Euro Stack Conference notes (sept. 2024)

2024-11-19
Logiciel libre Open Source

Intro / context / program

The "Toward European Digital Independence: Building the Euro Stack" conference took place on 24 September 2024 at the European Parliament in Brussels. The event addressed topics related to European digital independence, public digital infrastructure, policy-making, and the role of digital commons in Europe.

According to the program, the session was curated by prominent figures like Francesca Bria (Senior Fellow, Stiftung Mercator), Cristina Caffarra, and Meredith Whittaker. It included speakers from various sectors, including policymakers, technologists, and representatives of European and global organizations. Some notable sessions and topics included:

  1. European Digital Independence: What Vision?
    • Participants: Roberto Viola (DG Connect), Hermann Hauser (Co-Founder of ARM), and Meredith Whittaker.
  2. Policy Makers: What Commitment for the Next Mandate?
    • Participants: Members of the European Parliament such as Alexandra Geese, Lina Gálvez Muñoz, Axel Voss, and others.
  3. European Public Digital Infrastructure: Building the Euro Stack
    • Experts like Boris Otto (Director Fraunhofer ISST), Ignacio Llorente (CEO OpenNebula Systems), and others discuss the technical aspects of building a European cloud stack and infrastructure.
  4. Making It Happen: What’s the Way Forward?
    • This session involves directors from the European Investment Bank (EIB), the German Ministry of Economy, and digital transformation leaders discussing practical steps to achieve the Euro Stack vision.
  5. Growing Digital Commons: Global Experiences and What Should Europe Do?
    • Involves global figures like Audrey Tang (Former Digital Minister, Taiwan) and Luca Belli (FGV Law School, Brazil) sharing global insights on digital commons, followed by a discussion on what Europe can learn from these experiences.

Executive summary

The "Toward European Digital Independence: Building the Euro Stack" conference emphasized the need for Europe to develop its own digital infrastructure and sovereignty, focusing on public digital infrastructure, policy coordination, and leveraging open-source technologies. The event highlighted lessons from global leaders like India and Brazil on building scalable digital infrastructures, and stressed the importance of collaboration between European institutions, SMEs, and the private sector. Key themes included fostering public-private partnerships, ensuring inclusive governance, and adopting digital commons models aligned with European values of privacy, transparency, and sustainability. The conference concluded with a call for action-oriented strategies to promote adoption, industrial coordination, and competitive digital ecosystems in Europe.

Summary of each panel

Panel 1: European Digital Independence: What Vision?

Introduction: The conference opened with a brief introduction from the organizers, expressing gratitude for the participants and highlighting the importance of the discussions ahead, particularly on securing Europe’s digital independence. The focus of the conference is shifting from mere regulation to action and investment, aiming to create independent digital infrastructures in Europe.

Key Themes:

  1. Digital Sovereignty:

    • The panelists emphasized the importance of Europe gaining technological sovereignty. The reliance on non-European technologies—specifically from the U.S. and China—is seen as a significant risk to Europe’s autonomy, competitiveness, and security.
    • The creation of a “Euro-stack” (a comprehensive, European-controlled digital infrastructure) was highlighted as a necessity rather than a choice, with digital infrastructures such as IDs, payment systems, and data platforms being essential to this vision.

  2. The Role of AI and Digital Infrastructure:

    • Several speakers, notably Meredith from Signal, raised concerns about the current focus on AI, warning of potential "bait and switch" tactics where investments intended for sovereign AI in Europe could end up benefiting non-European corporations due to reliance on external cloud services and infrastructure.
    • Meredith stressed that the AI boom risks deepening Europe’s dependence on non-European tech if the underlying infrastructure (cloud, data centers) remains outside European control.
    • Meredith and other panelists called for the need to invest in open, democratic, and transparent digital infrastructures that align with European values.

  3. Public-Private Collaboration:

    • Francesca emphasized the importance of collaboration among European member states, private businesses, and public institutions to realize the vision of a “Euro-stack.” However, she warned against overly bureaucratic or fragmented approaches that fail to leverage Europe’s tech talent and research capabilities.

