EuroDIG 2026 concluded with calls for stronger multistakeholder cooperation, greater digital inclusion, and wider support for multilingual internet access during the conference’s closing plenary hosted by EURid.
The final session combined celebratory reflections on the two-day event with broader policy messages on universal acceptance, digital accessibility, and cooperation across governments, the technical community, civil society, academia, and the private sector.
Opening the session, moderator Florence Ranson thanked participants for remaining until the end of what she described as a ‘fulfilling’ conference and said workshop outcomes and feedback would be shared in the coming weeks.
Co-moderator Sandra expressed surprise at the size of the audience at the wrap-up session and thanked the focal points, speakers, rapporteurs, youth participants, institutional partners, and sponsors for their contributions to the programme.
Regina, co-moderating the session, described EuroDIG 2026 as a demonstration of multistakeholder cooperation, noting that EURid hosts EuroDIG only once every ten years. She also highlighted the event’s coincidence with the 20th anniversary of the .eu domain.
Both moderators thanked the European Commission’s DG CONNECT team for supporting the event venue and programme development.
The closing session then shifted toward one of the conference’s recurring themes, the universal acceptance of multilingual domain names and email addresses.
Sarmad Hussain of ICANN said the internet must function in all languages and scripts, pointing to progress made since the Tunis Agenda of 2005 enabled development of internationalised domain names and multilingual email addresses. However, Hussain warned that many websites, platforms, and online services still fail to support non-Latin scripts and local-language identifiers despite existing technical standards.
According to Hussain, this creates a ‘universal acceptance’ challenge affecting accessibility and inclusion online. He called on developers, governments, academia, civil society, and private-sector organisations to update systems and applications so they accept all valid domain names and email addresses regardless of language or script. He also promoted the upcoming Universal Acceptance Day initiative aimed at raising awareness about the issue.
UNESCO representative Dr Xianhong Hu used the closing session to reinforce broader themes of multilingualism, inclusion, and digital cooperation. Speaking on behalf of Ambassador Salih Abduh, Hu highlighted UNESCO’s partnership with EuroDIG and linked the conference to the 25th anniversary of UNESCO’s Information for All Programme.
She noted that discussions during EuroDIG 2026 covered internet governance, universal acceptance, gender equality, youth participation, and intergenerational dialogue, reflecting UNESCO’s priorities around inclusive knowledge societies.
Hu also called for renewed cooperation among European governments, the technical community, academia, civil society, and businesses to bridge digital divides and support multilingual digital futures in the AI era.
The session concluded with a toast to partnership, an invitation for a group photo, and final thanks to participants and organisers.
The closing plenary reflected several broader themes that ran throughout EuroDIG 2026, including multistakeholder governance, digital inclusion, and concerns about unequal access to digital infrastructure and online participation.
The emphasis on universal acceptance also connected technical internet governance questions with wider debates on linguistic diversity and accessibility, highlighting ongoing gaps between existing technical capabilities and real-world adoption across online platforms and services.
EuroDIG 2026 took place on 26 and 27 May at the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission in Brussels under the theme ‘European Voices for the Future of the Internet – Celebrating 20 Years of .eu and the Beginning of a New Internet Governance Era’.
Digital Watch Observatory followed EuroDIG 2026 through a dedicated event page, featuring session information and reporting from Brussels.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
European national and regional Internet Governance Forum initiatives (NRIs) discussed how they can help implement the outcomes of the WSIS+20 review during a EuroDIG 2026 session focused on collaboration, local engagement, and multistakeholder governance.
The discussion examined whether NRIs should remain primarily bottom-up discussion spaces or take on a more direct role in supporting the implementation of global digital governance commitments at the national and regional levels.
Sabina Heber, moderating the workshop, described NRIs as increasingly important spaces for multistakeholder discussion, cooperation, and policy exchange. She said implementation of WSIS goals often depends on national and regional action, making NRIs key links between global frameworks and local realities.
A central debate emerged around the future role of NRIs after the WSIS+20 review.
