IGF Daily Summary
for Tuesday, 24 June 2025
Dear readers, welcome to our daily report from Day 1 at IGF 2025.
Marking the 20th edition of the multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF kicked off in Oslo amidst celebrations and a stark reality check on our fractured digital landscape. The opening ceremony set the challenge memorably: ‘When digital transformation is done right, it is like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. But when it is done wrong… all that you have is really a fast caterpillar’.
From the launch of the Global Internet Standards Testing Community to discussions on AI therapists for mental health, from digital emblem initiatives for protecting infrastructure during conflicts to the role of parliamentarians in shaping digital policy, participants outlined the breadth and complexity of contemporary digital governance challenges.
A recurring theme emerged around power concentration and accountability. Session after session highlighted how ‘most of AI today is controlled by a few companies in a few countries’ and how their dominant position in organising information and knowledge can affect the lives of billions worldwide.
Alongside this, the deep digital divides have persisted. For example, fixed broadband devouring a third of incomes in some places, leaving 2.6 billion entirely offline. Yet, IGF discussions also brought a sense of optimism: community networks of fast-growing way for affordable access, AI protecting the environment, and digital public infrastructure revolutionising governance in the Global South.
What stood out to you in yesterday’s discussions?
Diplo reporting team
Key questions from Day 1
How can we ensure AI development benefits everyone, not just a few?
Participants identified multiple barriers to inclusive AI development, including infrastructure gaps where ‘All of Africa, less than a thousand GPUs, less than one percent of the data center capacity’. Solutions include creating ‘shared infrastructure‘ and developing ‘new business models that take that reality into account’ for GPU and data center access. India’s example of making ‘around 50,000 GPUs available at a very low cost, less than a dollar a GPU per hour’ demonstrates how public infrastructure can democratise access.
What measures are needed to protect vulnerable groups online?
The challenge is multifaceted, with research showing that ‘about one in three women had experienced some form of online violence’ across Africa. Search for solutions should be multi-stakeholder collaboration and regional with participants suggesting that ‘instead of Malaysia trying to engage with this (Meta) platform, we are hoping that ASEAN as a whole can engage with this platform’. Design-based solutions include introducing ‘design friction that you can introduce that stops the content from being shared’ rather than relying solely on reactive takedowns.
How can we bridge persistent digital divides?
Despite decades of effort, participants noted that ’20 years ago we were talking about the digital divide. After 20 years, we are also talking about the digital divide’. The challenge has evolved beyond basic connectivity to meaningful access, where in Brazil, ‘almost 90% of the population has some internet connection and only 22%, according to our estimates, have meaningful connectivity’. Solutions include community-based connectivity initiatives and recognising that ‘accessibility and connectivity to the internet is a right and not a luxury’.
How should the IGF evolve for the next 20 years?
Multiple participants advocated for making the IGF permanent, ‘with stable funding, a mixed funding, voluntary contributions, but also UN contributions’, noting ‘we are not talking about tens of millions. We are talking about a couple of millions, so it’s doable’. The WSIS+20 review represents ‘an important opportunity to renew and strengthen the IGF mandate, including by ensuring a more sustainable financial basis from the regular UN budget that such a global, inclusive effort deserves and needs’.
How can we ensure information integrity in political processes?
The challenge is significant, with just two companies, Google and Meta, holding a dominant global position in how news and information are distributed. Addressing this requires three key elements: first, ensuring the financial survival of independent media — in other words, media viability; second, giving due prominence to journalism and reliable information in digital spaces; and third, tackling the question of safety, because if we want quality journalism to thrive online, journalists must be safe to operate and navigate these environments.
Summary of discussions
AI technology and governance
The discussions on AI revealed both transformative potential and significant governance challenges. Participants emphasised that ‘AI is truly a new electricity, so everything can change once electricity comes into your home’, yet warned of an emerging AI divide where ‘All of Africa, less than a thousand GPUs, less than 1% of the data centre capacity’.
The concentration of AI power emerged as a critical concern. Participants noted that ‘most of AI today is controlled by a few companies in a few countries’ and that ‘most of the data sets are in six or seven languages’, with the cultural context being very specific, North American and Western European. This concentration creates significant barriers for developing countries, where ‘Africa currently accounts for only 0.1% of the world’s computing capacity, and just 5% of the AI talent in Africa has access to the compute power it needs’.