  4. Investment and Financial Strategy:

    • The discussion underscored the need for significant investment in European tech. Francesca pointed out that although Europe is already investing vast amounts in digital transformation, much of the money might be poorly allocated, often benefiting large non-European tech companies rather than European tech ecosystems.
    • Herman Hauser expanded on this point, highlighting that while Europe’s universities produce world-class research, there is a critical gap in translating this research into successful global companies due to a lack of venture capital.
    • Hauser emphasized the importance of European pension funds and insurance funds investing in technology and venture capital, similar to recent shifts in British policy.

  5. Innovation in Europe:

    • Hauser acknowledged that Europe has seen progress in areas like startups and venture capital returns, noting that Europe produces more startups than the U.S. and has a strong university research output.
    • However, he pointed out that Europe is still lagging in scaling these startups to global dominance due to insufficient capital allocation for companies in their growth phase.

  6. Future Technologies:

    • The discussion identified AI, quantum computing, and synthetic biology as critical technologies for the future. While the U.S. and China are currently leading, Hauser argued that Europe still has a chance to catch up, but only if it invests sufficiently in these areas.

  7. AI as a Key Enabler of Productivity:

    • Hauser emphasized AI as a transformative technology directly affecting productivity. He warned that if Europe falls behind in AI, even by a few months, it risks being left behind permanently in terms of economic growth due to the exponential nature of productivity improvements driven by AI.

  8. The Challenge of Coordination:

    • The panel acknowledged that while Europe has the resources and capabilities in different parts of the tech stack (e.g., connectivity with Nokia and Ericsson, system integration, software development), what’s missing is a coordinated, cohesive strategy.
    • The European Commission representative, Thibaut Kleiner, highlighted the importance of ecosystems and AI factories—connecting Europe’s tech capabilities with specific industries like healthcare, transportation, and agriculture.
    • He noted that Europe must focus on concrete use cases and practical applications of technology to compete globally.

  9. Skepticism Toward AI:

    • Despite the enthusiasm around AI’s transformative potential, some panelists, including Francesca and Christina, expressed skepticism about AI’s current trajectory, suggesting that there’s still uncertainty about its actual impact and outcomes, particularly in terms of democratic governance and ethical concerns.

  10. Governance and Independence:

  • Francesca floated the idea of creating a new independent digital corporation, modeled after institutions like the European Central Bank or BBC, to ensure that the Euro-stack remains independent from both corporate and state interference.
  • The idea is to combine public funding with operational autonomy, creating an ecosystem that aligns with democratic principles and is free from undue influence from large corporations or governments.

Conclusion:

The first panel was a deep dive into Europe's challenge of securing technological sovereignty. While Europe has made progress in certain areas (e.g., startups, AI expertise), the panelists agreed that much more needs to be done, especially in terms of investment, infrastructure, and policy coordination. The creation of a European tech ecosystem that is both independent and aligned with European democratic values is seen as crucial for the continent’s future competitiveness and autonomy.

Panel 2: Policy Makers: What Commitment for the Next Mandate?

Introduction and Overview:

The second panel continued the discussion on Europe's digital future, emphasizing the critical role of the European Parliament in shaping the digital sovereignty agenda. Key members of the European Parliament (such as Alexandra Geese, Lina Gálvez Muñoz, Axel Voss, and others) from multiple political groups, including the European People's Party (EPP), Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and The Greens, shared their perspectives. The discussion focused on how to define digital sovereignty, the need for a clear industrial strategy, and the importance of coordinated investments across Europe to ensure competitiveness and independence in the digital sphere.

Key Themes:

  1. Multilateral Cooperation and Symbolic Importance:

    • The symbolic value of hosting this event in the European Parliament was highlighted, with speakers emphasizing the importance of having representatives from all major political groups present, showing unity on the issue.
    • Alexandra expressed optimism about the exceptional collaboration among different political groups, noting that it was unusual to see this level of cooperation across the spectrum.