Jordan Carter of the UK IGF argued that national and regional IGFs have traditionally not operated as ‘WSIS implementation agencies.’ Instead, he said, they usually function as bottom-up forums that relay local discussions into regional and global internet governance processes.
Matthias Kettermann of the Austrian IGF took a more proactive position, arguing that NRIs should engage more directly with WSIS action lines in the post-review environment and translate them into national priorities.
He pointed to Austria’s approach of organising youth-focused panels and rotating the Austrian IGF across different regions to involve local stakeholders, including schools, museums, and innovation departments, in discussions on AI governance and digital transformation.
Declan McDermott of IGF Ireland focused on how NRIs measure and scale impact. He proposed three approaches: ‘scaling out’ to reach more stakeholders, ‘scaling up’ to influence policymakers, and ‘scaling deeply’ to change how internet governance is understood within society.
McDermott argued that NRIs need clearer theories of change and more concrete definitions of success, warning against ‘collaborating for the sake of collaboration.’
Several speakers emphasised that NRIs are particularly valuable because they operate close to national realities and can identify emerging digital policy challenges early.
Dijana Milutinovic from Serbia’s national IGF said NRIs are well-positioned to monitor developments at the country level, raise issues for public debate, and improve the likelihood that concerns will eventually influence regulation or legislation. She added that exchange between NRIs is especially important when countries face similar regional challenges and can learn from one another’s experiences.
The workshop also explored how NRIs produce messages and policy outputs.
Carter explained that the UK IGF publishes annual key messages developed through a multistakeholder steering committee, while Serbia drafts messages during sessions and submits reports to ministries and the global IGF Secretariat.
Austria, by contrast, does not prioritise formal outcome documents and instead focuses more on convening stakeholders and creating connections that later generate initiatives indirectly.
Another major theme was collaboration and experimentation.
Concettina Cassa from Italy’s Agency for Digital Italy proposed the creation of voluntary ‘NRI labs’ as spaces for peer learning and practical cooperation between NRIs. She described them as non-binding multistakeholder spaces where participants could exchange operational experience and experiment with implementation approaches on issues such as trustworthy AI in public administration or child protection online.
According to Cassa, the challenge twenty years after WSIS is no longer only agreeing on principles, but translating them into practical cooperation and implementation.
Participants also discussed new tools for handling controversial policy debates. A representative from the Netherlands presented ‘argument maps,’ structured visual overviews that organise competing positions on contentious issues such as age verification or encryption without forcing participants to agree on a single recommendation.
Business participation emerged as another recurring challenge. Speakers said companies are often difficult to attract unless discussions address concrete operational problems or provide visible practical value.
Kettermann said Austrian organisers worked directly with the Chamber of Commerce to identify topics businesses cared about, while Serbian representatives noted that companies engage more actively when discussions focus on how regulation affects their operations and business models.
Toward the end of the session, participants stressed that NRIs’ ability to influence policymaking depends heavily on resources, institutional legitimacy, and public awareness.
Milutinovic warned that many NRIs rely largely on volunteers, limiting their capacity to produce reports, participate in coalitions, or contribute consistently to policy consultations.
The workshop concluded with several agreed-upon messages, including recognition that NRIs are effective multistakeholder forums for supporting WSIS+20 goals through awareness-raising, stakeholder engagement, peer learning, and practical experimentation.
Participants also endorsed continued dialogue through EuroDIG and supported new forms of collaboration, including NRI labs and other experimental approaches designed to strengthen cooperation while preserving the bottom-up nature of internet governance processes.
EuroDIG 2026 took place on 26 and 27 May at the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission in Brussels under the theme ‘European Voices for the Future of the Internet – Celebrating 20 Years of .eu and the Beginning of a New Internet Governance Era’.
Digital Watch Observatory followed EuroDIG 2026 through a dedicated event page, featuring session information and reporting from Brussels.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
European policymakers, technical experts, and civil society representatives debated how Europe can reduce its dependence on foreign digital technologies without fragmenting the open internet during a EuroDIG 2026 session on digital sovereignty.
