Introduction

Digital technologies, particularly the Internet, have become central forces shaping human societies today and in the foreseeable future. The way the Internet evolves, and the nature of the social, cultural, and economic interactions it enables, play a decisive role in structuring the environment within which social phenomena develop, including gender relations in all their dimensions.

Although the nature of the Internet and the trajectory of its development over the past decades make it resistant to direct control or management, sustained efforts have nonetheless emerged to establish a shared framework for guiding its governance. These efforts seek to develop a minimum set of rules capable of balancing the interests of the various actors involved.

This framework is now known as Internet Governance. In its current form, internet governance operates through ongoing negotiation spaces that bring together key stakeholders, including governments, technology companies, international organizations, and civil society groups. These actors convene regularly to deliberate on what they identify as the most pressing internet-related issues and to develop consensus-based approaches for addressing them.

While the existing internet governance framework does not exercise direct authority over how the internet is managed, it exerts significant influence. This influence stems from the participation of the most powerful actors, who often adhere to agreed-upon outcomes to preserve their mutual interests.

At the same time, women continue to face multiple and intersecting forms of gender-based discrimination across societies, albeit with varying intensity and expression. The relationship between the Internet and gender discrimination is complex and deeply contradictory. On one hand, the Internet expands opportunities for expression and communication and can amplify the visibility of underrepresented groups. In this sense, it holds real potential as a tool for advancing gender equality and justice. On the other hand, the Internet frequently mirrors existing power hierarchies and structural inequalities within societies. It can reproduce or even intensify them and may generate forms of discriminatory expression that are more widespread and harmful than those found offline.

Maximizing the Internet’s potential to promote gender equality, while mitigating its harmful impacts, requires comprehensive and coherent policy approaches. Such approaches, however, remain insufficiently developed.

Internet governance is particularly significant because it is the primary global framework for pursuing coordinated and consistent responses to internet-related challenges. Agreements reached through internet governance processes tend to be broad in scope, covering a broad range of widely used online activities. They also aim for coherence by advancing common principles and norms across jurisdictions and sectors.

As such, internet governance provides a crucial avenue for addressing a fundamental question: how can cyberspace be transformed into a safer environment for women, one that actively supports their pursuit of gender justice and progressively dismantles structural forms of gender discrimination?

Against this backdrop, this paper examines the complex relationship between internet governance and gender justice. It begins by outlining the importance of fair gender representation within internet governance spaces. It then analyzes the current state of such representation, highlighting the persistent gender gap within a governance landscape that remains largely institutional and structurally exclusionary. The paper further explores how the multi-stakeholder model, currently used to manage internet governance processes, shapes the level and quality of gender representation.

Finally, the paper poses a central question: Is it possible to achieve more equitable gender representation within internet governance? It addresses this question by examining the roles and positions of three key actors within this ecosystem: governments, technology companies, and international organizations, as well as civil society actors.

The Necessity of Fair Gender Representation in Internet Governance

Fair gender representation within internet governance spaces is a fundamental democratic imperative. It is no different from ensuring the representation of any social group whose members have distinct needs and aspirations in decision-making arenas that hold authority over their realization. From a democratic perspective, any political system rests on the right of diverse groups to defend their interests through negotiation mechanisms that, as far as possible, enable agreements to account for all interests.

Despite the clarity of this principle, its practical application to gender representation continues to encounter recurring challenges across democratic systems. The core difficulty lies in acknowledging that gender functions as a structural axis of differentiation that generates distinct experiences and, consequently, distinct interests requiring representation. While political practice has partially addressed this challenge, it tends to re-emerge whenever the demand for fair gender representation arises in new governance arenas, such as internet governance processes.

This section examines the importance of ensuring fair gender representation from several angles. First, it highlights the broader value of incorporating the perspectives and approaches that women can contribute to internet governance discussions, including those not directly related to gender issues. It then underscores the urgent need to meaningfully integrate gender issues into governance debates, given their profound implications for the future of the Internet and for societies at large. Finally, the section outlines a set of priority issues that are central to advancing gender justice within the framework of internet governance.

Women’s Representation and Reorienting Internet Governance Debates

The need for fair gender representation in internet governance is not limited to safeguarding women’s interests regarding how the Internet functions and how they engage with it. As demonstrated across various fields, equitable gender representation enriches any decision-making environment by introducing greater diversity in approaches, reflecting the different ways women may understand social phenomena and envision responses to them.