  2. Urgency for Action on Digital Sovereignty:

    • The panelists expressed a sense of urgency, emphasizing that Europe is at a crossroads where it must act quickly to secure its digital future. Failure to do so could lead to Europe becoming a "digital colony," as described by Axel from the EPP.
    • Europe needs to develop its digital infrastructure to avoid dependence on external technologies and companies, mainly from the U.S. and China. Without such action, Europe risks losing control over its economic, political, and social future.

  3. European Values and the Digital Sphere:

    • Several panelists emphasized that Europe should not try to "catch up" with the U.S. or China by replicating their models. Instead, Europe must develop its own vision for digital sovereignty that aligns with European values of democracy, transparency, and sustainability.
    • Alexandra and Lina both stressed that digital sovereignty should not just be about technology and regulation but should also reflect a societal vision that promotes equity, sustainability, and inclusivity. Europe should lead by example, particularly in areas like green computing, privacy protection, and decentralized digital ecosystems.

  4. Investment in Digital Infrastructure:

    • The need for significant investment in European digital infrastructure was a recurring theme. Axel argued that current investments, such as the €2.5 billion over seven years, are insufficient and called for a tenfold increase in funding to truly transform Europe’s digital landscape.
    • Public procurement was identified as a powerful tool to support European technology startups by providing them with clients, not just public money. Alexandra and others argued that government procurement should prioritize European digital solutions to support homegrown innovation.

  5. A European Digital Vision and Narrative:

    • Several speakers stressed the importance of a compelling vision and narrative for Europe’s digital future. They argued that the conversation should not be limited to regulation and financing but should include a broader societal perspective that resonates with European citizens.
    • Alexandra highlighted the challenge of changing the narrative around Europe’s digital ambitions. She stressed that Europe needs a positive, forward-looking vision that inspires citizens, particularly in the context of rising populism and nationalism across the continent.

  6. Challenges of Coordination and Governance:

    • Lina and others noted that one of the biggest challenges is coordinating efforts across European member states. There is often a lack of trust between countries when it comes to sharing data and developing joint digital strategies, particularly in sensitive areas like cybersecurity.
    • Axel suggested that Europe needs a unified governance structure to streamline the various digital initiatives and regulations, such as the GDPR, Data Act, and Digital Markets Act. This would reduce bureaucracy and ensure that companies have a clear legal framework to operate within.

  7. Digital Education and Skills:

    • Education and skills development were highlighted as essential components of Europe’s digital strategy. Axel stressed the need to improve digital literacy across Europe, starting from schools, to ensure that the next generation is equipped with the skills needed to succeed in a digital world.
    • Lina pointed out that Europe’s talent pool is underutilized, especially when it comes to women. She noted that only 1% of investment in European startups goes to women-led businesses, despite women making up a majority of university graduates.

  8. Inclusivity and Inequality:

    • Lina raised concerns about the potential for increased inequality if Europe’s digital transformation is not managed carefully. She pointed out that many investments in green and digital technologies tend to benefit male-dominated industries, while women and people in less developed regions may be left behind.
    • The panel emphasized the need to ensure that digital investments benefit all regions and social groups, not just the most economically advanced areas. Lina suggested that the European Union should use tools like NextGenerationEU to promote regional equity and ensure that all member states can participate in the digital transformation.

  9. The Role of Public Digital Infrastructure:

    • Public digital infrastructure was seen as a key element of Europe’s digital sovereignty strategy. The panelists discussed how public infrastructure could serve as a foundation for critical applications in areas like healthcare, education, and sustainable mobility.
    • Public procurement and investment in public infrastructure, such as digital IDs and cloud computing, were viewed as essential tools for reducing dependence on external providers and ensuring that Europe’s digital future is aligned with its democratic values.

  10. AI and Algorithmic Management:

  • Lee from The Left touched on AI and its impact on the labor market, particularly the rise of algorithmic management, which can undermine workers’ rights. She suggested that Europe should explore alternative models, such as worker-owned platforms, to ensure that digital innovation benefits employees rather than exploiting them.
  • The panel agreed that AI, along with other emerging technologies like quantum computing and synthetic biology, represents both an opportunity and a challenge for Europe’s digital sovereignty.