The discussion reflected growing concern in Europe that heavy reliance on non-European cloud providers, AI systems, platforms, semiconductors, and digital infrastructure has become a strategic vulnerability affecting not only the economy but also democratic resilience and political self-determination.
Fabrizia Benini, head of unit for the Future Internet at the European Commission’s DG CONNECT, argued that Europe’s dependencies across the digital stack are the result of years of choosing to buy technologies rather than build them domestically. According to Benini, digital sovereignty should not mean isolation or digital nationalism, but ensuring that citizens, businesses, and governments retain meaningful choice and control over digital technologies, data, and infrastructure.
She stressed that Europe remains committed to an open, global, secure, and interoperable internet while seeking to manage strategic dependencies through partnerships with trusted countries and stronger European technological capacity.
Benini also pointed to upcoming EU initiatives, including a Sovereign Tech Package covering semiconductors, cloud and AI infrastructure, and open-source technologies. She described Europe’s regulatory framework, including the GDPR, DSA, DMA, and AI Act, as an important long-term foundation, while acknowledging that regulation alone cannot deliver sovereignty.
Several participants echoed that concern, arguing that Europe has become highly effective at regulating digital systems while still depending heavily on technologies built elsewhere.
João Gomes from YouthDIG said younger Europeans increasingly want opportunities not only to regulate technology, but also to build competitive European alternatives. He warned that Europe risks becoming ‘the world’s most sophisticated regulator’ without developing sufficient industrial and technological capacity of its own.
Open source, interoperability, and trusted infrastructure emerged repeatedly as key pillars of the European approach. Frank Kruger from Germany’s Federal Ministry for Digital Transformation and Government Modernization argued that maintaining critical open-source infrastructure is essential for Europe’s resilience, security, and innovation capacity.
Peter Janssen, general manager of EURid, linked digital sovereignty to practical user control over online identities and infrastructure. Using the .eu domain as an example, he said European users should be able to retain control over their digital presence, providers, and data through open standards and interoperable systems.
At the same time, several speakers warned against allowing digital sovereignty to become a justification for internet fragmentation or excessive state control. Elonnai Hickok, Managing Director at Global Network Initiative, stressed that Europe should continue supporting open standards, interoperability, portability, and multistakeholder governance while avoiding surveillance-heavy or protectionist approaches.
The terminology itself also generated debate. Some participants preferred terms such as ‘strategic autonomy’ or ‘digital autonomy’, arguing that ‘sovereignty’ can sound nation-centric or exclusionary. Others defended the term as necessary to describe Europe’s ability to preserve democratic self-determination in a more contested geopolitical environment.
Despite differences over terminology and emphasis, the session ended with broad agreement that Europe needs a long-term strategy combining regulation, industrial policy, open standards, digital skills, infrastructure investment, and support for European alternatives.
Participants also agreed that Europe’s approach should aim for what the session’s final draft messages described as ‘resilient openness and strategic autonomy’ rather than isolation or protectionism.
EuroDIG 2026 took place on 26 and 27 May at the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission in Brussels under the theme ‘European Voices for the Future of the Internet – Celebrating 20 Years of .eu and the Beginning of a New Internet Governance Era’.
Digital Watch Observatory followed EuroDIG 2026 through a dedicated event page, featuring session information and reporting from Brussels.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Participants at EuroDIG 2026 discussed how to implement the outcomes of the WSIS+20 review while avoiding fragmentation across the growing number of global digital governance processes.
Florence Ranson opened the discussion by framing the session around implementation, coordination, and practical delivery of WSIS+20 commitments across the broader UN digital governance landscape.
Guilherme Canela of UNESCO argued that WSIS and newer UN digital initiatives should be viewed as complementary rather than competing processes. According to Canela, the GDC provides broad political goals and principles, while WSIS offers implementation mechanisms and multistakeholder structures capable of translating commitments into practice.
He also highlighted existing WSIS tools, including action lines, reporting mechanisms, and stocktaking databases, as practical instruments for accountability and monitoring.
