range of protocols, services, and applications, as well as a set of interconnected networks that share a common transport protocol and pursue various economic, political, and cultural goals. This phenomenon owes much of its growth and survival to private developers, not only challenging governments with the need to share governance with the private sector and other stakeholders, such as technical associations and international organizations, but also acting as an emerging force that weakens traditional political boundaries. Under the concept of techno-geopolitics, it challenges the security and authority of states. If we define techno-geopolitics as the application of information, knowledge, and technology in altering the power hierarchy and the political behavior between states and tech companies, then it must be accepted that the geopolitics of information has confronted governments not only with new competitors, such as multinational corporations, but also transformed the political battleground from traditional geopolitical concepts like physical location, size, climate, topography, demographics, and natural resources to new concepts centered on knowledge and technology. These include government access to information, wealth, and communications, such as hacking and cyberattacks on other countries, economic capabilities like chip production, liquidity in financial markets, and investments in artificial intelligence.
In this context, what is particularly important is how governments face new technologies in shaping Internet governance models, considering two key factors in this area: the ambiguity of international accountability and the uncertainty in how technology and Internet governance will evolve. Ambiguity of accountability refers to the dominance and misuse of the United States and its central role in domain name service provision (ICANN), which uses this technology as a strategic political tool in cyber warfare against countries opposing the U.S. The second issue, uncertainty, primarily refers to the lack of a unified governance model and the transition from the traditional governance model centered on the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This transition creates a challenge of convergence and the balancing of interests among new stakeholders in governance, including markets, networks, and hierarchies, under multi-stakeholder governance, which is reflected in new legislation in the field. Governance is not defined by unilateral and imposed laws of national legislators or international bodies, but rather by a set of values, norms, cultures, soft laws, and hard laws, where sovereignty is seen as a public matter involving all stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society, and technical associations. Moreover, this uncertainty refers to the emergence of new economic markets, which have so far led to the formation of political-economic alliances such as the Five Eyes alliance, with the U.S. at its core, in response to China's technological development. This has resulted in an unpredictable global landscape in both the economic and political spheres. The present study aims to examine the Internet governance models, identifying their similarities and differences, in order to identify the most effective model in the era of technological conflict. In this regard, it addresses the following questions: first, what governance models has Internet governance followed over the past two decades? what similarities and differences exist between these models? how are the interests of stakeholders addressed in these models, and with what methods? Lastly, how is the relationship between techno-geopolitics and governance represented in the framework of governance models.
 
Materials and Methods
The conceptual framework of this research is based on two key concepts: Internet governance with a focus on identifying stakeholders and the scope of government authority, and techno-geopolitics with an emphasis on technological conflict. In this regard, the study traces the evolution of Internet governance through three key phases: the formation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which was an attempt to organize an internet community similar to the United Nations; the transition from the dominance of ICANN (formerly AIANA) in 2013 and the introduction of the four core principles of the Internet (ROAM), which include access to the internet as a human right, freedom of information as a public right, universal access without restriction, and finally, the multi-stakeholder governance model as the model for Internet governance; and the shift to the technological conflict arena between China and the U.S. and their allies following the sanctions and expulsion of Huawei from the United States in 2018. These three phases represent the central transformation of the internet and technology. Taking into account the concept of techno-geopolitics and Internet governance, this study employs Philip Mayering's qualitative analysis method within an inductive approach, structured in three stages: data collection and organization, coding and categorization to explain the various models of Internet governance.
 