Conclusion:

The second panel focused on the critical steps Europe must take to secure its digital sovereignty. The speakers emphasized the need for a comprehensive, value-driven vision that goes beyond regulation and financing. Key areas of focus included public procurement, investment in digital infrastructure, coordination among member states, and ensuring inclusivity in Europe’s digital transformation. The panelists agreed that Europe has a limited window of opportunity to act, and that success will depend on political will, investment, and collaboration across sectors.

Panel 3: European Cloud Stack and Infrastructure

Panel Overview:

The third panel was focused on the technical aspects of building a European cloud stack and infrastructure, bringing in key experts like Boris Otto (Director Fraunhofer ISST), Ignacio Llorente (CEO OpenNebula Systems), and others to discuss the challenges, opportunities, and vision for the future of European cloud infrastructure. The discussions covered data sovereignty, technological autonomy, energy and environmental concerns, and the need for Europe's own digital solutions that align with European values such as privacy, inclusivity, and sustainability.

Key Points:

  1. Understanding and Building the Euro Stack:

    • Boris Otto and Ignacio Llorente stressed the importance of building a European cloud stack that ensures technological autonomy and data sovereignty. Europe must move beyond simply reacting to global tech giants (mainly from the U.S. and China) and instead define and control its own critical digital infrastructure.
    • The panelists acknowledged that Europe has significant tech talent and infrastructural assets, but the main challenge lies in creating a coherent strategy that integrates these capabilities into a unified, secure, and sustainable digital ecosystem.

  2. Public vs. Private Infrastructure:

    • Marlene Sticke, known for her work in digital public infrastructures, emphasized that technology is not neutral. Europe needs to be explicit about the values driving its technology, such as interoperability, privacy by design, and non-extractive business models.
    • Sticke also pointed out that while Europe has developed critical standards (e.g., Bluetooth, ActivityPub for the federated internet), much of the digital infrastructure is still driven by big business and government interests, leaving out important stakeholders like civil society and labor unions.

  3. Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Computing:

    • Fabrizio Gallardi from the Barcelona Supercomputing Center discussed the environmental impact of high-performance computing (HPC). He highlighted that while Europe needs to scale up its computing infrastructure to support AI and data-driven applications, the energy demands of such infrastructure are enormous, and current solutions (e.g., using nuclear energy for data centers) are not sustainable in the long term.
    • He called for more investments in energy-efficient technologies, such as photonic computing (which uses light instead of electrons), as a way to reduce the environmental footprint of large-scale computing systems.

  4. Challenges in Competing with Hyperscalers:

    • Ignacio Llorente made it clear that Europe's approach should not be to simply replicate the U.S. and Chinese hyperscalers. Instead, Europe should focus on building technology that brings neutrality to the cloud-edge continuum, allowing users to move workloads across different cloud providers without being locked into any single system.
    • He also highlighted the market loss for European cloud providers, which dropped from 25% of the market share in 2017 to just 10% in 2024. To reverse this trend, Europe must invest in open-source software and cloud infrastructure under European governance.

  5. Data Sovereignty and Sharing:

    • Boris Otto and Francesco Bonfiglio discussed the importance of data sovereignty and the risks of losing control over Europe’s data to non-European entities. They agreed that Europe must create trust-based digital infrastructures that allow data sharing while preserving privacy, security, and control.
    • Otto also warned against surveillance models like those seen in the U.S., suggesting that Europe's digital infrastructure must be built around transparency, controllability, and interoperability to prevent the concentration of power in a few hands.

  6. Lessons from GAIA-X:

    • Francesco Bonfiglio shared insights from his experience leading GAIA-X, Europe’s flagship cloud initiative. He pointed out that while GAIA-X made some progress in creating standards and governance frameworks for cloud infrastructures, it failed to deliver a true European alternative to the hyperscalers. He emphasized the need to act in the market rather than just theorize or create standards, noting that the real issue is the market share loss for European providers.
    • He suggested that commercial federation of existing European cloud service providers, coupled with open standards, could be a third way to compete globally, as opposed to merely waiting for a European champion to emerge.