Several speakers warned that the rapid expansion of digital governance forums risks creating duplication, confusion, and inefficient use of resources.
Thibaut Kleiner of the European Commission said the digital governance environment has become increasingly crowded as discussions now extend beyond internet governance into AI, cybersecurity, and data governance. He argued that implementation should build on existing WSIS structures and IGF mechanisms rather than introducing additional governance layers. Kleiner also warned that fragmented governance structures could allow the best-resourced actors to dominate discussions while reducing meaningful multistakeholder participation.
Government representatives echoed concerns about institutional proliferation. Ana Neves of the Portuguese government said the growing number of digital governance processes creates practical confusion for governments and public administrations attempting to follow multiple parallel initiatives simultaneously.
Jaroslaw Ponder of the ITU’s Europe office said the WSIS+20 outcome creates an opportunity for stronger coordination across the UN system while preserving multistakeholder cooperation.
The discussion also focused heavily on implementation and accountability. Speakers stressed that broad commitments now need to be translated into practical roadmaps, measurable outcomes, and operational responsibilities.
Alena Murawska of RIPE NCC argued that digital transformation depends on resilient technical infrastructure, skilled communities, and evidence-based policymaking. She said implementation should prioritise closing digital divides while protecting the global interoperability of the internet.
Maarit Palovirta of Connect Europe emphasised that connectivity should be understood as a broader ecosystem involving infrastructure, devices, skills, services, and content. She argued that global digital goals must be adapted to local and regional realities while balancing regulation and investment incentives.
Several participants also highlighted the role of local institutions and community actors in implementation. Federica Marangio of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions described libraries as part of digital public infrastructure capable of supporting digital access, skills development, and community-level monitoring.
A major part of the discussion focused on the future role of the IGF following confirmation of its permanent status.
Teresa Swinehart of ICANN described the IGF’s permanence as an important milestone but argued that the forum now needs to become more practical, inclusive, and implementation-oriented. She called for stronger support for the IGF secretariat and better dissemination of outputs produced by national, regional, and intersessional initiatives.
Kleiner proposed a more task-oriented IGF structure, including multistakeholder policy labs focused on concrete issues such as AI governance and the future of digital infrastructure. Several speakers argued that agenda-setting should increasingly flow from local and national IGFs through regional initiatives such as EuroDIG before reaching the global IGF.
Youth participants also called for more meaningful participation within digital governance processes. Sumeja Huskic from YouthDIG argued that young people are often expected to navigate AI-driven societies while remaining excluded from many decision-making discussions affecting their future.
The discussion additionally explored links between internet governance and AI governance. Wolfgang Kleinwächter argued that AI governance should not be treated as separate from internet governance and proposed closer institutional coordination between the IGF ecosystem and the UN’s independent scientific panel on AI.
The session concluded with broad support for draft messages emphasising complementarity between WSIS and other UN digital processes, stronger accountability frameworks, evidence-based implementation, and greater use of existing multistakeholder structures.
Participants also supported proposals aimed at strengthening the IGF ecosystem through greater inclusiveness, clearer priorities, and improved visibility for outputs produced by national and regional initiatives.
EuroDIG 2026 took place on 26 and 27 May at the Charlemagne Building of the European Commission in Brussels under the theme ‘European Voices for the Future of the Internet – Celebrating 20 Years of .eu and the Beginning of a New Internet Governance Era’.
Digital Watch Observatory followed EuroDIG 2026 through a dedicated event page, featuring session information and reporting from Brussels.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have rapidly become one of the most debated topics in global finance. The growing adoption of cryptocurrency, the expansion of stablecoins, and the broader digitalisation of payment systems have prompted governments and central banks to reconsider how state-issued money should function in the digital era. Supporters present CBDCs as a modern financial innovation while critics argue that they could increase state control over financial activity.