Given the current structure of internet governance, there is a particular need for the perspectives and methods women can bring to discussions on internet-related issues. These perspectives can help redirect attention toward individuals and their rights, counterbalancing the prevailing emphasis on the interests of large institutions, such as governments and major technology companies.

The experiences of global feminist movements over recent decades illustrate the transformative potential of feminist approaches in shaping social development. Core issues in internet governance debates, such as cybersecurity and online hate speech, stand to benefit significantly from being examined through a lens that places lived experiences, including those of women, at the center of analysis.

Stronger representation of women’s voices within internet governance processes can also help address a broader deficit: the marginalization of internet users themselves in technical and policy discussions. It opens space for alternative perspectives that frame internet-related challenges through the experiences of communities that have historically faced exclusion, including ethnic and religious minorities.

Women, in particular, often recognize the interconnected nature of social injustices affecting underrepresented groups and how these injustices intersect with phenomena such as hate speech and restrictions on democratic participation.

The Need to Integrate Gender Issues into Internet Governance

Recognizing the central importance of the internet is sufficient to understand the significance of any process capable of influencing its direction and future, whether that influence is direct or indirect. In this context, internet governance processes occupy a position between substantive authority and normative influence. They are not the primary actors determining the future of the Internet, yet they exert sufficient influence to make their role consequential and impossible to disregard.

Given the scope and limits of this influence, the integration of gender issues into internet governance processes becomes critically important. The gains achieved by women’s rights movements over nearly two centuries of struggle are currently experiencing visible setbacks in various regions of the world.

Cyberspace has exposed the fragility of these gains and their susceptibility to reversal. In some instances, it has even contributed to this regression, contrary to earlier expectations that the Internet would serve as a tool for advancing rights and equality.

Today, cyberspace has become a central arena in the struggle for gender justice. Its defining characteristics, openness combined with insufficient safeguards, have created expanded space for voices and practices that undermine women’s rights. Numerous studies have documented the risks posed by various online phenomena to efforts to advance gender justice.

At the same time, the Internet retains the potential to support these efforts when appropriate conditions are in place. It therefore embodies both real opportunities and serious challenges for gender justice. Any mechanism capable of influencing the direction this balance takes, including internet governance tools, carries considerable weight.

The importance of gender issues within internet governance does not stem from abstract or theoretical concerns. It arises from the lived realities of hundreds of millions of women for whom the Internet is an essential part of daily life and social participation.

High levels of gender-based violence, harassment, discrimination, and rights violations mark Women’s experiences online. The internet facilitates communication and broad access between individuals. In societies where discrimination and violence against women remain widespread, this ease of access creates expanded opportunities for the perpetration of gender-based violence.

For this reason, providing structured spaces within internet governance processes to address manifestations of gender injustice online is essential. This demands concrete measures to reduce these harms and transform the digital sphere into a safer environment for women.

Priority Internet Governance Issues for Advancing Gender Justice

Addressing the gender gap in internet access remains the single most influential factor in determining whether the Internet can be leveraged to advance gender justice. While surface-level observations may suggest that this gap has been narrowing at an accelerating pace in recent years, global data on the proportion of women among internet users reveal that progress in closing the gap has, in fact, slowed.

The core challenge lies in the fact that most women who remain excluded from internet access belong to marginalized communities and socio-economic groups in less developed and poorer countries. These women are among the most marginalized populations globally, which in turn contributes to the marginalization of their needs and priorities. Moreover, women’s access to the internet is often framed as a secondary concern that can be deferred in favor of unmet basic needs such as physical security, food, and shelter.

Although expanding universal internet access is among the least contested issues in internet governance, prevailing approaches rarely treat access for marginalized groups as a genuine priority. Instead, these approaches are typically shaped by cost-benefit calculations. When it comes to enabling internet access for women who are currently excluded, the primary obstacle cited is the high cost relative to the limited expected financial return. This logic is shared by both governments and internet service providers.

The high cost is largely because most women without internet access live in areas with weak infrastructure and limited basic services, such as rural and remote regions or impoverished urban neighborhoods. Extending telecommunications networks to these areas requires significant investment.