  7. Execution and Coordination Challenges:

    • Several panelists, including Paolo Vecchi and Carmela Troncoso, stressed the importance of execution over theory. Troncoso highlighted the risk of privacy-washing, where companies claim to offer privacy-preserving technologies but still engage in harmful practices like profiling and influencing users in hidden ways.
    • Vecchi emphasized the need for Europe to focus on how it uses technology to meet societal needs, rather than trying to catch up with the dominant global players in areas like smartphone manufacturing. He advocated for building resilient digital infrastructure, particularly in the areas of digital identity and payments.

  8. Privacy Risks and Sovereignty:

    • Carmela Troncoso raised critical points about the risks of being too ambitious with Europe's infrastructure projects, warning that some goals might be unachievable or harmful if not properly aligned with privacy and sovereignty. She noted that privacy-enhancing technologies are often co-opted by big tech to further entrench their power under the guise of protecting user data.
    • Troncoso also mentioned that Europe's overreliance on mobile operating systems and devices controlled by Google and Apple presents a significant challenge to building a truly sovereign European infrastructure. Without control over these foundational technologies, Europe’s digital sovereignty remains at risk.

  9. Public Procurement and Policy:

    • Public procurement was identified as a powerful tool for supporting European cloud infrastructure. Several panelists called on European governments and public institutions to be early adopters of open-source and European-developed technologies, which could help create a market for these solutions.
    • Boris Otto made a passionate plea for concentrating resources, arguing that Europe has too many consensus-driven processes and not enough focused efforts to drive innovation and implementation.

Conclusion:

The third panel provided a deep dive into the technical and policy challenges facing Europe as it seeks to build its own cloud stack and achieve digital sovereignty. The panelists emphasized the need for open-source technologies, trust-based infrastructures, and sustainable computing, while also acknowledging the significant challenges posed by global competitors and Europe’s own fragmented approach to digital development. There was a shared sense of urgency: Europe must move quickly and decisively if it is to regain control of its digital future and prevent further market erosion.

Panel 3: European Cloud Stack and Infrastructure

Panel Overview:

The third panel was focused on the technical aspects of building a European cloud stack and infrastructure, bringing in key experts like Boris Otto (Director Fraunhofer ISST), Ignacio Llorente (CEO OpenNebula Systems), and others to discuss the challenges, opportunities, and vision for the future of European cloud infrastructure. The discussions covered data sovereignty, technological autonomy, energy and environmental concerns, and the need for Europe's own digital solutions that align with European values such as privacy, inclusivity, and sustainability.

Key Points:

  1. Understanding and Building the Euro Stack:

    • Boris Otto and Ignacio Llorente stressed the importance of building a European cloud stack that ensures technological autonomy and data sovereignty. Europe must move beyond simply reacting to global tech giants (mainly from the U.S. and China) and instead define and control its own critical digital infrastructure.
    • The panelists acknowledged that Europe has significant tech talent and infrastructural assets, but the main challenge lies in creating a coherent strategy that integrates these capabilities into a unified, secure, and sustainable digital ecosystem.

  2. Public vs. Private Infrastructure:

    • Marlene Sticke, known for her work in digital public infrastructures, emphasized that technology is not neutral. Europe needs to be explicit about the values driving its technology, such as interoperability, privacy by design, and non-extractive business models.
    • Sticke also pointed out that while Europe has developed critical standards (e.g., Bluetooth, ActivityPub for the federated internet), much of the digital infrastructure is still driven by big business and government interests, leaving out important stakeholders like civil society and labor unions.

  3. Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Computing:

    • Fabrizio Gallardi from the Barcelona Supercomputing Center discussed the environmental impact of high-performance computing (HPC). He highlighted that while Europe needs to scale up its computing infrastructure to support AI and data-driven applications, the energy demands of such infrastructure are enormous, and current solutions (e.g., using nuclear energy for data centers) are not sustainable in the long term.
    • He called for more investments in energy-efficient technologies, such as photonic computing (which uses light instead of electrons), as a way to reduce the environmental footprint of large-scale computing systems.