However, promising initiatives are emerging to address these inequities. India has ‘made available almost 35,000 GPUs at a very low cost of a dollar per GPU per hour’, demonstrating how public infrastructure can democratise access to AI capabilities. The Bureau of International Cooperation, Cyberspace Administration of China, reported that ‘more than 430 generative AI service models have been registered and put online in China’, showing rapid deployment at scale.
The governance challenges are particularly acute in content moderation, where AI systems exhibit systematic biases. For instance, research revealed that on counterrorism filtering, content in Arabic was wrongly flagged 77% of the time, highlighting the risk of false negatives in AI moderation.
For mental health applications, AI presents both opportunities and risks. While AI tools could potentially reach millions in need, participants warned of inadequate responses to mental health crises, with ChatGPT responding to suicidal thoughts with: ‘I’m sorry, but I can’t assist you with that. Please seek help from a mental health professional or contact emergency services’. The solution lies in culturally sensitive approaches where ‘AI should support, not replace human connection’.
Digital infrastructures and services
Critical internet infrastructure was identified as both a foundation for digital development and a source of vulnerability. The Global Internet Standards Testing Community was launched to highlight that ‘not deploying the new generation security-related internet standards and ICT best practices should no longer be an option for anyone manufacturing devices or offering digital services’.
The digital emblem initiative represents an innovative approach to protecting humanitarian infrastructure from cyber-attacks. Building on the historical development of the Red Cross emblem, the initiative ‘aims to create a universally-recognised symbol for protecting digital infrastructure during conflicts’. The technical implementation involves ‘protected entity flags on website addresses’, ‘digital certificates like passports for websites’, and ‘labels that are behind the scenes on digital files’.
Digital divides, inclusion, and capacity development
Despite decades of effort, digital divides remain stubbornly persistent. The nature of digital divides has evolved beyond simple connectivity. In ‘Brazil, ‘almost 90% of the population has some internet connection and only 22%, according to our estimates, have meaningful connectivity’, highlighting the gap between basic access and meaningful use. Meaningful connectivity means having ‘reliable, affordable access’ with ‘sufficient speed and quality’, supported by ‘digital literacy’, ‘relevant content and services’, a ‘safe and secure environment’, especially for children, and an ‘enabling policy framework’.
Community-based connectivity emerged as a promising solution. Participants emphasised that ‘addressing this question in today’s context is not about improving infrastructure or updating regulation. It’s about recognising that accessibility and connectivity to the internet is a right and not a luxury’. However, regulatory barriers persist, as ‘these community models cannot have the same requirements as traditional models. They must have reduced or exempted fees, and reporting requirements must be simplified and adapted to the conditions of these networks’.
Universal acceptance can help advance digital inclusion. The principle that ‘all domain names and email addresses should work across every internet enabled application device platform regardless of the language, the script or the length’ remains unrealised, contributing to digital divides where ‘the language of the internet cannot be and should not be only English’.
Skills gaps remain significant, as ‘less than 10% of adults in several countries in Africa possess basic digital skills.’ The emergence of AI creates new skill requirements, with participants noting that ‘it’s not enough to be digitally savvy, but you could also be AI ignorant. That’s the reality. Absolutely, you could be a PhD, but if you’re not adapted to AI, we have another gap. So AI gap.’
Internet governance, digital governance, and digital cooperation
The 20th anniversary of the IGF prompted significant reflection on the evolution and future of internet governance and the forum itself. Participants noted that the IGF has grown to serve ‘over 10,000 participants annually and inspiring 176 national, sub-regional, regional, and youth IGF initiatives worldwide’.
An interplay between multistakeholder and multilateral approaches remains one of the central themes often framed as a ‘false dichotomy’ between the two. Participants emphasised that ‘we cannot reinforce trust, we cannot reinforce cooperation if we don’t put a multistakeholder approach at the core of these processes. Transparency and inclusion at the core’. The geopolitical shifts featured prominently in yesterday’s discussion with participants describing ‘a shifting geopolitical order’ where ‘the last three decades of an international rule-based order are right now at a conjunction’.
The WSIS+20 review process represents a critical juncture for internet governance. Participants emphasised that ‘the review is also an important opportunity to renew and strengthen the IGF mandate, including by ensuring a more sustainable financial basis from the regular UN budget that such a global, inclusive effort deserves and needs.’ Multiple stakeholders advocated for making the IGF permanent, ‘with stable funding, mixed funding, voluntary contributions, but also UN contributions’, noting ‘we are not talking about tens of millions. We are talking about a couple of millions, so it’s doable’.