Unlike traditional debates surrounding cryptocurrencies, discussions about CBDCs extend beyond the technology alone. Questions surrounding privacy, financial sovereignty, surveillance, monetary policy, and the future role of governments in digital finance now sit at the centre of the global CBDC debate. As more jurisdictions move from research to pilot programmes and implementation, CBDCs are increasingly viewed as a response to the rise of crypto assets and a broader transformation of modern financial infrastructure.
image via Magnific
What are CBDCs?
A central bank digital currency is a digital form of fiat currency issued and controlled by a central bank. Unlike decentralised cryptocurrencies, CBDCs remain fully tied to state monetary systems and national currencies. Their value is supported by governments in much the same way as traditional currency.
Anti-crypto by design, CBDCs differ significantly from cryptocurrencies despite often using similar technological concepts. Decentralised digital assets such as Bitcoin operate without a central authority and rely on distributed blockchain networks, whereas CBDCs are centrally managed and regulated. In practice, CBDCs represent a digital state currency, not an alternative financial system.
Most CBDC models fall into two categories: retail CBDCs and wholesale CBDCs. Retail CBDCs are designed for public use in everyday transactions, while wholesale CBDCs focus on interbank settlements and institutional payments.
Central banks have accelerated CBDC research partly because digital payments increasingly dominate global commerce. The rapid growth of crypto markets and private stablecoins has also intensified discussions about whether states risk losing influence over monetary systems if digital finance evolves outside government control.
image via Magnific
Why governments support CBDCs
Governments and central banks generally present CBDCs as a financial modernisation tool. One of the most frequently cited advantages involves payment efficiency. CBDCs could potentially enable faster domestic transactions, reduce settlement delays, and lower the cost of cross-border payments. In economies where digital payments already dominate consumer behaviour, central banks increasingly argue that public money must evolve alongside technological change.
Another major factor behind CBDC development is monetary sovereignty. The rise of cryptocurrencies and privately issued stablecoins has raised concerns among policymakers that private digital assets could weaken the state’s influence over financial systems. From this perspective, CBDCs are viewed as a way to maintain central bank authority in an increasingly digital economy.
Supporters also argue that CBDCs could improve financial inclusion. In regions where large parts of the population remain outside of traditional banking systems, digital state-backed wallets could provide broader access to financial services without requiring conventional bank accounts.
Some policymakers also view CBDCs as a strategic response to growing geopolitical competition in financial technology. Digital currencies could eventually reshape international payment networks and reduce dependence on existing cross-border settlement systems. As a result, CBDCs are increasingly becoming part of broader discussions surrounding economic competitiveness and technological sovereignty.
image via Magnific
Why the crypto community opposes CBDCs
Opposition to CBDCs within the cryptocurrency community largely centres on concerns surrounding centralisation and state control. Many crypto advocates argue that CBDCs contradict the original philosophy behind decentralised cryptocurrencies, which were designed to operate independently of governments and central financial institutions. Moreover, CBDCs are seen as an attempt to imitate cryptocurrencies.
Privacy concerns remain one of the most significant criticisms. Critics fear that CBDCs could expand government visibility into personal financial activity, particularly if digital payment systems become directly connected to state-controlled infrastructure. Unlike cash transactions, which provide a degree of anonymity, CBDC transactions could potentially allow authorities to monitor spending patterns in real time.
Concerns about programmable money have also intensified debate. Some critics argue that CBDCs could theoretically enable restrictions on how, where, or when money is spent. Although many governments insist that such scenarios are speculative, the possibility of programmable financial controls has become a major talking point in the crypto industry.
Another argument frequently raised by crypto supporters involves financial autonomy. Decentralised cryptocurrencies allow users to self-custody assets without relying on banks or governments. CBDCs, by contrast, remain fully integrated into state-controlled financial systems. For many in the crypto sector, this distinction represents a fundamental ideological divide rather than merely a technological difference.
Critics also argue that CBDCs could increase pressure on decentralised cryptocurrencies through stricter regulatory frameworks. Some fear that governments could eventually favour state-backed digital currencies while imposing stricter compliance requirements on private crypto platforms and decentralised finance ecosystems.
image via Magnific
Global CBDC projects and implementation challenges
Several jurisdictions have already launched or tested CBDC initiatives, producing mixed results across different economic and political environments.
