Developments in the internet governance environment in April 2026

Wolfgang Kleinwächter Apr 29, 2026 6 min read

Retreat in New York: The Future of the IGF

On 14 and 15 April 2026, an internal retreat on the future of the IGF took place in New York. Following the 80th UN General Assembly in December 2025, which granted the IGF permanent status within the UN, discussions focused on “how the IGF can effectively implement its permanent mandate, strengthen its contribution to digital cooperation, develop meaningful metrics and indicators to measure progress, and contribute to the implementation of the GDC commitments and WSIS+20 outcomes”. A small group of selected experts from various stakeholder groups, UNDESA and the Geneva IGF Secretariat[1] took part. No results were announced. The 2026 IGF will take place from 13–18 December 2026 in Nairobi.[2]

UNCSTD meeting: Role of the IGF and WSIS architecture

The annual session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) took place in Geneva from 21 to 25 April 2026. Among other things, the UNCSTD is responsible for the WSIS process. The UNCSTD resolution calls for coordination between WSIS action lines, the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The IGF is assigned a central role (primary multi-stakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues, including emerging issues). All UN organisations are urged to take IGF outcomes into account in their work. The IGF is to cooperate closely with the global dialogue on AI governance. Duplication is to be avoided, synergies sought and the role of the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) strengthened. The ‘Implementation Road Map’ drawn up by UNGIS was confirmed as a guideline. UNGIS is also to promote multi-stakeholder dialogue.[3] Switzerland’s proposal to establish a Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for UNGIS[4] has not yet gained a majority.

AI panel in Madrid: Warning against “AI colonialism”

The first formal meeting of the “Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence” took place in Madrid from 22 to 24 April 2026. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez praised the meeting as a contribution to strengthening multilateralism and advocated a multi-stakeholder approach to AI governance. He warned against “silent AI colonialism”, where decisions would be made neither by governments nor by a functioning market economy, but by five companies from a single country.[5] The panel elected Maria Ressa, the Filipino Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was also co-chair of the IGF Leadership Panel, and AI pioneer and Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio from the University of Montreal as co-chairs. The panel’s report will be discussed in July 2026 at the Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva.

Global UN Dialogue: Initial consultations on AI governance

On 23 April, an initial stakeholder discussion of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance took place, organised by the co-facilitators of the AI Dialogue, the UN Ambassadors of El Salvador and Estonia, Egriselda López and Rein Tammsaar. Over 500 experts took part in the discussion; more than 300 had registered to speak, of whom 50 were given the floor, raising a wide range of topics from AI ethics to the use of AI- s in weapons systems. Discussions focused on linking the AI Governance Dialogue with existing bodies such as the IGF, as well as the question of what is meant by AI governance in the narrower sense.[6] Further informal stakeholder discussions are to follow.

ITU and UNRISD: Warning of a global AI divide

At the “Digital World Conference: AI for Social Development” organised by the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) in Geneva on 22 April 2026, ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogadan-Martin warned of a deepening digital divide, with unforeseeable consequences for international security. AI applications in the “Global North” are growing twice as fast as in the “Global South”. One of the fathers of AI, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Geoffrey Hinton, called for global AI regulations. He is quoted as saying: “If you ever went out with a car that had no brake, boy, you are in trouble if you go down a hill. But you're in even more trouble if there’s no steering wheel.“[7]

EU vs. USA: Escalation of the digital policy conflict

The differences between the EU and the US over digital policy are continuing to escalate. At a meeting of the German Marshall Fund in Brussels on 1 April 2026, US Deputy Secretary of State Helberg criticised EU digital policy as “a Caligulan bureaucracy that has, regulation by regulation, siphoned more and more power away from sovereign European states, not liberating the European economy, but strangling it….We’re not willing to be politely silent, because we are not politely invested.” As an alternative, he promoted the US-led „Pax Silicia“[8], , which so far only Greece and Sweden have joined from the EU.[9] For its part, the EU sent EU Commissioner Michael McGray to the US to promote its so-called “28th regime” (EU Inc.)[10] – designed to prevent fragmentation of EU digital rules – the Digital Omnibus and the new “Digital Fairness Act” (DFA). McGray also met with CEOs of leading AI companies in San Francisco.[11]

WIC Summit in Hong Kong: China’s stance on AI governance

AI was the focus of the 2nd “WIC Asia-Pacific Summit” (14 and 15 April 2026 in Hong Kong). The summit was organised by the Beijing-based NGO “World Internet Conference” (WIC). It was attended by over 1,000 experts from 50 countries, including former WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. Part of the summit was an “AI Security and Governance Forum” at which seven studies were presented on how China is positioning itself in the global dialogue on AI governance. A study by Wuhan University, “Global Legislative Development in AI Governance: Experience and Prospects”, compares AI regulatory models in the EU, the US and China. Whilst the US rejected a global AI governance system at the AI summit in India (February 2026), the Wuhan study proposes the creation of “an inclusive and coordinated global governance system”. [12]

Russia’s AI Commission: Putin calls for flexible regulation

On 10 April 2026, the newly established Russian AI Commission met in Moscow. President Putin called on the Commission to advocate for flexible AI regulation.[13] “I would like to stress once again that regulation must be designed to encourage and accelerate the creation and adoption of advanced technologies rather than to constrain or slow down development. If we introduce barriers at this stage, we will inevitably fall behind in economic, technological, social, and public development.” He called for AI solutions in the military sector (“We must possess cutting-edge technologies and rely on sovereign, domestically developed products”) and emphasised the importance of AI cooperation within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS.

Bundestag: Green Party calls for national digital tax

On 14 April 2026, 14 members of the Green Party parliamentary group in the German Bundestag tabled a motion for a national digital tax.[14] The motion first notes that the major US digital and tech corporations such as Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta are the most profitable corporations in the world, but that these corporations get away with paying only single-digit tax rates in Germany. The MPs are calling on the Federal Government to “submit a draft bill for the introduction of a national digital tax, designed as a temporary transitional measure until a European or international solution for the appropriate taxation of digital business models comes into force.”

USA: Debate on private AI guidelines and military use

As more and more AI companies in the US publish company-specific guidelines for their AI agents, such as Anthropic’s “Claude’s New Constitution”[15] or the “Open AI Charter“[16], the discussion regarding the “transfer of public responsibility from constitutional government to private tech“[17] has gained further momentum in the US. On 7 April 2026, McKinsey Quarterly published an “AI Transformation Manifesto“[18], which aims to provide a 12-point blueprint for further discussion. The debate is also being fuelled by the simmering conflict between Anthropic and the US Department of Defence over the use of AI applications in military operations[19] and the new AI application “Claude Mythos”.[20]