ICANN has been governing the Domain Name System(DNS) "technically" since 1998. The architecture is called Internet Governance, and it brings about many different discourses; "What does that govern?", "Who delegate its role to ICANN?"," How could the regime ensure fairness?" etc. This article will analyze on Internet Governance by applying the government approach of Foucault, and try to compare two parts, the 'core' and the 'edge' of Internet Governance for method. Whereas the 'core' of it refers the site that be governed by the formal contract directly, the 'edge' as the rest of it means informal friendly relations with ICANN. The 'core' rule was stemmed from technological community such as IAB or IETF historically. They had invented new world and its population to integrate the technical order as protocol and the semiotic order as language, that be based on new government mode. On the other hand, ".KR" domain, one of the 'edges', has been evolved into more heterogeneous system, through contest and conflict between traditional state and Internet Governance. The governed object of ".KR" domain is situated in the crossing of each other the 'protocol user', the 'language-semiotic user' and the' geographical resident'. Here the 'geographical resident' rule was weird for DNS, so that shows the internal lack of Internet Governance. It needs to move to the concept of 'Hangeul(Korean-language) user' rather than the 'geographical resident'.

The multistakeholder model of Internet governance is based on the belief that the stakeholder groups should be able to agree on the rules and principles in governing the Internet space. The global expansion of the sweeping influence of the Internet has heightened the awareness of international governments on the importance of Internet governance, but since the Internet has developed mostly through voluntary participation by various groups, the organization with the greatest ability to manage the Internet space currently is ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the U.S. based organization that manages the assignment of Internet domain names and IP addresses. Although ICANN has attempted to globalize its operation, governments in some nations are voicing dissatisfaction over the fact that the voice of the governments are not adequately represented within ICANN. This paper examines how the concept of multistakeholderissm has been used in WSIS(World Summit on Information Society), ICANN(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and the ITU(International Telecommunication Union) as an important principle in emphasizing their roles in Internet governance.

The Digital Cold War argument has become one of the heatedly discussed foreign policy agendas in the U.S. Considering the authority and power of the U.S. government and Internet companies in the cyberspace, this shift is not negligible in understanding not only the changes in the U.S. foreign and military policies but also that in the operations of the global Internet governance. Given these circumstances, I seek to explain the origins of and test the theoretical validity of the Digital Cold War argument. In particular, I analyze how the political concerns of the Chinese authorities shaped the characteristics of their control of the domestic Internet and their approach to the global Internet governance. The findings indicate that the Chinese way of the Internet governance is more concerned of their domestic political stability than overthrowing the current Internet governance regime, which many supporters of the Digital Cold War argument cited as the key evidence of such political contentions. Though the Digital Cold War argument is theoretically unwarranted, its growing popularity and the historical lessons of the Cold War have broad implications to the understanding of the impacts of the great power rivalries on the future Internet governance.

Information and Communication Technologies(ICTs) have substantially enlarged both the opportunities to realize one's human rights but have also resulted in the emergence of new challenges. ICTs are so deeply embedded and cental to almost all aspects of human activity. And ICTs are assuming an increasingly central role in all aspects of human and societal development across the world. But this is especially true of the right to privacy, which faces challenges such as profiling and data mining for public(including national security) and private purposes. ICTs access is a fundamental right for all humans in the information age. So we have need for regulation based on human rights in the digital age. And governments have a responsibility to protect individuals against violations of human rights and data protection by public authorities, but also by private entities. In addition, internet governance and multi-stakeholder principle have to be stressed on all of the internet issues because internet governance is included in the principle of democracy which have bottom-up communication and equality. So it is very importance that Internet Governance Forum is the space for a meaningful discussion on public policy issues relating to the internet.

An essential prerequisite for negotiating governance of 'internet,' a world of 'end to end' nature, is to guarantee end-users' participation. Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the outcome of World Summit on the Information Society(WSIS) Tunis Agenda, has played an important role as a representative mulitistakeholder - based governance model, which puts emphasis on wide range participation of stakeholders. Notwithstanding multistakeholderism materialized in IGF has been challenged, IGF itself is a unique place for participation to broad internet governance discourse, as all voices get hearing grounded on openness, inclusion, and transparency, quite distinct from the multilateral negotiation based model such as 'Conference on Cyberspace.' Therefore civil society which represents end-users' interest, as a crucial stakeholder of internet governance, should establish more strategic and coordinated approach to IGF itself as well as reformation discourse of internet governance. In this regard, civil society groups of Korea, began with hosting workshops and Open Forum at the 2013 IGF in Bali, Indonesia. This report also describes the detailed activities of Korean civil society group in 2013 IGF.