China remains one of the most advanced examples through its digital yuan project, also known as e-CNY. Chinese authorities have promoted CBDC for years as part of a broader effort to modernise payments and strengthen the country’s digital financial infrastructure. However, public adoption has reportedly remained relatively weak despite extensive state support and pilot programmes in major cities. Surveys have indicated that a large majority of respondents neither encountered nor used the digital currency, highlighting ongoing scepticism among consumers.
India has adopted a noticeably more cautious approach towards CBDC implementation through its e-rupee project. Since its launch in late 2022, adoption has remained limited despite various incentives designed to encourage usage. Indian authorities have repeatedly stressed that while CBDCs could improve trade settlements, remittances, and cross-border transactions, the long-term consequences for the banking system remain uncertain. Officials from the Reserve Bank of India have warned that CBDCs could potentially destabilise traditional financial institutions during periods of economic stress.
Russia has also accelerated the development of the digital rouble as part of its broader financial modernisation strategy. The digital rouble is expected to enter a phased public rollout in 2026, with pilot programmes already including government transfers, commercial payments, transport services, and real estate transactions. Russian authorities have recently announced the country’s first digital ruble salary payment, marking an important symbolic milestone for the project. Authorities have stated that future CBDC salary payments would remain optional for recipients. The Bank of Russia has described the project as one of the world’s most advanced CBDC initiatives and has highlighted smart contracts, budgetary payments, and cross-border settlements as key areas for future application.
In contrast, the United States has become one of the most politically divided jurisdictions regarding CBDCs. Debate surrounding a potential digital dollar has increasingly focused on privacy, civil liberties, and financial surveillance concerns. Several Republican lawmakers have pushed for permanent restrictions that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing or even testing a US CBDC. Compared to jurisdictions actively implementing CBDCs, the United States appears to be increasingly focused on limiting government involvement in digital currency systems rather than expanding it.
Meanwhile, the European Central Bank continues to develop the digital euro project. European policymakers have framed the project as part of a broader effort to preserve monetary sovereignty and reduce dependence on non-European payment providers in an increasingly digital economy. According to the ECB, the system is intended to combine the convenience of digital payments with certain characteristics traditionally associated with cash. However, privacy has become one of the most sensitive aspects of the European debate.
Collectively, these international examples demonstrate that CBDC implementation is not solely a technological challenge. Public trust, political culture, regulatory design, and perceptions of privacy and state control may ultimately prove to be as important as the underlying digital infrastructure itself.
image via Magnific
CBDCs and cryptocurrencies: competition or coexistence?
Despite the growing tension between the two models, CBDCs and cryptocurrencies may not necessarily become direct replacements for one another. Analysts argue that the two systems could coexist while serving different purposes within the broader digital economy.
CBDCs are primarily designed to preserve and modernise existing monetary systems, whereas cryptocurrencies often aim to provide alternatives outside of traditional financial structures. From that perspective, CBDCs may function as a regulated digital payment infrastructure while decentralised cryptocurrencies continue to attract users seeking autonomy, borderless transactions, or alternative stores of value.
Some observers also believe that CBDC development could indirectly accelerate digital asset adoption by familiarising the public with blockchain-related technologies, tokenised payments, and digital wallets. Greater public exposure to digital currencies may ultimately increase broader participation in digital finance in general.
At the same time, tensions between the two ecosystems are unlikely to disappear entirely. The debate over CBDCs increasingly reflects a broader conflict between institutional control and decentralised financial models. Questions surrounding privacy, regulation, and ownership of financial data are likely to remain central as digital currency systems continue to evolve.
image via Magnific
Rethinking money, trust, and sovereignty
Ultimately, the debate over CBDCs is not merely about payments or financial technology, but about the future relationship between citizens, money, and the state itself. Throughout modern history, money has represented more than just economic value alone- it has reflected trust, sovereignty, political power, and social stability. As finance becomes increasingly digital, governments and societies are now forced to reconsider the role that public money should play in an environment shaped by decentralised technologies, borderless transactions, and rapidly evolving digital economies.