Parliamentary engagement in digital governance showed promising developments. Participants noted that ‘participation of governments and parliamentarians is not very high in the regional and local IGFs’, yet there are encouraging signs of change with ‘3,300 parliamentarians and their staff’ completing training on digital governance issues.
Content governance and information integrity
Information integrity is a critical challenge for democratic societies. Participants emphasised that ‘democracy is not an act of voting. Democracy is something that we exercise on a daily basis, an informed discussion, exchanging different views and opinions and doing it in an information environment that is healthy and sound.’
The concentration of power in information distribution poses significant risks. Participants noted that ‘two companies, Google and Meta, hold a dominant global position in the distribution of news and information. Daily, 5 billion people are affected by their decisions. The media’s heavy reliance on these platforms to reach their audiences threatens the independence and sustainability of journalism. This can lead to a fragmented information landscape.’
Climate disinformation represents a specific challenge that ‘really delays our ability to tackle climate change’ and becomes a democratic issue when ‘climate disinformation is weaponised for political purposes and political gains’. The response includes Brazil’s pledge of ‘one million dollars’ to a global fund for information integrity initiatives.
Content moderation challenges are particularly acute for vulnerable groups. Research on online violence against women showed that ‘about one in three women had experienced some form of online violence’ across Africa. Platform accountability remains inconsistent, with participants noting that some platforms have ‘no accountability’ and no longer maintain ‘trust and safety teams’ or ‘human rights teams’.
Human rights and digital technologies
The application of international law to digital spaces revealed both opportunities and gaps. Participants emphasised that ‘big tech companies, have obligations under international frameworks, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to respect and protect digital and human rights’.
Children’s rights in digital environments require particular attention. With the 2017 UNICEF report saying that worldwide, one in three internet users is a child, the stakes are high. Research published by UNICEF found that ‘children who experience online sexual abuse or exploitation and online bullying have significantly higher levels of anxiety, more suicidal thoughts and behaviours, and are more likely to self-harm’. However, children ‘don’t want to be totally protected or excluded from the digital space, but they want to use the online space safely’.
Gender equity in digital spaces faces significant challenges. Statistics show that ‘31% of women worldwide are not in education, employment or training. 740 million women in developing economies remain unbanked. In technology development, ‘almost half of publicly documented bias in AI systems is bias against women and girls’ while ‘only about 2% of medical research funding goes towards pregnancy, childbirth and reproductive health’.
Digital economy and innovation
Digital public goods are a transformative force for development. Defined as ‘open source digital solutions that are relevant for the attainment of the sustainable development goals and that are designed as a do no harm and with the highest respect for privacy and applicable best practices’, these solutions are scaling rapidly. The 50-5 campaign aims ‘to take DPGs to 50 countries in five years’ with about 30 countries already using one or more DPG products.
Success stories demonstrate significant impact. India’s digital infrastructure covers ‘1.3 to 1.4 billion people’ with Aadhaar being ‘used 80 million times a day today’. The UPI payment system processes ‘about 18 billion transactions a month, over 400 billion users, and over 50 million merchants’. Brazil’s PIX system achieved remarkable efficiency with ‘$4 billion investment that in a single year led to savings of $5.7 billion.’
However, funding challenges threaten digital development progress. Participants noted ‘there is a crisis in development funding that we are witnessing right at the moment’ with estimates that ‘next year there will be about 38% less development funding available around the world’. This is compounded by cuts to specific programs, with ‘the development money at the moment (being) severely cut, not only by the US government, (…) which is a large portion of international development aid for media’.
Data governance for digital public infrastructure requires new approaches. Participants noted that ‘the ambition that we have for DPI is not realised unless we have relevant governance frameworks to give us direction, to give us a strategy, and to keep us accountable for what we will do with DPI’. The challenge is that ‘there is currently a regulatory blind spot’ because ‘if this data collection, data usage by the private entities on these public platforms is not regulated, it may lead to creation of monopolistic enclosures and data hegemony in public-private partnerships’.
Cybersecurity and digital resilience
The discussions on cybersecurity revealed persistent vulnerabilities across digital infrastructure. Despite decades of awareness, fundamental security challenges remain unresolved, with ‘users still vulnerable due to low numbers of standards deployment, ICTs, devices and services that enter the market without security by design built into them’.