At the same time, the relatively low average income of many of these women, combined with the lack of financial autonomy for many, means they are not viewed as a target group capable of generating sufficient economic return from expanded access.

Placing the issue of closing the gender digital divide seriously on the internet governance agenda requires, first and foremost, recognizing internet access as a human right. It also requires framing the elimination of this gap as a universal human priority that transcends national boundaries and the narrow economic interests of technology companies. In practical terms, this orientation could be translated into coordinated international efforts to support internet access for women currently excluded, regardless of cost considerations or projected financial return.

The second internet governance issue that is central to advancing gender justice is ensuring that the Internet becomes a safe space for women. This issue encompasses a broad range of widely documented phenomena, including hate speech, online gender-based violence, and institutional and societal discrimination against women internet users, whether in the exercise of their right to freedom of expression or in the protection of their right to privacy.

Approaches to addressing these challenges vary significantly across countries and societies. These differences are reflected clearly in national legislation and, even more starkly, in the enforcement of such laws where they exist. Meanwhile, most major technology companies responsible for managing widely used social media platforms and search engines continue to approach the protection of women users in a selective and limited manner.

In this context, internet governance processes should serve as the mechanism through which global efforts to transform the Internet into a safe environment for women can be made more coherent, effective, and non-discriminatory. In theory, internet governance provides a cross-border framework accepted by diverse actors as a space for negotiating the rules that shape the management of the network. Within this framework, it is possible to work toward the development of unified standards capable of guiding national legislation and corporate practices related to the protection of women online.

Furthermore, if sufficient political will exists among participating actors, these standards could be developed into a binding international agreement that guarantees women’s rights online, similar in structure to international human rights law and its various instruments.

The Current State of Gender Representation and Gender Issues in Internet Governance

The gender gap within internet governance reflects a broader gender imbalance across several related sectors. These include the ICT industry, government institutions in various countries, independent technical bodies involved in the operation of the Internet, and civil society organizations, excluding those primarily focused on gender issues and women’s rights. Because these same actors constitute the core participants in internet governance processes, the underrepresentation of women within these sectors is directly mirrored in governance forums and decision-making spaces.

At the user level, that is, among internet users worldwide, the gender gap also remains significant. Approximately 62% of men globally use the Internet, compared to about 57% of women. According to available studies, this disparity translates into limited female participation in internet governance gatherings. In major forums, most notably the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), women account for no more than 30% of total participants.

In addition, social and cultural bias extends into academic circles concerned with internet governance. Studies examining citation and referencing patterns in relevant academic publications have shown that work authored by men receives higher citation rates and is more frequently included in academic curricula than work authored by women, regardless of relative expertise or scholarly merit. This pattern further reinforces structural inequality within knowledge production related to internet governance.

The Multi-Stakeholder Model and Its Impact on Gender Representation and Gender Issues

It is important to note that the multi-stakeholder model was introduced as an alternative to representative democracy for managing conflicts and divergences among competing group interests. Its early adoption reflected the practical difficulty of applying traditional representative democratic mechanisms in governance spaces where the usual institutional conditions were absent.

Although it has been presented as an effective substitute for democratic representation, the multi-stakeholder model operates through fundamentally different mechanisms. As a result, it often produces outcomes that diverge from established understandings of democratic governance in public affairs. One of the most significant differences lies in the absence of clear rules for group representation, a challenge that is particularly evident in internet governance, where identifying which groups should be represented is itself a complex and contested issue.

In its current form, the model rests on a practical condition: the ability to formulate a shared will that can be implemented without facing effective opposition capable of obstructing it. This requires assembling the largest possible number of actors who hold direct or indirect influence over the Internet’s functioning, thereby ensuring that the agreements reached are enforceable in practice and cannot easily be undermined by external actors.

Consequently, the core of negotiation processes within internet governance is shaped primarily by influential governments and major technology companies, alongside some independent international institutions that perform key technical functions in managing the network. While the model formally allows participation by other actors, such as less influential governments and civil society organizations, their actual impact on substantive agreements remains limited, and in some cases, negligible.

The institutional nature of the multi-stakeholder model adds another layer to the gender representation gap in internet governance. Regardless of the number of women present, their ability to meaningfully advance gender-related concerns is often constrained. Participation is structured around institutional representation: actors engage as representatives of governments, private sector entities, or civil society organizations.

