16 Nov 2025 Observations from the Internet Governance Forum 2025

Ralf Peter Reimann

Who owns the Internet? The answer is actually clear. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which manages the global internet’s domain system, operates as a nonprofit public benefit corporation. No single country or company owns the internet. Instead, ICANN itself is governed by a multi-stakeholder model, which ensures its accountability to the global community – not to a single government, shareholders, or big tech interests.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF)¹ – founded in 2006 by mandate of the United Nations Secretary-General – is a multi-stakeholder platform that brings together governments, the private sector, civil society, technical experts, academia, NGOs, and international organizations on an equal footing to foster open and inclusive dialogue on the future of the internet. IGF serves as a platform for consensus-building and agenda-setting.

Results from the IGF can be taken up by international bodies to set norms or be fed into UN reports and processes. Its recommendations only become global standards when picked up and formalized by recognized standard-setting bodies, intergovernmental processes, or industry adoption. Since all relevant stakeholders come together at the IGF, it is also a seismograph of how the internet and the technologies associated with it are developing.

IGF 2025, held in Lillestrøm (near Oslo), Norway, from June 23 to 27, took place under the banner of “Building Digital Governance Together,” and linked its discussions to the broader WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) process.² Topics ranged from digital inclusion and cybersecurity to data governance and, unsurprisingly, artificial intelligence (AI), which has become one of the most urgent challenges for global digital policy.

At the IGF in Norway, government representatives shared the stage with executives from big tech companies and grassroots activists from the Global South. High-level forums took place in dimly lit conference halls, while more informal discussions were held on the Open Stage. The diversity of participants was visible not only in their perspectives but also in their attire – suits mingled with traditional dress, symbolizing the global scope of the forum. Delegates from Western nations engaged in conversation with voices from the Global South.

Closing, not widening, the digital gap

Among the many questions raised was how to mitigate the biases of AI systems trained predominantly on datasets drawn from Western societies. When these systems fail to reflect the cultural, linguistic, and social realities of the Global South, they risk reinforcing inequalities rather than closing gaps.

Participants also asked how AI can serve minority and Indigenous languages when the underlying data is insufficient. If communities invest time and effort in compiling language resources and releasing them under open licenses, can they retain ownership over those resources, or at least expect compensation when large tech companies extract and commercialize their work?

Another pressing concern was the risk of a new digital divide. As AI applications require immense computing power, data centres become a strategic asset – concentrated in the hands of corporations, mostly based in the Western hemisphere – countries in the Global South risk falling even further behind. Can a rights-based approach to AI ensure meaningful inclusion, protection, and empowerment of those currently excluded?

Multilateral cooperation – or America First?

These questions were not asked in a vacuum. They were debated with a strong sense of purpose and cooperation, reflecting the IGF’s role as a space for global dialogue grounded in mutual respect. The spirit of equality and shared responsibility is at the heart of internet governance itself. The IGF, under UN auspices, is governed by principles that apply equally to all member states – large and small.

Even if it is only a snapshot, it is significant how the current U.S. administration positions itself. A statement by the representative of the United States stood out. At the “High-Level Session on AI and the Future of Work”,³ Jennifer Bachus, Acting Head of the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy at the U.S. Department of State, openly asserted that American technology companies should not be subject to regulation by foreign governments. Instead, she argued, U.S. AI companies should serve as the “gold standard” for others to follow.

Her remarks included criticism of the European Union’s AI Act, framing it as an unwelcome restriction on innovation. Yet opposing any form of regulation in this domain risks subordinating fundamental rights – such as data protection, equality, and digital justice – to the commercial interests of U.S. corporations.

The message was clear: the “America First” approach that has shaped recent U.S. foreign and trade policy now extends to internet and AI governance as well:

“As policymakers, one of our biggest concerns relates to efforts to restrict the AI’s development, which, from our point of view, could mean paralyzing one of the most promising technologies that we have seen in generations. […] To truly harness the benefits that AI has to offer, we need regulatory regimes around the world that foster the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it. In terms of risk, the United States is troubled by reports that some foreign governments, including here in Europe, are using policies that could tighten the screws on U.S. top companies with international footprints, and we will not accept that, and we think it’s a terrible mistake. We need to focus now on the opportunities to unleash our most brilliant innovation and use AI to improve the well-being of our nations and their people. Excessive regulation on the AI sector could kill a transformative industry before it can really take root, and we need to make every effort to encourage pro-innovation, pro-growth, deregulatory AI policies. […] So the United States is committed to making sure that our AI is the gold standard and that we are the partner of choice for the world. […]

To conclude: what we’ve seen is too often regulations are really being designed to try to control AI rather than to unleash it, and that ultimately what we need to do is we need to look at AI as a tool of prosperity. We need to not clip the wings of the new companies; we need to embolden our innovators so that we can have all of the positive benefits that we talked about, and ultimately consumers and workers alike will be able to benefit. So, all of our efforts should be aimed at supporting the innovation that really will deliver real-world benefits.”

That message was not whispered. It was said openly and everyone could hear it.

The choice for ethics and inclusion

Was it a coincidence that a representative of the United States’ northern neighbour – a Canadian government official – explicitly called for inclusion and collaboration? During the “Workshop on a Global Alliance for AI to Bridge the Compute Divide”,⁴ Allison O’Beirne, Director of International Communication and Internet Policy at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, emphasized that AI development must include ethical considerations:

“The question really is about how we include Global South voices in conversations around AI, and I will continue to make it a policy not to tell the Global South how to do policy […], how we ensure that we have a multi-stakeholder approach, and one that thinks about including a whole range of different potential partners, to talk to large and small providers and users. We have to think about talking about both public and private spaces — the big AI institutions, the accelerators, the start-ups, the governments—all coming into the conversation together. […] I think it’s also true that if we don’t have AI tools that are designed responsibly and that respond to the needs of local communities, access is not going to be sufficient.  […] If we think of equitability of access, it has to be part of a broader conversation about equitability in the design and the use of AI systems as well.”

The question now is: how will the international internet community respond and what path will it take? Will the U.S. Administration bend internet governance to its will or will multilateralism and multistakeholderism survive?

Notes

1. Internet Governance Forum: https://www.igf2025.no.

2. World Summit on the Information: https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20 and https://dig.watch/processes/wsis20-process.

3. IGF Recording “High-Level Session on AI and the Future of Work”,  https://youtu.be/t2ChjFQTWTU?si=ZOmh9etD3dv4xo-b&t=3026.

4. IGF Recording “Workshop on a Global Alliance for AI to Bridge the Compute Divide”,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBaAvk30nnY.

Rev. Ralf Peter Reimann is President of WACC Europe. He holds a master’s degree in computer science and serves as Internet Commissioner for the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, Germany. In his work, he advocates for digital justice and explores the intersection of theology and technology, with particular interest in artificial intelligence and spirituality.