CBDCs may therefore emerge as one of the defining financial experiments of the twenty-first century. Their long-term significance will likely depend not only on technological efficiency but also on whether central banks can preserve public confidence while adapting to a digital era that increasingly values autonomy, privacy, and financial flexibility. Excessive state control could intensify public resistance, while insufficient innovation may risk weakening the relevance of sovereign currencies in a global financial system increasingly influenced by private digital assets and decentralised networks.
Rather than representing a simple conflict between governments and cryptocurrency communities, the rise of CBDCs may ultimately signal the beginning of a broader transformation in how value, trust, and economic participation are understood in the digital age. The countries that succeed may not necessarily be those with the most advanced technology, but those capable of balancing innovation with civil liberties, monetary stability with openness, and financial modernisation with public trust.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
Leading quantum scientists and Nobel Prize laureates met in Brussels as the European Commission advanced discussions on the future of Europe’s quantum ecosystem, industrial strategy, and technological competitiveness.
The Top-level Advisory Board on Quantum Technologies meeting focused on the EU’s next steps in quantum policy, funding, and commercial uptake. Participants discussed progress on the Quantum Europe Strategy, the forthcoming Quantum Act, and quantum priorities under the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
The advisory board was set up to support the Commission’s goal of making Europe a global leader in quantum technologies and a quantum industrial powerhouse. It provides independent advice on key policies and industrial developments related to quantum technologies.
The Quantum Europe Strategy, released in July 2025, sets out five areas for action: research and innovation, quantum infrastructures, ecosystem strengthening, space and dual-use technologies, and quantum skills. The strategy aims to make Europe a global leader in quantum by 2030.
Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen said Europe must turn its scientific excellence and discoveries into commercial applications and the deployment of quantum technologies as the field moves from the lab into everyday use.
Why does it matter?
Quantum technologies are becoming a strategic priority for the EU’s technological sovereignty agenda. The Commission’s focus on infrastructure, industrial ecosystems, commercial deployment, space and dual-use applications, and skills shows that quantum policy is increasingly being framed not only as a research issue, but also as a competitiveness and security priority.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A new Allianz Research report argues that AI is transforming global trade, supply chains, digital infrastructure, and geopolitical influence.
The report says AI growth increasingly depends on global semiconductor production, cloud infrastructure, hyperscale data centres, and cross-border digital services. It also argues that trade is increasingly shaped by who controls AI infrastructure, data flows, and cloud capacity.
Allianz Research says exports of AI-enabling goods rose from USD 1 trillion in 2014 to USD 3.8 trillion in 2025, accounting for 15% of global trade and far outpacing overall goods trade growth. Asia dominates the supply side, accounting for 65% of global AI-related exports and seven of the top ten exporters, led by China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.
The report also highlights the United States’ role as a centre of hyperscale AI infrastructure. It says the US has tripled its AI-related imports since 2023 and is home to 5,427 operational data centres, equivalent to 45% of the global total.
Europe faces a different challenge. According to Allianz Research, the region has less than 10GW of operational data-centre capacity, compared with 60GW in the US, while US hyperscalers already control 35% of European computing capacity and are consolidating a 70% share of the cloud market. The report points to fragmented regulation, complex permitting processes, grid connection delays, limited funding, and the absence of a domestic hyperscaler as factors that reinforce European dependence.
The study also warns that AI diffusion could widen EU-US service imbalances by requiring recurring payments to American AI providers and cloud platforms. In a high-adoption scenario, annual payments by eurozone users to US AI services providers could rise from EUR 2.7 billion to EUR 34 billion, according to the report.
Allianz Research concludes that AI governance, industrial policy, export restrictions, subsidies, and digital trade regulation are becoming central components of global economic competition. Governments are increasingly treating semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, data centres, and AI services as strategic assets linked to national security, economic resilience, and geopolitical influence.
Why does it matter?
