​Since the end of World War II, the world has never witnessed as many armed conflicts as it does today. News headlines seem increasingly unpredictable, defying logic and consistency. In this context of geopolitical uncertainty and eroding trust in reliable global partnerships, Europe finds itself drawn to the idea of digital sovereignty, a strategic attempt to reclaim control over its digital destiny (1). 

Indeed, the European Union can and should exercise sovereign authority over digital infrastructure: deciding which technologies are allowed on the Single Market, whether facial recognition by AI is permissible on European soil, and where users' data is stored. Yet this ambition gives rise to a paradox: The open, global, inclusive, and interoperable internet we seek is only possible if we renounce certain elements of control. Technologically speaking, the internet is a network of networks - by design, it transcends national boundaries. This fundamental architecture means that internet governance cannot be confined within national frameworks. It must be global by nature and involve collaboration across all stakeholder groups.

​​​

​The World Summit on the Information Society and its long Shadow​​​​​

 

To understand the global Internet governance ecosystem today, one must look back to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Convened under the auspices of the United Nations, WSIS unfolded in two phases - in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) - with the

goal of fostering a "people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society"(2). At WSIS, governments, private actors, the technical community (3), academia, and civil society debated who should govern this fast-growing digital space. ​​

One of the key outcomes was the recognition that no single stakeholder group should dominate Internet governance. Instead, multi-stakeholder cooperation became a guiding principle - although the exact meaning of this continues to be hotly debated.

Another tangible product of WSIS was the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), established by the United Nations General Assembly in 2006 as an open platform for dialogue on Internet-related public policy issues. Now, nearly two decades later, the world has changed dramatically. The Internet has evolved into a critical infrastructure for nearly all aspects of life. At the same time, new concerns like the rise of AI and algorithmic governance, geopolitical fragmentation of the Internet (so-called splinternet), and cybersecurity risks have emerged.​​​

 

The Future of the Internet

​

 

Against this backdrop, 2025 marked the 20th anniversary, and the start of the WSIS+20 Review Process, coordinated by the UN, aimed to assess the progress made since 2005 and to chart the path forward for global digital cooperation. This is also a test of the multistakeholder model and the question of who should govern the internet.​

The desire to protect something we care deeply about often leads us to guard it more tightly, to exert greater control. But the multistakeholder approach requires something different: engaging with perspectives we may deeply disagree with, respecting them as legitimate voices in a shared process. It requires trust - trust that our arguments will resonate with others and that we can build consensus around a vision for the internet that reflects shared values.

However, this model is not the only one on offer. Some countries are already demonstrating that a largely self-contained, state-controlled internet is technically and politically feasible. Such a system enables governments to closely monitor citizens’ online activities, censor content, and suppress criticism. Meanwhile, calls for more centralized and multilateral governance are growing increasingly prominent.

Digital sovereignty, then, must not be understood as isolation but as responsibility. It means deeper engagement in international forums, a willingness to understand why other actors pursue different governance models, and a readiness to defend one's values through dialogue, not disengagement. Europe’s pursuit of digital sovereignty should be rooted in openness, not closure; in cooperation, not unilateralism. If the multistakeholder model is to remain viable, it must be actively upheld through trust, persistence, and the courage to participate in difficult conversations. The WSIS+20 process offers a crucial opportunity to reaffirm the global, inclusive nature of the internet.

​

References: 

(1) World Economic Forum. 2025. What is Digital Sovereignty and how are countries approaching it? Online: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/euro pe-digital-sovereignty/.

(2) UNESCO. World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Online: https://www.unesco.org/en/wsis.

(3) In the context of internet governance, the term refers to organizations and individuals upholding critical infrastructure, not people with a technical background.