The internet of things (IoT) presents particular risks, with participants warning that ‘we have millions of devices with similar software and similar vulnerabilities, which makes them vulnerable to massive attacks’. The problem is compounded by poor lifecycle management, where ‘many devices like smart meters lack an over-the-air update mechanism, leaving them vulnerable for years’.
Solutions focus on implementing security by design principles and improving procurement practices. Participants emphasised that ‘security must be embedded at every layer’ and recommended adopting ‘zero-trust architecture, and so treating every request as untrusted until verified’.
Post-quantum cryptography represents an emerging critical challenge. The threat of ‘harvest now, decrypt later‘ attacks means that ‘malicious actors might be recording today’s encrypted communications for days or months or longer with the aim to decrypt them once they can utilise a cryptographically relevant quantum computer’.
SDGs in focus
The discussions explicitly connected digital technologies and governance to the SDGs. Digital public goods were defined as solutions ‘relevant for the attainment of the sustainable development goals’, helping countries advance ‘financial inclusion, food security, crisis response, healthcare delivery and public service efficiencies’. Digital public infrastructure has ‘the potential to accelerate the attainment of the Agenda 2063 and advance digital transformation, and also address the socio-economic inequalities’.
It was emphasised that ‘digitalisation accelerates progress towards the sustainable development goals’ and that ‘addressing the current digital divide will help us to get back on track when it comes to Agenda 2030 and the majority of SDG targets’. The urgency was captured in the observation that ‘we have 17 sustainable development goals, but the 18th one is keeping the Internet going because we have become so much more dependent on it’.
Research quoted that ‘more than 79% of SDGs can be done responsibly and appropriately’ with AI, highlighting the potential for artificial intelligence to accelerate progress when properly governed.
The IGF We Want
Permanent mandate: Multiple participants advocated for making the IGF permanent, ‘with stable funding, mixed funding, voluntary contributions, but also UN contributions’.
Sustainable mission: Participants emphasised that ‘ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the global IGF and the wider IGF ecosystem is essential if we’re to fully realise both its purpose and its value’.
Stronger NRI integration: Recommendations included ‘ensuring that we capture and disseminate the outcomes of those national and regional initiatives in a more kind of targeted and dedicated way’.
Digital governance radar: A suggestion for creating a digital inclusion or digital governance radar in collaboration between the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the IGF secretariat.
Improve IGF outputs and policy impact: Participants called for the IGF to generate more actionable outcomes, with clearer pathways for follow-up. Suggestions included improving how session outcomes are communicated and integrated into policy dialogues at various levels.
Convene a multistakeholder discussion in 2026 on the IGF’s mandate and structure: One speaker proposed that there is a need for a clear discussion on how to improve the IGF, revise its mandate, and organise its structure more formally. This was followed by a suggestion to hold a multistakeholder discussion in 2026 on how to improve the IGF, convened under the auspices of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) or another appropriate forum’.
Diplo and GIP at IGF2025
Diplo is partnering with the IGF Secretariat and the Government of Norway (as host country) to deliver AI-enabled, just-in-time reporting from the IGF 2025 meeting. Building on a decade of just-in-time IGF reporting, we will continue to provide timely and comprehensive coverage from the forum. Our reporting initiative will include session reports, an ‘Ask IGF 2025’ AI assistant, daily highlights, and more.
Diplo and the GIP are also organising and participating in various sessions. Yesterday, 24 June, Diplo’s Executive Director, Jovan Kurbalija, spoke at an open forum on building an international AI cooperation ecosystem. Diplo’s Director of Knowledge, Sorina Teleanu, moderated a parliamentary exchange on enhancing digital policy practices.
On Wednesday, 25 June, the 8th edition of Jovan Kurbalija’s book will be presented at the IGF. Kurbalija will also speak at the main session on the governance of AI. Diplo-led consortium CADE will organise a session to help connect CSOs from the Global North and Global South to share strategies on challenging repressive cyber laws and strengthen joint efforts to protect civic space.
Attending IGF in Lillestrøm? Visit the Diplo and GIP booth (#45) and the CADE consortium booth (#57)—both also accessible in the virtual village.
Do you like what you’re reading? Bookmark us at https://dig.watch/event/internet-governance-forum-2025 and tweet us @DigWatchWorld
Have you heard something new during the discussions, but we’ve missed it? Send us your suggestions at digitalwatch@diplomacy.edu.