“India recognizes that all stakeholders are key and multi-stakeholderism is perhaps the only way to keep the system integrated, growing and expanding.” These words mark the beginning of an all-new game plan for India on the global internet governance stage. They were uttered by the Indian Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad, in a video message at the opening ceremony of the 53rd ICANN conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina (full audio here).

Prior to ICANN 53, India was generally grouped with China and Russia as part of the ‘multilateral’ club – those favouring a governmental model of internet governance. The overlap between countries in that club and countries which have restricted access to or use of the internet is considerable. This was problematic for a country which prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, and would certainly value its democratic credentials more than either of the other two countries.

Actively acknowledging that the government is not the only significant stakeholder, acknowledging that civil society, the technical community, academia and business also have a role to play is a big step forward for India, which has previously been unclear about its exact position on global internet governance. The wording of Prasad’s statement is also significant: he said that there should still be “accountability to governments” where appropriate, conceding that all stakeholders are not created equal. They don’t have to be – forming nuanced policies that find the right roles for the right actors will be critical for India going forward.

Typical responses to the minister’s speech view this shift as a 180-degree turn from previous government policies, though it seems that the lack of a coherent policy was the main failure of the previous government. Prasad’s predecessor as IT Minister also mentioned multistakeholderism in a positive light on an international platform, but this was not greeted as signifying the ‘Indian view’. There were two main reasons for this: the absence of a unified Indian stance and minimal high-level support at home. This contrasts starkly with the contemporary situation. Reports suggest that consultations prior to ICANN 53 involved several ministries, including the oft-opposed Ministry of External Affairs (which has championed the UN system) and Department of Information Technology. This lends a degree of legitimacy to the declaration which previous statements did not have. The second reason is that the aforementioned consultations were spearheaded by the Prime Minister’s Office – and there is no higher level of support than the PMO. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is widely viewed as a tech-savvy politician, and his personal involvement in projects like Digital India and other e-governance initiatives also lends weight to any further decisions India makes about internet governance.

Current ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé was among those who praised India’s changed stance. Responding to Prasad’s speech, Chehadé said “Today, with India joining this group of countries that openly support the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, we increase our ranks significantly,” calling the decision “significant”. Chehadé has previously indicated that he is supportive of India taking on a larger role in the internet governance ecosystem, given the large number of current and potential internet users it boasts. On a visit to the country in March of this year, he said India would “shape the future of the internet”. He also remarked upon the “new energy” driving India’s internet governance positions since he began his tenure at ICANN.

Chehadé is also considered one of the masterminds of securing ICANN’s independence as an international organisation, and has done much to facilitate the upcoming IANA transition. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the US government, currently oversees the IANA functions, and it is not yet clear what model of control will emerge when they relinquish that position. However, with regard to the future, the NTIA itself has said that it seeks to “support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance”.

Even if the IANA transition deadline of September 2015 is not met, the run-up to it has captivated global internet debates. India embracing the multistakeholder approach means that it will be able to add its voice to those debates with a clear understanding of how the country intends to proceed.

India has taken an important step on the path towards becoming an internet governance leader, which is a vision the current government is clearly on board with. While there appears to finally be a centralisation of policy and planning with regard to India’s international position, India’s commitment will be tested in the future, not least by the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa) group. India’s recent decision has placed it with Brazil and South Africa and against Russia and China, which means that a unified BRICS position will be difficult to achieve. If the BRICS countries manage to align their goals, the group could act as a powerful representation of the developing world and its interests – hugely significant as the vast majority of future internet users will come from these countries. India also has to look inward and deal with its domestic internet challenges, which include protecting digital rights like freedom of expression, managing net neutrality and securing access for all its citizens. With the tide of internet governance swinging towards the multistakeholder approach in any case, Indian internet users can rest easy in the knowledge that on this issue at least, their government has made the right decision.

The author is a Junior Fellow at ORF.

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.