Individuals, therefore, articulate the positions and priorities of the institutions they represent rather than their personal perspectives. In many cases, gender issues do not rank prominently within these institutional agendas. As a result, numerical participation rates do not necessarily reflect substantive gender representation. Many women participate in their capacity as institutional delegates rather than as advocates for women’s rights or as representatives of women internet users.

At the same time, the multi-stakeholder model faces a structural limitation that affects its ability to advance gender justice. Part of the appeal and acceptance of this model lies in its avoidance of governance frameworks grounded in clearly defined and binding legal obligations, such as those associated with the United Nations system, international law, or formal treaties and conventions.

Progress in advancing gender justice is among the areas where many actors have historically hesitated to commit to binding rules. This hesitation is evident in the history of international efforts to adopt treaties on women’s rights, which have often faced significant obstacles to adoption and ratification, as well as weak implementation by states.

Within this context, a governance model built primarily on non-binding consensus naturally tends to avoid contentious issues that are difficult to resolve through voluntary agreement. It frequently results in the issuance of general statements or declaratory positions without corresponding enforceable commitments. This dynamic is clearly visible in many of the public positions adopted within internet governance forums regarding gender-related issues.

The Place of Gender Issues in Internet Governance Discussions

Gender issues have been included on the agendas of internet governance conferences and forums since their early stages. However, sessions dedicated to these issues have remained limited in number, typically accounting for 5% to 10% of the total sessions at any given meeting or conference. These sessions have also received limited attention from the primary participating actors, thereby diminishing their effectiveness and weakening their capacity to produce binding or actionable outcomes.

This pattern is reflected in the continued inclusion of issues such as online violence against women and the gender gap in internet access on the agendas of most internet governance meetings over many years, without corresponding measurable progress in addressing them.

In many cases, the presence of gender issues on these agendas appears largely symbolic, driven by sustained advocacy efforts from civil society organizations, particularly feminist groups seeking to ensure their inclusion. While these efforts are significant, they have not yet carried sufficient institutional weight to translate repeated agenda-setting into concrete policy and practice changes.

The limited attention given to gender issues within internet governance forums can be attributed to several factors. Chief among them is the fact that these issues are not regarded as priorities by the most influential participating actors. In other words, these actors do not perceive work on gender issues as generating direct returns, nor do they view neglecting them as posing risks that require mitigation.

For example, government priorities are typically centered on national security concerns and related threats, as well as considerations of international influence and the strategic use of the Internet to enhance or preserve that influence. By contrast, technology companies tend to prioritize market expansion and profit growth, objectives often associated with minimizing regulatory interventions that could increase operational costs or reduce revenue.

Within this context, participating actors frequently frame gender issues as potential sources of additional obligations they are reluctant to assume, whether in the form of new government legislation or regulatory requirements imposed on technology companies.

Some actors also avoid engaging with these issues due to their cultural sensitivity for other participants, particularly more conservative governments, out of concern that raising them might jeopardize broader shared interests. Overall, the positions of the most influential actors in internet governance range from cautious reluctance to open avoidance, or limited and conditional engagement with gender-related concerns.

Is More Equitable Gender Representation in Internet Governance Possible?

Reforming the Multi-Stakeholder Model

The multi-stakeholder model suffers from structural shortcomings that limit its ability to support fair gender representation in internet governance processes. It also constrains the meaningful integration of gender issues into governance agendas and priorities. These limitations stem from two broader weaknesses inherent in the model itself.

The first is the marginalization of internet users within governance processes. The second relates to the limited effectiveness of these processes due to their reliance on non-binding consensus, primarily shaped by the mutual interests of the most influential actors.

Two main approaches have emerged to address these shortcomings. The first calls for strengthening the engagement and influence of internet users in governance processes by developing a more democratic framework that ensures effective and substantive representation, rather than symbolic participation. The second approach focuses on increasing the effectiveness of internet governance by establishing clear and binding legal obligations for participating actors regarding the rules and decisions agreed upon.

In practice, this approach would involve replacing the multi-stakeholder model with a framework closer to that of international organizations operating under the United Nations system, such as the International Telecommunication Union or the International Labour Organization.