Results and Discussion
The central question of this research was that what evolutionary path has Internet governance taken, and what are the similarities and differences between the various governance models in this field? Additionally, the subsidiary question addressed the relationship between techno-geopolitics and Internet governance. In response, it can be stated that there are two main approaches to Internet governance: the military-security approach and the economic approach. The nine governance models in this field, developed after the formation of ICANN and the Information Society community, have emerged under the economic approach. These models, while addressing two central issues of the Internet and technology—namely, the ambiguity in the accountability of domestic and international institutions and the use of the Internet as a political tool under techno-geopolitics, as well as the uncertainty surrounding technology development and its positioning in domestic and foreign economies based on government interests—have evolved. In its most basic form, the anarchistic model, which focuses on a cultural-philosophical approach to the Internet, emphasizes decentralization, openness, equality, and anonymity. The outcome of this governance model is the formation of cryptocurrencies and investments in VPNs to preserve the freedom of information without regard to government interests. The two central components of Internet governance—ambiguity and uncertainty—are evident here.
The hierarchical governance model, focusing on the ambiguity of Internet security challenges such as cyberattacks and the lack of accountability of the ICANN, places the interests of Internet stakeholders—from users to the private sector—under the security interests of governments. In this context, two opposing governance models, global and national, have emerged. The result has been the formation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and an effort to find a middle ground with a focus on consensus-based, democratic, and ultimately multi-stakeholder governance. In the consensual and democratic governance model, the focus is on recognizing the rights of stakeholders and responding to the needs of the second and third generations of the Internet, i.e., the formation of social networks and cryptocurrencies, through two democratic models: consultative and participatory democracy. In the democratic model, key components such as power balance, veto rights, and decision-making independence are explored, yet the main challenge remains the guarantee of stakeholders' rights at both domestic and international levels and the development of an applicable model aligned with technological advancements, such as cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence.The solution lies in the rise of multi-stakeholder governance to address the interests of stakeholders, especially the private sector and technical associations, to promote technological development. This model introduces a new governance paradigm based on four key elements: sustainability, networking, international community-building, and the freedom of information. These elements are aligned with UNESCO's four principles of the Internet. While this model addresses the two challenges of ambiguity and uncertainty in technological development, it also moves towards harmonizing the standards for Internet services across countries. Furthermore, it creates international pressure on countries that restrict the Internet, facilitating broader access for people. By establishing cyber-interpol and creating a platform for international accountability, this model aims to respond to challenges such as cyberattacks.
Although this model faces execution challenges, it represents a significant step in aligning technological standards with the four principles of freedom of information, universal access, human rights, and multi-stakeholder governance, both domestically and internationally. It suggests that by accepting the risks associated with the Internet and technologies such as hacking and cyber-sabotage, countries can foster economic competition and technological development while reducing cyber risks through the participation of internal and external stakeholders.
 
Conclusion
The conclusion of this research, which uses the framework of Internet governance and techno-geopolitics, based on the two concepts of ambiguity (including how international institutions respond to risks such as data theft and hacking) and uncertainty (based on how technology develops and the formation of new markets and countries' share in these markets), is that the transformations in the second and third generations of the Internet, along with the technological conflicts emerging under the concept of techno-geopolitics, compel governments to adopt a multi-stakeholder governance model. Therefore, the relationship between Internet governance and techno-geopolitics can be observed in multi-stakeholder governance at three levels:

Domestic level: This includes considering veto rights for stakeholders and ensuring government accountability towards stakeholders' rights in policymaking in the areas of Internet and technology. 2. Regional level: This includes the formation of alliances such as the six ASEAN countries, and at 3. the transnational and global level: cooperation between China, private companies, and EU governments to control technology pricing and reduce the influence of the Five Eyes alliance. Although the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conferences aim to shape a global multi-stakeholder governance model, the technological conflict reduces this model to the domestic and regional levels.

The innovation of this research lies in its reliance on primary sources within this field to explain this transformation, namely techno-geopolitics and Internet governance, and to examine the evolution of Internet governance models, including anarchistic, hierarchical (bureaucratic, oligarchic, meritocratic), hybrid, hierarchical-anarchistic, democratic, consensual, and finally, multi-stakeholder governance. This progression had not been addressed in previous research. This study, by comparing Internet governance and technological conflict, paves the way for further research on techno-geopolitics, the new equations in international relations, and the exploration of Internet governance models in light of emerging technologies. Based on these findings, the following recommendations are made:

Examine the evolution of Internet governance in Iran.
Assess the country's capabilities in techno-geopolitics to conduct a diagnosis for dealing with cyberattacks and emerging economic sectors such as artificial intelligence and digital currency.
Compare and analyze Internet governance models in China, the United States, Russia, and the European Union as reference models for Internet governance.
Evaluate and assess the feasibility of multi-stakeholder governance in Iran.
Analyze and position Iran in the context of the global technological equations to balance political power.