The report frames AI as a trade and industrial policy issue, not only a technology story. Its findings suggest that control over semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, data centres, and AI services could shape which economies capture AI-driven productivity gains and which become more dependent on foreign platforms, supply chains, and infrastructure. For Europe, the key concern is a possible double dependence on US cloud and AI services and Asian hardware supply chains.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The milestone was celebrated during the 2026 European Internet Governance Dialogue in Brussels, where policymakers, technical experts, businesses, civil society representatives, and other stakeholders discussed the future of global internet governance.
According to the Commission, .eu has grown into the fourth-largest country-code top-level domain in Europe, with 3.8 million registrations since its launch in April 2006. The EU officials described the domain as a symbol of European identity online and an example of resilient European digital infrastructure, noting that it has operated without a single outage for two decades.
The discussions also focused on Europe’s broader approach to internet governance, digital autonomy, and the reduction of strategic technological dependencies. Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen said Europe is at a pivotal moment where digital autonomy, reduced dependencies, and global leadership in internet governance must go hand in hand.
The Commission linked the anniversary to future EU initiatives, including the upcoming Technological Sovereignty Package, which it said would further support Europe’s vision for a decentralised and open internet where users, businesses, and governments have real alternatives and control over their digital future.
Officials also stressed the importance of ensuring that European values, including human rights, inclusivity, and competition, continue to shape the next decade of global internet governance.
Why does it matter?
The anniversary shows how domain governance and internet infrastructure are increasingly being linked to digital sovereignty and technological dependence. By framing .eu as part of Europe’s identity, resilience, and internet governance agenda, the Commission is connecting a long-standing country-code top-level domain to broader debates on autonomy, infrastructure, trust, and Europe’s role in shaping the future of the open internet.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Greece’s Ministry of Digital Governance and Artificial Intelligence has launched ‘Artificial Intelligence for All’, a public guide designed to improve understanding and use of AI tools.
The guide was developed through cooperation between leading AI scientists, the Ministry of Digital Governance and Artificial Intelligence, the National Council for Research, Technology and Innovation, and the Special Secretariat for Long-Term Planning. The guide is available free of charge through the digital platform of the Special Secretariat for Artificial Intelligence and Data Governance.
According to the ministry, the initiative aims to support digital education, responsible AI use, and a broader understanding of AI systems.
The material introduces basic concepts related to AI and large language models through practical examples and simplified explanations. The guide explains how AI systems can process different forms of data and generate outputs, including recommendations, summaries, and digital content.
The project forms part of Greece’s broader digital strategy focused on digital skills development and public familiarity with emerging technologies.
Officials also highlighted collaboration with the members of the Greek scientific community in Greece and abroad, with the objective of making advanced technological tools more accessible to the wider population.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Environmental charity APRS has criticised the Scottish Government over how greenhouse gas emissions linked to hyperscale AI data centres are assessed within existing planning and climate frameworks.
According to APRS, earlier lifecycle emissions assessments focused primarily on broadband and smaller-scale digital infrastructure before the recent expansion of generative AI-related facilities.
The concerns are linked to a proposed 212MW AI data centre project in Edinburgh, currently involved in a planning appeal process.
APRS argued that the term ‘green data centre’ lacks a clear policy definition in relation to large-scale AI infrastructure projects. The organisation said Scotland does not yet have a dedicated policy framework addressing hyperscale AI data centres.
APRS stated that multiple large-scale data centre proposals are currently under consideration across Scotland. The group warned that growing electricity demand linked to data centre expansion could have implications for energy planning and climate objectives.
APRS also called for updated lifecycle emissions assessments and revised planning guidance for hyperscale AI infrastructure projects.
Why does it matter?
The debate highlights a widening policy gap between the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure and existing environmental planning frameworks. Many national climate assessments were created before the emergence of hyperscale generative AI systems, meaning governments may be underestimating the energy, emissions, and resource demands associated with large-scale AI deployment.
It also demonstrates how AI is no longer only a digital or technological policy challenge, but increasingly an environmental, infrastructure, and energy governance issue.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