  4. Challenges in Competing with Hyperscalers:

    • Ignacio Llorente made it clear that Europe's approach should not be to simply replicate the U.S. and Chinese hyperscalers. Instead, Europe should focus on building technology that brings neutrality to the cloud-edge continuum, allowing users to move workloads across different cloud providers without being locked into any single system.
    • He also highlighted the market loss for European cloud providers, which dropped from 25% of the market share in 2017 to just 10% in 2024. To reverse this trend, Europe must invest in open-source software and cloud infrastructure under European governance.

  5. Data Sovereignty and Sharing:

    • Boris Otto and Francesco Bonfiglio discussed the importance of data sovereignty and the risks of losing control over Europe’s data to non-European entities. They agreed that Europe must create trust-based digital infrastructures that allow data sharing while preserving privacy, security, and control.
    • Otto also warned against surveillance models like those seen in the U.S., suggesting that Europe's digital infrastructure must be built around transparency, controllability, and interoperability to prevent the concentration of power in a few hands.

  6. Lessons from GAIA-X:

    • Francesco Bonfiglio shared insights from his experience leading GAIA-X, Europe’s flagship cloud initiative. He pointed out that while GAIA-X made some progress in creating standards and governance frameworks for cloud infrastructures, it failed to deliver a true European alternative to the hyperscalers. He emphasized the need to act in the market rather than just theorize or create standards, noting that the real issue is the market share loss for European providers.
    • He suggested that commercial federation of existing European cloud service providers, coupled with open standards, could be a third way to compete globally, as opposed to merely waiting for a European champion to emerge.

  7. Execution and Coordination Challenges:

    • Several panelists, including Paolo Vecchi and Carmela Troncoso, stressed the importance of execution over theory. Troncoso highlighted the risk of privacy-washing, where companies claim to offer privacy-preserving technologies but still engage in harmful practices like profiling and influencing users in hidden ways.
    • Vecchi emphasized the need for Europe to focus on how it uses technology to meet societal needs, rather than trying to catch up with the dominant global players in areas like smartphone manufacturing. He advocated for building resilient digital infrastructure, particularly in the areas of digital identity and payments.

  8. Privacy Risks and Sovereignty:

    • Carmela Troncoso raised critical points about the risks of being too ambitious with Europe's infrastructure projects, warning that some goals might be unachievable or harmful if not properly aligned with privacy and sovereignty. She noted that privacy-enhancing technologies are often co-opted by big tech to further entrench their power under the guise of protecting user data.
    • Troncoso also mentioned that Europe's overreliance on mobile operating systems and devices controlled by Google and Apple presents a significant challenge to building a truly sovereign European infrastructure. Without control over these foundational technologies, Europe’s digital sovereignty remains at risk.

  9. Public Procurement and Policy:

    • Public procurement was identified as a powerful tool for supporting European cloud infrastructure. Several panelists called on European governments and public institutions to be early adopters of open-source and European-developed technologies, which could help create a market for these solutions.
    • Boris Otto made a passionate plea for concentrating resources, arguing that Europe has too many consensus-driven processes and not enough focused efforts to drive innovation and implementation.

Conclusion:

The third panel provided a deep dive into the technical and policy challenges facing Europe as it seeks to build its own cloud stack and achieve digital sovereignty. The panelists emphasized the need for open-source technologies, trust-based infrastructures, and sustainable computing, while also acknowledging the significant challenges posed by global competitors and Europe’s own fragmented approach to digital development. There was a shared sense of urgency: Europe must move quickly and decisively if it is to regain control of its digital future and prevent further market erosion.

Panel 4: Making It Happen: What’s the Way Forward?

The fourth panel discussion revolved around the critical role of governments in promoting innovation, particularly in the context of public innovation, technology sovereignty, and open-source solutions in Europe. The key focus was on action-oriented approaches, with contributions from German, Spanish, and French officials, alongside financial experts, addressing how Europe can maintain digital sovereignty while fostering innovation and competitive infrastructures.

