Most people don’t wake up in the morning thinking, “I should learn internet governance.” We usually meet it when it meets us—when a platform decision disrupts outreach, when a new cyber rule changes what organisations can publish, when online harassment escalates, or when a public service becomes “digital-first” and quietly shuts out the very communities it is meant to serve. That’s when you realise a simple truth: if you don’t understand the rules, you end up living under them.
I enrolled in Internet Governance for CSOs (Civil Society Organizations) as part of the CADE (Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment) Capacity Development Programme for CSOs (2025–2026, AI cohort)—a fellowship-supported journey designed to help civil society organisations, especially from the Global South, engage more effectively in digital policy. The programme is implemented by DiploFoundation under CADE project, with support from the European Union. What appealed to me was the programme’s step-by-step logic: start with solid technical foundations, then move into AI policy, and later build negotiation skills—because in digital policy, passion gets you to the microphone, but preparation shapes the outcome.
Where I’m coming from
I write this as someone who has been navigating internet governance for over a decade—sometimes from the floor, sometimes from the faculty desk, and often from the accessibility lens, reminding organizations and decisionmakers of who gets excluded when “good intentions” aren’t backed by design and accountability. I have been involved in national, regional and global capacity-building and policy spaces including PKSIG, and as faculty with APSIG and MEAC-SIG, with regional dialogue through APRIGF. I’ve also engaged in the ICANN community through At-Large structures such as APRALO, and within the Internet Society community over the years, including accessibility leadership and governance roles. Today, I coordinate the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability (IGF-DCAD) within the broader Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ecosystem, and I remain connected to accessibility practice through communities like IAAP (International Association of Accessibility Professionals) as its Global Leadership Council Member.
Even with that background, I found this course useful—because it recentres fundamentals in a structured way. It reminds you that internet governance is not only about attending meetings; it is about understanding where decisions actually land in people’s lives.
What the course offers to a general reader
The course is helpful because it answers a basic question in plain terms: internet governance is neither one organization, nor one treaty. It is the combined effect of decisions across infrastructure, technical standards, platform policies, laws, markets, and international processes.
Once you see the internet as a system shaped by choices, policy debates stop feeling random. You start noticing patterns—who has leverage, who sets default rules, and who is expected to “adjust.” And you begin to understand another uncomfortable truth: the internet is not only a technology; it is a negotiation.
For civil society, this clarity is practical. It helps you move from reacting to policy shocks to engaging earlier—where rules are drafted, standards are discussed, and incentives are quietly set.
Where I would strengthen the course: make power more explicit
A strong next step would be to include a short, accessible section on power dynamics and political economy. Digital policy language often sounds neutral—safety, sovereignty, innovation, trade—but the outcomes are rarely neutral. In practice, these words can become umbrellas under which very different agendas travel.
A beginner-friendly explainer on incentives would help learners ask sharper questions:
- When a state prioritises “security,” what checks exist to prevent overreach?
- When a platform cites “community standards,” whose norms shape those standards, and where is due process?
- When telecom economics shape access, who bears the cost of last-mile gaps and affordability?
- When the attention economy rewards outrage, who gets amplified—and who gets pushed out?
Alongside this, the course would benefit from a plain-language note on regulatory capture, lobbying, and procurement politics. Many critical decisions don’t happen only in public consultations. They happen in procurement specifications, closed-door technical committees, and relationships that define what becomes “feasible.” In other words: sometimes the battle isn’t lost in the law—it’s lost in the footnotes of a contract.
Accessibility in content and delivery
Overall, the course and the learning platform are largely accessible in practice. One area where accessibility can be further operationalised is the treatment of visual materials. Many learning objectives in internet governance rely on visuals—network diagrams, governance maps, stakeholder charts, and data graphs—and these should not be “silent” for screen reader users.
Each visual should include:
- Clear alt text or a longer description explaining what the image shows and why it matters, and
- A short statement of purpose—what learners are expected to understand after viewing it.
For example, instead of “Figure: Internet layers,” the description should summarise the layers and the key takeaway (e.g., how infrastructure choices influence rights and access). This makes meaning explicit for all learners and ensures the intended learning objective is met rather than assumed.
Alongside these content design choices, the course also references accessibility settings within the learning environment. But accessibility becomes most meaningful when it is treated as a cross-cutting governance issue, integrated across modules, rather than confined to a standalone “rights topic.”
Here are practical considerations to weave disability and accessibility in the course curriculum:
- Infrastructure: affordability as an accessibility issue (devices, data, assistive tech), last-mile realities, and accessible emergency communications so disabled communities are not an afterthought during crises.
- Cybersecurity: accessible authentication and verification (MFA flows, CAPTCHAs, account recovery), and safety tools that work for assistive-technology users.
- Legal and economic frameworks: procurement as a lever (accessibility requirements in contracts), public-sector accessibility obligations, and enforcement models that go beyond symbolic compliance.
From my work coordinating IGF-DCAD within the wider IGF ecosystem, this point has become consistent: accessibility is not charity—it is legitimacy. If participation is inaccessible—documents, meetings, services, platforms—then governance is unequal by design. And when exclusion is built into the system, it doesn’t look like discrimination; it looks like “normal.”
The “missing module” CSOs are confronting daily: platforms, AI, and digital ID
Because this course sits within a wider CADE learning journey, it already points forward: after this introductory track, not all the participants move into an interactive course on AI policy and practice, rather choose different tracks, before later moving into training on diplomacy and negotiations for CSOs—skills that matter if you want to influence outcomes rather than observe them.
Therefore, I would recommend adding a short module (or a stronger expanded unit) that prepares learners for three pressure points civil society increasingly faces:
- Platform governance and algorithms: content moderation, recommender systems, political ads, transparency reporting, and automated decision-making.
- AI governance in practical terms: bias, impact assessments, audits, accountability, and inclusion safeguards.
- Digital identity / Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI): benefits for service access, but also risks—exclusion through inaccessible verification, surveillance pathways, and data-sharing architectures that outpace consent and oversight.
These issues are now central to civil society work, and they shape engagement in major policy spaces—from technical processes like the IETF to multilateral discussions and national reforms. More and more, power is exercised through design choices and defaults, and civil society needs the tools to interrogate those defaults early.
Conclusion
For newcomers, Internet Governance for CSOs is a strong entry point into a complex field. For experienced practitioners, it is a timely reset—a way to reconnect technical building blocks with the policy battles that shape civic space.
With a more explicit focus on power, deeper integration of accessibility across all modules, and a clear unit on platforms, AI, and digital identity, the course could become even more effective. Not just as an introduction, but as a practical guide for civil society actors who want to show up prepared—and stay at the table long enough to change outcomes.