Internet governance: more fragile and necessary than ever

The 19th United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was held in Riyadh last December, setting a new record in the forum’s history with confirmed in-person attendance exceeding 11,000. During the event, local organizers introduced the Riyadh Declaration, an initiative aimed at leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve digital access, address global challenges, stimulate economic growth, and promote sustainable development, public health, and economic inclusion.

Riyadh: A Preparatory Match?
Beyond the figures and general statements, the Riyadh Forum unfolded in the context of two significant parallel developments. First, on September 22, 186 States (out of 193) adopted the Global Digital Compact (GDC), introducing a new intergovernmental governance framework designed to strengthen the powers of signatory States within the digital ecosystem. Second, this IGF was held just months before the next forum, scheduled in Norway for June 2025, which itself precedes the July 2025 meeting commemorating the 20th anniversary of the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20). This pivotal meeting will assess 20 years of IGF outcomes and establish new objectives for digital governance and development.

While the Global Digital Compact (GDC) acknowledges the IGF as the “principal multi-stakeholder platform for discussing Internet governance issues,” it also introduces new mechanisms that could challenge its role. These include the establishment of a GDC office in New York and compliance verification tools, measures designed to enhance coordination among signatory states. However, these tools risk undermining or even rendering aspects of the IGF obsolete.

When considered together, the WSIS evaluation of two decades of multi-stakeholder IGF management and the near-simultaneous adoption of the GDC—focused on enhancing multilateral cooperation, primarily among nation-states—raise critical questions about the IGF’s future. During the GDC negotiations, despite consensus being reached on the final version, certain states, notably Russia and China, made coordinated efforts to dilute references to the IGF and multi-stakeholder Internet governance in favor of advancing a more state-centric, multilateral agenda.

Sovereignty and Digital Divides
The debate over increased state control of the Internet transcends simple East-West divides. Even in 2018, at the IGF opening in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron advocated for greater state control over national networks in the name of security. Emerging nations, too, have long called for greater inclusion in global Internet governance structures.

Despite rapid digital innovation, 2.6 billion people worldwide remain disconnected from the Internet, predominantly in developing countries. This ongoing digital divide underscores the unequal distribution of digitization’s benefits and the growing risk of deepening existing inequalities. A new digital divide is also emerging, driven by the consolidation of online services and national data sovereignty initiatives. In the name of sovereignty, some states are increasingly managing the Internet on a nation-by-nation basis.

Participation and equal access for all Internet users are further endangered by practices such as Internet blackouts, online censorship, and the dissemination of propagandist or populist content intended to mislead and fragment societies. These measures threaten the open, inclusive nature of the Internet and its role as a global commons.

As these challenges grow, the centralized model and capitalization of the Internet must be critically examined. While open and decentralized technologies offer promising alternatives, they remain sidelined in the broader Internet governance debate, highlighting the urgent need for a more inclusive and forward-thinking approach to digital governance.

Now, Trump

As in other sectors, it is unrealistic to conceive of Internet governance without considering the impact that Donald Trump’s return to the White House will have. Trump’s approach to Internet governance generally focuses on reducing regulation for US technology companies, promoting freedom of expression as he defines it, and taking a hard line against foreign technology threats. In a context where the USA has already withdrawn from several international processes led by the United Nations, presented as a waste of energy and resources, it is to be feared that the USA might question the very importance of continuing debates within consultation processes such as the IGF.

And that’s without even considering the new political closeness of Silicon Valley’s oligarchs to the Trump movement, a closeness that is already having a noticeable impact on the urgent issues of information integrity and the development of AI without safeguards.

What role for civil society

At a time when digital transformation is redefining economies, education and services, the IGF agenda reflects the ambitions of the GDC, which is supposed to promote peace, fundamental rights and bridge digital divides. However, the coexistence of these two processes creates major challenges for civil society organizations, which are seeing the number of forums for discussion multiply, and possibly their ability to participate effectively everywhere diminish.

Against a backdrop of conflict, hypercentralization of online services and capitalization of knowledge, the promise of an inclusive Internet seems to be receding, leaving civil society facing growing challenges. António Guterres reiterated the importance of collaborative governance to unleash the potential of technology for the benefit of all. However, the multistakeholders model, based on shared responsibility between governments, businesses, international organizations and civil society, seems increasingly fragile in the face of threats to a free and universal Internet.

For civil society, it is no longer enough to participate in processes; it must actively mobilize to develop viable alternatives to censorship, shutdowns and knowledge grabbing. By becoming a central actor of change, it can still play a key role in building a truly inclusive Internet accessible to all.