However, each of these alternatives addresses only one dimension of the broader problem. Expanding the representation of internet users within a system built on non-binding agreements does not necessarily guarantee real-world impact or ensure that their interests are effectively protected. Conversely, placing internet governance under the authority of one or more international organizations could significantly restrict the representation of internet users. It may also exclude other actors that exercise practical and influential control over the operation of the network, thereby undermining the core objective of such a reform.

The option that comes closest to reconciling the dual goals of meaningful user representation and effective governance is the development of an international legal framework to regulate internet governance processes. Such a framework would define clear rules for the representation of different stakeholders, including internet users, and establish binding legal obligations for participating actors. This framework would preserve the general structure of the multi-stakeholder model but situate it within a regulated, legally grounded system.

Such an approach could facilitate more equitable gender representation through established mechanisms, including quota systems similar to those adopted in parliamentary bodies and other institutions in several countries. It would also create space for women participating in internet governance processes to ensure that gender issues receive attention commensurate with their importance, acting as representatives of women internet users’ interests, rather than solely as delegates of governmental or private institutions.

It is important to acknowledge that, under current conditions, this alternative remains an ambitious and long-term vision rather than an immediately attainable reform. Nevertheless, it is feasible in principle if sufficient political and social pressure is mobilized. It can therefore be viewed as a strategic objective toward which civil society organizations, particularly feminist movements, may work over the medium and long term.

The Responsibilities of Governments

In the absence of a foreseeable alternative to the multi-stakeholder model for managing internet governance processes, efforts to advance fair gender representation within these processes, and to strengthen the inclusion of gender issues on their agendas, remain closely tied to the ability of relevant actors to influence the most powerful stakeholders involved. The strategies available for exerting such influence differ depending on whether the target is governments or technology companies.

The majority of constitutions currently in force around the world affirm states’ commitments, and by extension, the obligations of their various authorities, to uphold equality and gender justice. This constitutional commitment provides an important entry point for holding governments accountable and urging them to use their position within internet governance processes to promote fair gender representation and ensure that gender issues are treated as governance priorities. Such pressure may take multiple forms, including legal action, public advocacy, and strategic campaigning.

In addition, several countries have already enacted legislation related to internet governance, while others are in the process of developing similar laws. The public debates accompanying the drafting of these laws, as well as advocacy directed at the institutions responsible for their formulation and adoption—whether within executive bodies, legislative assemblies, or other state institutions—create important opportunities to integrate gender justice and women’s rights into emerging legal frameworks.

The nature of political systems varies across countries, resulting in differing levels of opportunity to influence legislation and public policy. Nevertheless, avenues for advocacy exist in diverse political contexts, whether in democratic systems or more authoritarian settings.

More broadly, the prospects for compelling governments to fulfill their responsibilities toward advancing gender justice, within internet governance and beyond, remain closely linked to prevailing social and cultural norms. Governments operating in societies where conservative or discriminatory attitudes toward women dominate are generally less inclined to respond to demands for gender justice unless such demands are reinforced by binding international obligations.

For this reason, the development of binding international agreements that establish general standards for the rights of internet users, including the right to equality and gender justice, may represent one of the most effective pathways for ensuring that governments meet their responsibilities in both legislation and practice related to internet governance.

Regulating the Obligations of Technology Companies

Ensuring that technology companies uphold their responsibilities toward advancing gender justice is more complex than holding governments accountable in this area. Private-sector companies generally lack clear legal obligations defining their responsibilities to society and the rights of individuals. Nevertheless, avenues for exerting pressure on technology companies do exist, primarily through two groups. The first consists of advertisers, who represent the main source of revenue for most digital platforms. The second, though typically less influential, includes the users of these platforms themselves.

The nature of the relationship between technology companies, advertisers, and users creates a margin for pressure that can drive progress on gender justice issues, particularly in relation to protecting women from online gender-based violence and hate speech.

In practice, however, such pressure tends to materialize only in limited circumstances, often following exceptional violations, either severe incidents that attract significant attention or widespread abuses that provoke public outcry. In such cases, advertisers may reconsider their association with a company, or large numbers of users may seriously contemplate moving to alternative platforms.

Available experience suggests that technology companies have been more responsive to this type of pressure in cases involving racial or sectarian hate speech and the serious violence that has followed, such as the debates surrounding Meta’s role in facilitating violence in Myanmar.

