As part of its 15th anniversary programme under the Swiss Chairship, the FOC convened a regional dialogue at EuroDIG in Brussels – the first European stop in a series of consultations following earlier discussions in Abidjan at Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum (DRIF). The session brought together civil society representatives, researchers, government officials, and technical experts to reflect on the future of multistakeholder digital governance and the role of the FOC at a time of significant geopolitical and technological change.
The dialogue opened with a panel discussion featuring representatives from the Swiss and Dutch governments and members of the FOC Advisory Network. Speakers reflected on the Coalition’s role as a practical multistakeholder forum, highlighting how collaboration between governments and the Advisory Network has strengthened engagement in key international digital governance processes and helped ensure that diverse stakeholder perspectives inform the Coalition’s work.
Participants were then invited to reflect on four guiding questions focused on emerging digital governance challenges, the effectiveness of multistakeholder processes, opportunities to strengthen inclusion and impact, and the future role of the FOC.
Moderator
- Isabelle Lois, Senior Policy Advisor, Federal Office of Communications of Switzerland
Panelists
- Guus van Zwoll, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands
- Elonnai Hickok, Managing Director, Global Network Initiative & Advisory Network Co-chair
- Konstantinos Komaitis, Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) & Advisory Network Member
Opportunities and Challenges: What are the key trends shaping digital governance and digital rights in the region today?
Opening the conversation, participants reflected that digital governance can no longer be understood simply as the governance of the internet, but increasingly as the governance of power. They noted that AI, cloud infrastructure, semiconductors, and digital platforms have become central to geopolitical competition, while the multistakeholder model now operates in a far more fragmented global environment, increasingly shaped by national security considerations than the one in which it was originally developed.
The key tension identified by participants was the growing pull between openness and sovereignty. Across Europe, digital sovereignty narratives are increasingly shaping policy debates, raising concerns that commitments to human rights, an open internet, and inclusive governance could be sidelined. At the same time, several participants challenged the assumption that sovereignty itself is the problem. They argued that the internet governance model of the past two decades also reflected a form of sovereignty, one largely shaped by US-based private sector norms and influence.
Instead, a key question raised during the session was not whether sovereignty exists, but what values underpin it. Participants suggested that openness, interoperability, human rights, and inclusivity should form the foundation of a rights-respecting approach to digital sovereignty.
Participants also highlighted AI and synthetic media as an urgent and specific challenge, noting that the large-scale blurring of visual truth threatens public trust and democratic discourse. The FOC’s existing work on AI ethics provides a foundation, but deeper engagement is needed on transparency, watermarking, and content verification.
Performance: How are current multistakeholder approaches working in practice – where are they effective, and where are they falling short?
There was genuine recognition of what multistakeholderism has achieved: no single actor can govern the digital ecosystem alone, and coalition-based approaches have produced real outcomes such as UNESCO AI ethics recommendation to joint statements on internet shutdowns. Participants reiterated that the FOC’s enduring value lies in its multistakeholder model, which brings governments, civil society, academia, the private sector, and technical experts together to exchange perspectives, coordinate positions, and respond to emerging digital governance challenges. This ability to bridge stakeholder communities was widely seen as one of the Coalition’s most important strengths.
But participants were equally honest about its failings, particularly of the current multistakeholder approach. The biggest risk is that multistakeholderism becomes performative, with stakeholders consulted but not meaningfully shaping outcomes. Inclusion without influence erodes trust rather than building it. Governance spaces are also becoming increasingly inaccessible, with civil society squeezed out by institutional barriers, closing civic space, and the sheer resource demands of sustained participation. The cancellation of RightsCon was a tangible recent example of the pressures at play.
There was also a recurring frustration with disconnection from real policy spaces, with conversations in rooms like this one happening in parallel to, rather than in dialogue with, the policy decisions being made next door.
Improvements: What concrete steps can be taken to make these processes more inclusive, legitimate, and impactful?
Efficiency emerged as a key theme. Participants observed that prolonged processes can strain engagement and test stakeholders’ patience, increasing pressure for alternative approaches outside multistakeholder frameworks. The challenge identified was how to make digital governance processes more agile and responsive while preserving the inclusive participation that gives them legitimacy.
The contrast between the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS+20 process was instructive: participants broadly agreed that WSIS+20 was more inclusive, enabled better coordination, and came closer to meaningful multistakeholderism. The São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines were held up as a concrete benchmark, a document that spells out what good process looks like and can be pointed to when processes fall short.
Participants also called for regularly auditing who is not in the room and then actively reaching out to them. The Dutch IGF’s experience of deliberately shifting focus to civil society engagement was offered as a simple but effective model.
Finally, there was a call to stop treating freedom and protection as opposites. A free internet requires protection, but those protections must be grounded in transparency, rule of law, and robust checks and balances. Engaging seriously with difficult narratives, rather than offering principled objections without alternatives, is essential if the multistakeholder community wants to remain relevant to governments and voters alike.
The Role of the FOC: What role should the Freedom Online Coalition and other multilateral and international organisations play in supporting multistakeholder digital governance in the region and globally?
Participants were clear about where the FOC can add distinctive value:
•Bridge rights and geopolitics. The FOC sits at the intersection of diplomacy, human rights, and practice, uniquely placed to translate rights principles into frameworks that resonate in security and foreign policy spaces.
•Champion better process. Point consistently to the São Paulo Guidelines, contrast the GDC and WSIS+20, and help guide policymakers through the complexity of the governance ecosystem.
• Enable coordination. The FOC’s role in aligning civil society, advisory network members, and member governments, particularly around major processes, is one of its most practical and valued contributions.
•Deepen AI governance engagement. Build on the FOC’s track record to address synthetic media, transparency, and verification as a matter of urgency.
Further regional consultations will take place in the Americas and Asia as part of the FOC’s 15th Anniversary process. Those interested in sharing their views on the future of digital governance and multistakeholder cooperation are invited to contribute through the online consultation form available here.