【正文】 enship in China, an analysis of the digital divide must be characterised by Internet penetration, costs of access, access to ICT, and literacy levels. ICT usage is only a part of the WSIS vision, and therefore measuring the digital divide only tells a part of the story in terms of evaluating the state of netizenship. Internet governance is seen as a crucial part of the IS infrastructure. Therefore, it is important to establish key benchmarks for effective and equitable internet governance. The following section seeks to identify the key indicators of effective governance as identified by the WSIS. International approaches to internet governance As the Internet is essential in creating chances to promote a free flow of information and ideas globally (Souter, 2010), its governance should constitute a key issue for the IS development (WSIS, Tunis Agenda, Internet Governance, 29). The WSIS also suggests that Internet governance should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with full participation of all stakeholders (Tunis Agenda, Internet Governance, 29). Mann et al. (2001) also agree with the WSIS that a multilateral and multiissue approach needs to be taken in Internet governance (Mann, 2001). WSIS emphasised this by making its official documentation available in each of its Summit Languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Additionally, Drake (2010) mented that both the Geneva and Tunis phases of WSIS approached Internet issues in a holistic manner. WSIS gradually recognised that the key concern about internet governance is that it should not only focus on purely technological problems, but also needs to pay more attention to other issues related to Internetrelated technology, for a broader perspective of the IS.The UNESCO document Towards Inclusive Knowledge Societies states that ‘Internet governance should respect human rights and build upon the principles of openness, including freedom of expression, diversity, and interoperability’ (Souter, 2010). Therefore, the focus of regulation is on human rights and intellectual property rights. Technology is being updated all the time。 therefore, governance should not follow the changing environment but implement real action.The WSIS process provides an opportunity for global discussion on the aims of Internet governance (WSIS Website, 2005). To promote this dialogue the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established to ‘convene a new forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue’ (WSIS Implementation Mechanism, .). Malcolm (2008) recognised that the Tunis Agenda is an essential constitutional document for the IGF, and that the structure and processes of WSIS are also extremely relevant to the IGF’s effort because it creates the process criteria for international Internet governance: ‘multilateral, transparent, democratic, and with the full involvement of different stakeholders’ (WSIS, Geneva Declaration of Principles, 48).Key issues emerging in internet governance have been identified as follows: Internet public policies on issues such as privacy and data protection, control of harmful and illegal content, internet security, intellectual property rights, cybercrime and many others (CIPESA Org, 2005). The difficulty for the WSIS arises from its need to respect national sovereignty and promote pluralism whilst also establishing a global approach to regulating the Internet. ‘The global nature of the Internet challenges concepts of traditional national boundaries and makes application of national jurisdiction difficult’(CIPESA Org, 2005).Another problem in Internet governance relates to whether governments should focus their Internet public policies on controlling ‘the senders and receivers of information who use the network, or on the network infrastructure itself as a channel for information’ (CIPESA Org, 2005). The Internet is an extremely decentralized network that ‘a(chǎn)llows every puter on the network talk to every other puter directly and worldwide’ (CIPESA Org, 2005). This endtoend approach is considered the most neutral way of Internet governance, which has allowed the Internet to develop into a successful worldwide network.Through an indepth analysis of the WSIS documentation produced from the 2003 and 2005 Summits and a review of literature generated in relation to technology and governance in Information Society, Section A has explained key concepts: namely, netizenship, ICT and their important roles in Information Society. Key issues faced by the WSIS, such as internet governance and ICTs for development, as well as international approaches to internet governance, have also been analysed. As an essential element of the infrastructure of the Information Society, ICT and Internet Governance work as effective tools to promote internet security and stability, and enhance democracy, good governance, and the rule of law at national and international levels. However, the system of Internet governance in China has made the Chinese network act as a control mechanism, which has allowed its owner, the Chinese government, to deal with the behaviour of Internet users themselves (Zhao, 2004). The Google case, which took place in March 2010, also pushed the issue of Internet Governance to the media limelight. Google launched in China in January 2006, plying with the Chinese government’s demands that the search engine ‘censor input queries and offer filtered results’ (Cheng, 2010). Some sensitive keywords showed no results and some produced filtered results, displayed with the notice: ‘According local laws and regulations, some search results have not displayed.’ Likewise, Facebook, YouTube, Blogger, Picasaweb, and Docs have been all blocked or partly blocked since 2009, which has led to the global public to embark on a huge, ongoing discussion about Chinese netizenship. Given the state of freedom of expression in China, and how the WSIS might have provided an opportunity for politically a