Reflections on LLM Sovereignty at the IGF Austria 2026
Last week, I had the privilege of attending the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Austria in Salzburg at the Edmundsburg (beautiful view over Salzburg, see picture below). As one of the key global events dedicated to discussing public policy issues emerging out of the Internet, the IGF provides a unique multi-stakeholder platform where governments, the private sector, civil society, researchers and somewhat the technical community come together to shape the future of the digital world – or at least debate it.
For me, the highlight was not just observing the debates, but participating in Panel 3: “Wie bringen wir die KI zu den Menschen?” (How do we bring AI to the people?). This session was pivotal in shifting the conversation from abstract discussion to a perspective of a software engineering, as I rather act than debate. Below, I reflect on the high-level political directives shared by Austrian leadership and outline my own contributions regarding the technical and network-political realities of adopting LLMs today. There were many more contributions and you can find an overview here. I would like to highlight the excellent work of Prof. Dr. Kettemann and his team, it was delightful to start the with a panel entirely composed of brilliant young women. A insightful and touching perspective from the youth on today’s technology.
The Political Vision: Sovereignty, Empathy, and Public Service
The IGF Austria was opened by two prominent figures in Austrian politics: Landeshauptfrau of Salzburg Karoline Edtstadler, a member of the UN Secretary-General’s IGF Leadership Panel, and Staatssekretär Alexander Pröll, State Secretary for Digitalisation, the Fight against Antisemitism, the Public Service, and the Constitution. Their remarks highlighted the tension between global dependency and local autonomy, as well as the ethical boundaries of automation.
Landeshauptfrau Edtstadler grounded the discussion in ethics. Her central thesis: AI cannot feel empathy. While AI can help us be more effective, it must remain a tool, not a decision-maker. She emphasised that critical decisions, particularly in sensitive areas like weapons systems, must never be left to algorithms. The future of work is not Man vs. Machine, but Man plus Machine. We need both human judgment and computational power to navigate complex challenges.
Staatssekretär Pröll took a more pragmatic, albeit urgent, approach. He framed digital independence not as autarky, but as the ability to sit at the negotiating table with respect. His data points were stark:
- Austria is nearly 100% dependent on non-EU entities for digital infrastructure
- To put this in perspective, 91% of German companies are fully dependent on foreign tech providers
- He noted that while breaking these dependencies is expensive, staying in them is even costlier in the long run
Pröll highlighted recent successes, such as the EU’s AI Act. In Austria, this translates to concrete actions:
- LibreOffice Adoption: The Federal Ministry of Defence has switched to LibreOffice, setting a precedent for the public sector
- Procurement Reform: New regulations allow public procurement to favour sovereignty and open standards
- Public AI Initiatives: With nearly half of federal employees retiring in the next 13 years, Austria is rolling out “GovGPT”, an LLM-as-a-Service on-premise solution for federal employees. This ensures “Human in Control” while reducing bureaucratic friction
He also pointed to ID Austria as a success story (though imperfect) and teased an upcoming digital assistant that will act as a “digital advisor” for every citizen, reinforcing Austria’s position as a leader in e-government alongside Estonia and Denmark.
Politicians, organisers and members of Paul’s panel at the IGF Austria (© Land Salzburg/Neumayr/Kolarik)From Interface to Sovereignty – Panel 3: How do we bring AI to the people?
In my segment of the panel, I focused on the technical and network-political hurdles that must be cleared to realise the political vision described above. My argument was structured around three key pillars: accessibility, education, and sovereignty. While sovereignty means different things to every stakeholder, watch this brilliant talk here, my definition, coming from the civil society, is to be able to chose the soft- and hardware we want to use and to protect human rights, privacy and democracy online.
The Interface Challenge: From Chatbots to Agents
Technologically, we have made strides in making Large Language Models (LLMs) accessible. A big revolution was not just the LLMs themselves, but also also the low-level access to them. Chatbots have successfully created a UI/UX that allows people without a technical background to interact with LLMs. However, we are now moving toward Agents, autonomous systems that are harder to grasp. As companies push this boundary, the interface will become even more abstract. We must ensure that as LLMs become more powerful, it remains understandable, transparent and controllable to the end-user. We need to find legal answers to the fact that autonomous agents, supposedly acting on our behalf, could be against our interests. Will we all have a “14 days step back from my agent’s decision”-right such as we currently have when buying something online?
Digital Literacy for the LLM Era
Just as we once had to learn how to “search online” effectively, we now need digital basic education for LLMs. We need to teach citizens how to prompt, verify, and interact with LLMs critically. This is not just a technical skill; it is a civic necessity for the modern age. I kept this part short, as previous speakers elaborated on this topic profoundly and I was glad that this key topic is already on the IGF’s agenda.
The Monopoly Problem and the Path to Sovereignty
The most critical issue I raised was the opaque monopoly position of current LLM providers. These firms often ignore copyright laws, use data illegally (such as copyrighted books or open-source code), and face no consequences. This dynamic relies on the backs of the least powerful actors and reinforces existing power structures. We cannot allow LLMs to remain a monopoly. While the operation and development of these models require funding, trust can only be established through transparency. This is why Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) LLMs are decisive. We must demand that sovereign institutions and individuals have the right to:
- Use the LLM models
- Study how they work
- Modify them to fit local needs
- Share improvements with the community
True LLM Sovereignty requires access to four layers:
- Parameters
- Weights
- Source code
- Training data
A Call to Action
The political will in Austria seems to exist, as seen in the initiatives mentioned by Staatssekretär Pröll. But we need grass roots action to match it. I called on everyone in the room to actively participate:
- Use Free Software and demand Public Money Public Code
- Bring these principles back into their organisations and ask “why are we still using MS Team and not a decentralised solution such as Matrix?”
- Install my beloved Linux operating system everywhere ❤️
Thank you to the organisers of IGF Austria for a stimulating event, and to my fellow panellists, Dr. Doris Fuschlberger and Ass.-Prof. Dr. Sebastian Krempelmeyer, for the insightful discussion.
#AI #austria #conference #igf #InternetGovernanceForum