By contrast, incidents of online gender-based violence and hate speech targeting women—despite their scale and severity—do not typically generate the same level of public outrage that compels effective corporate accountability. This disparity is partly attributable to the widespread social normalization of gender-based violence and misogynistic hate speech, as well as persistent tendencies to blame victims for the abuse they endure.

As a result, holding technology companies accountable for their responsibilities in advancing gender justice remains contingent on societies’ capacity to generate sustained and effective pressure. As long as societal tolerance of gender-based violence and hate speech against women persists, the leverage available to influence corporate behavior will remain limited.

In this context, binding national legislation, applied by states to companies registered or operating within their jurisdictions, remains the most effective tool for regulating technology companies’ obligations. This binding, in turn, brings the discussion back to the broader structural issue of overlapping responsibilities among the international community, national governments, and technology companies, and the absence of clearly defined boundaries between them.

The Role of Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society

The role of international organizations, both intergovernmental bodies and civil society organizations, in advancing gender justice within internet governance processes cannot be separated from the broader analysis presented in the preceding sections of this paper.

To begin with, it is important to acknowledge that international institutions, alongside civil society organizations, particularly those tasked with monitoring the implementation of international human rights treaties and conventions, publicly express a clear commitment to advancing gender justice. This commitment is reflected in their official discourse, published materials, and, to some extent, in their institutional practices.

Given that a number of these organizations actively participate in internet governance processes and forums, they use this space to advocate for fair gender representation and to raise gender-related concerns within relevant conferences and meetings. However, the tangible impact of these efforts on actual outcomes remains limited.

In this respect, international organizations and civil society actors within the internet governance ecosystem play a role similar to that of feminist organizations and progressive movements in various societies. Their influence is often more visible at the level of discourse, shaping narratives and highlighting issues, than at the level of concrete policy shifts or final outcomes.

This dynamic can be understood as an implicit division of roles among the different actors engaged in internet governance under the multi-stakeholder model. The model allows each actor to operate in alignment with its core responsibilities and interests without necessarily producing substantive changes in the agreements ultimately reached.

Governments tend to adhere to positions they perceive as consistent with the prevailing attitudes of their domestic constituencies. Technology companies prioritize decisions that safeguard shareholder interests.

Meanwhile, international organizations and civil society groups continue to advocate for the issues within their mandates. As a result, each actor’s commitment is reflected in public statements and formal positions during open discussions. Still, this commitment does not translate proportionately into the substance of final decisions or into meaningful change in practice.

Conclusion

The analysis presented in this paper demonstrates that gender representation and the inclusion of gender issues within internet governance remain limited. In its current form, the internet governance landscape does not provide sufficient grounds for optimism that it can serve as a supportive arena for achieving meaningful and sustainable progress toward gender justice.

One of the central findings is that the multi-stakeholder model, through which internet governance processes are currently managed, contributes, by virtue of its structure and operational logic, to the continued marginalization of women and gender-related concerns within this space.

More broadly, prevailing social attitudes within different societies remain the most influential factor in determining the extent to which women and their issues are meaningfully present in internet governance processes. This reality stands in contrast to early expectations surrounding the emergence of the internet, which envisioned it as a force capable of driving societies toward greater openness and progress.

However, the limitations of the current situation do not render change impossible. The discussion in this paper indicates that any tangible improvement in the position of women and gender issues within internet governance will depend on gradual, multi-level interventions. On one level, this requires strengthening pressure on governments to use their roles within internet governance processes in ways that align with their constitutional and international commitments to equality and gender justice, whether by supporting more balanced gender representation or by advocating for the prioritization of gender issues within governance agendas.

On another level, it necessitates regulating the obligations of technology companies through binding national and regional legislation that strengthens protections for women online and addresses online gender-based violence and hate speech, particularly in light of the limited effectiveness of voluntary corporate measures.

At the level of governance processes themselves, there is a clear need to further develop the existing multi-stakeholder framework by introducing clearer regulatory mechanisms to better represent internet users, especially women, and to reduce the largely symbolic nature of their participation.

Within this context, the cumulative and sustained role of civil society organizations, particularly feminist groups, remains essential. Their efforts are critical to building sustained pressure to translate rhetorical commitments into measurable practice, and to gradually advancing an approach to internet governance that is more firmly grounded in human rights principles and gender justice.