The Freedom Online Coalition Advisory Network (FOC-AN) is an independent multistakeholder group composed of civil society, academia, technical community, and private sector representatives who provide advice on aims, objectives and activities of the Freedom Online Coalition, as well as support its mission of advancing Internet freedom and human rights online. The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) is an intergovernmental coalition of 41 Member States committed to ensuring that the Internet and digital technologies reinforce human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
The advice is developed independently by the FOC-AN cohort, and is not a statement on behalf of FOC Member States.
Purpose
This document serves to inform FOC Members, and their respective delegations on the cancellation of RightsCon and the importance of protecting multistakeholderism, civic space, and human rights.
Introduction
The FOC Advisory Network is deeply troubled by the abrupt and unprecedented cancellation of RightsCon. We express solidarity with participants, organizers, and the many communities whose work and engagement were disrupted. We also appreciate the swift response by the Government of Switzerland in its capacity as Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Chair 2026, condemning the cancellation as fundamentally at odds with the FOC’s values.
Impact
The socioeconomic toll on civil society organisations, local businesses, and Zambia’s tourism and business sector was severe as a result of this abrupt decision by the Government of Zambia. Months of work by civil society, companies, and governments collapsed within days. Further, the cancellation starkly exposed how powerful governments, including China’s, are willing to exert pressure over human rights spaces, multistakeholder participation, and digital governance processes.
While the Government of Zambia faced significant geopolitical pressure, the decision nonetheless undermines stakeholder trust in the Zambian government’s ability to serve as a reliable, transparent, and rights-respecting host for international multistakeholder convenings. The lack of transparency surrounding the cancellation deepens those concerns.
Beyond its immediate fallout, the cancellation of RightsCon reflects broader, alarming global trends: the closing of civic space; the normalization of digital and transnational repression; mounting pressure on open, multistakeholder spaces and participation; increasing constraints on free expression, association, and assembly; and a growing departure from human rights as the foundational framework for digital governance.
This moment also underscores the geopolitical realities increasingly shaping domestic and international digital spaces, technologies, and policy frameworks. The rise of more state-centric approaches risks sidelining civil society, technical experts, and affected communities from decisions that directly shape the future of the digital environment.
The cancellation also reflects deeper structural inequalities and dependencies, in which Global South countries hosting these events bear disproportionate risk and political exposure to asymmetric economic and diplomatic pressure related not only hosting but to equitable participation and leadership in digital governance broadly.
While geopolitical pressure is not new and has, unfortunately, resulted in cancellations before, this marks the first known instance of a major global human rights and digital governance conference of this scale reportedly being canceled following such direct and brazen foreign interference. From the targeted exclusion of civil society voices within UN agencies to the increasing use of procedural hurdles to bar independent observers, the abrupt cancellation reflects a broader trend of pushing non-government actors in support of human rights out of key governance spaces.
Recommendations
The cancellation of RightsCon has highlighted that it is more important than ever that:
- Civic space is protected and defended: Democratic governments, particularly those in the FOC, should demonstrate leadership by reaffirming that open, inclusive, rights-based dialogue is essential to resilient, legitimate, and inclusive multistakeholder digital governance. The FOC has a critical role to play in demonstrating what this commitment looks like in practice.
- Civil society participation is protected: Governments and international institutions must actively support and protect civil society engagement in upcoming internet governance and digital policy processes, including the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance (UNGD), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and national and regional IGF’s. This includes meaningfully responding to and amplifying longstanding civil society calls for inclusive processes, such as those articulated by the Global Digital Rights Coalition and others during the WSIS+20 process.
- Global South governments are supported, not isolated: Global North governments should actively support governments in the Global South that seek to participate in global processes, and host independent, multistakeholder convenings, including by helping them navigate geopolitical pressure. Governments in the Global South must retain the autonomy and political space to host and lead these conversations without fear of retaliation or coercion.
- The São Paulo Principles are implemented: As committed to in the 2026 FOC Program of Action, governments should purposefully work towards incorporating and implementing the NETmundial+10 São Paulo principles in national, regional, and international digital governance processes.
- Independent and multistakeholder governance is strengthened: Governments and institutions must resist efforts to consolidate digital governance within exclusively state-centric frameworks that marginalize civil society, academia, the technical community, journalists, and affected populations. Human rights-respecting digital governance requires independent oversight, meaningful participation, and accountability.
- Human Rights due diligence becomes standard practice: Governments hosting major digital governance and human rights events should conduct human rights impact assessments before and during such events, covering legal frameworks, political risks, and threats to at-risk participants, including LGBTQ+ communities, journalists, and human rights defenders.
RightsCon’s cancellation must not become a precedent. Allowing geopolitical pressure and authoritarian influence to dictate whether independent, multistakeholder human rights convenings can take place risks setting a dangerous global standard with consequences far beyond a single event. The response from democratic governments, multilateral institutions, and the broader digital rights community at this moment will help determine whether open civic space in digital governance can still be defended.
Resources
Several AN members have issued statements and articles regarding the cancellation of RightsCon. These can be found below:
- RightsCon 2026 in Zambia is Cancelled. Now What? Konstantinos Komaitis.
- CDT CEO on the Cancellation of RightsCon. Centre for Democracy and Technology.
- GNI Condemns the Postponement of RightsCon. Global Network Initiative.
- Zambia: Cancellation of RightsCon is a blow to freedom of expression. Article19.
- The RightsCon Cancellation is not just a political but structural failure. Tech Global Institute.
- A statement to our community about why RightsCon 2026 will not take place in Zambia. AccessNow.