This article consists of 3 parts. Part I is multi stakeholder approach on Internet governance system. Part II is analysis of the Korean Internet governance system. In this part, I explain relevant laws in Korea, including Korean Internet Address Resources Act. Part III is my suggestion on Korean Internet governance system using a multi stakeholder approach. First of all, the keyword of the Internet governance system is decision making process: that is, consensus based versus top-down approach. Then who are major players in Internet governance in national level? Government, or Private sectors such as business and civil society. Korean legal system for Internet governance shows a top-down decision making process. Major players are the government (that is, Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning) and KISA affiliated with the government. Other players include Internet Address Policy Committee, Korea Internet Governance Alliance, and NGOs. The key statute for Internet governance in Korea is Internet Address Resources Act of 2004. Articles 3 and 5 require the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning to take a proactive role in Internet governance. The government shall consult with the Internet Address Policy Deliberation Committee for Internet governance. Yet this Committee is established under the control of the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning. All members of this Committee are also commissioned or nominated by the Chairman of the Ministry. Meanwhile, there are also non-official organizations, including Sub-committee on Address & Infrastructure of Korea Internet Governance Alliance. I suggest to reform decision making process of Korean Internet governance system based on BOTTOM-UP process for CONSENSUS BASED DECISION. My suggested system includes the following: (1) The government hands over a major role in Internet governance to INDEPENDENT Internet policy organization. And the government participates in such organization as ONE of the players. (2) Nomination of this committee member must be bottom-up process for a genuine multi-stakeholder model including civil society, commercial organization, end-users and experts. (3) The government should establish plan for supporting the private sector's international activity on the long-term basis.

The revelations made possible by Edward Snowden, a contractor of the US intelligence service NSA, are a sobering reminder that the Internet is not an 'anonymous' means of communication. In fact, the Internet has never been conceived with anonymity in mind. If anything, the Internet and networking technologies provide far more detailed and traceable information about where, when, with whom we communicate. The content of the communication can also be made available to third parties who obtain encryption keys or have the means of exploiting vulnerabilities (either by design or by oversight) of encryption software. Irrebuttable evidence has emerged that the US and the UK intelligence services have had an indiscriminate access to the meta-data of communications and, in some cases, the content of the communications in the name of security and protection of the public. The conventional means of judicial scrutiny of such an access turned out to be ineffectual. The most alarming attitude of the public and some politicians is "If you have nothing to hide, you need not be concerned." Where individuals have nothing to hide, intelligence services have no business in the first place to have a peek. If the public espouses the groundless assumption that State organs are benevolent "( they will have a look only to find out whether there are probable grounds to form a reasonable suspicion"), then the achievements of several hundred years of struggle to have the constitutional guarantees against invasion into privacy and liberty will quickly evaporate. This is an opportune moment to review some of the basic points about the protection of privacy and freedom of individuals. First, if one should hold a view that security can override liberty, one is most likely to lose both liberty and security. Civilized societies have developed the rule of law as the least damaging and most practicable arrangement to strike a balance between security and liberty. Whether we wish to give up the rule of law in the name of security requires a thorough scrutiny and an informed decision of the body politic. It is not a decision which can secretly be made in a closed chamber. Second, protection of privacy has always depended on human being's compliance with the rules rather than technical guarantees or robustness of technical means. It is easy to tear apart an envelope and have a look inside. It was, and still is, the normative prohibition (and our compliance) which provided us with protection of privacy. The same applies to electronic communications. With sufficient resources, surreptitiously undermining technical means of protecting privacy (such as encryption) is certainly 'possible'. But that does not mean that it is permissible. Third, although the Internet is clearly not an 'anonymous' means of communication, many users have a 'false sense of anonymity' which make them more vulnerable to prying eyes. More effort should be made to educate the general public about the technical nature of the Internet and encourage them to adopt user behaviour which is mindful of the possibilities of unwanted surveillance. Fourth, the US and the UK intelligence services have demonstrated that an international cooperation is possible and worked well in running the mechanism of massive surveillance and infiltration into data which travels globally. If that is possible, it should equally be possible to put in place a global mechanism of judicial scrutiny over a global attempt at surveillance.

Having taken actions for 2 years, Net Neutrality User Forum has realized Net Neutrality as a international issue of future Internet. Although the Internet design principle (layering, module, IP protocol) has enabled the end users to communicate each other without any additional permission or interference, in the reality, the end users have been tracked by both companies and governments, and the communications could be blocked, or restricted by surveillance devices, such as DPI, which could change the whole Internet design principle. Given that the Internet is a large community of the equal end-users based on end-to-end principle, it's essentially the issues of the whole Internet users, rather than of one nation, and we should focus on developing the transparent and participatory ways in Internet governance. The current Internet governance discussion have taken placed in ICANN, IGF, etc., in bottom-up processes of multistakeholderism to reflect the views of end-users. However there have been the controversial issues in Internet Governance, such as the position of government as a stakeholder, global north-south problem, transparency, so we have faced the debate on the new or evolving frame of Internet governance.