Key Highlights:

  1. Francesca Brandner (Germany):

    • Francesca, representing Germany's Ministry of Economy, emphasized the country's dual focus on innovation and security in digital technologies. Germany's strategic initiatives, like the Sovereign Tech Fund and SPRIN-D (Federal Agency for Disruptive Innovation), aim to maintain control over technological advances by fostering European-grown solutions and ensuring their security.
    • She discussed the critical debate around the European Cloud Certification scheme, touching on issues such as data center ownership and sovereignty over sensitive data. Brandner highlighted Germany's interest in strengthening digital sovereignty through European collaboration, particularly in areas like data centers and open-source technologies.

  2. Ruth del Campo (Spain):

    • Ruth highlighted Spain’s regulatory role in AI and digital rights. Spain has positioned itself as a leader in artificial intelligence with the establishment of the first AI regulatory agency under the AI Act.
    • She underscored Spain’s commitment to digital sovereignty, mentioning ongoing efforts to promote digital infrastructures and open-source AI. She also highlighted the importance of leveraging Spanish cultural content in AI development, aligning digital initiatives with national identity.

  3. Stephanie (France):

    • France has been a vocal proponent of technological sovereignty. Stephanie shared insights into the French approach, where they collaborate closely with Germany on projects like a French-German digital stack for workplace solutions aimed at civil servants.
    • France’s adoption of open-source solutions for large-scale use in public services was emphasized, with examples such as Grist for collaborative spreadsheets and the use of the Matrix protocol for secure instant messaging (known as "Chap" in France).
    • France is also focusing on integrating open-source solutions with private sector innovations, fostering a collaborative ecosystem between governments and SMEs to boost digital sovereignty.

  4. Shiva Dustdar (EIB Institute):

    • Representing the European Investment Bank (EIB), Shiva addressed the challenges of financing innovation in Europe. She pointed out issues like information asymmetry, where many startups and SMEs are unaware of available funding opportunities, and the lack of risk capital for early-stage innovations.
    • She highlighted the importance of innovative procurement as a pull mechanism for driving tech innovation, with governments acting as anchor customers for digital startups.
    • The need for a better ecosystem to commercialize European-developed infrastructures like high-performance computing (HPC) was discussed, alongside the potential for leveraging blended financing mechanisms (e.g., combining grants with investment instruments).

  5. Adriana Groh (Sovereign Tech Fund):

    • Adriana Groh introduced the Sovereign Tech Fund as a crucial tool for maintaining critical open-source infrastructure, emphasizing the necessity of investing in long-term maintenance to secure Europe’s technological future.
    • She highlighted the agency’s role in scouting and supporting key open-source projects, crucial to digital sovereignty and competitiveness, especially as many open-source projects are foundational to modern software development yet lack sustainable support.

Key Takeaways:

  • Collaboration and Joint Innovation: The speakers agreed that digital sovereignty cannot be achieved in isolation. European countries need to collaborate on technology infrastructures, open-source projects, and regulatory frameworks to remain competitive globally.
  • Open-Source as a Pillar: Open-source software and digital commons were highlighted as critical assets for Europe’s digital independence. Both Germany and France are leveraging open-source solutions for government use, promoting transparency, innovation, and sovereignty.
  • Financing Innovation: Addressing Europe’s financial ecosystem for tech innovation, the need for better access to risk capital, improved procurement mechanisms, and collaborative efforts between public and private sectors were underlined.
  • Cultural Shifts in Government: To drive innovation, governments must adopt agile, user-centered approaches and work more closely with SMEs and open-source communities. France's and Germany’s public sector strategies demonstrate a commitment to this cultural shift.

The panel concluded with a call for scaling up existing tools, such as the Sovereign Tech Fund and initiatives like France’s digital commons, to empower Europe’s digital future.

Panel 5: Growing Digital Commons: Global Experiences and What Should Europe Do?

The final panel, Growing Digital Commons: Global Experiences and What Should Europe Do?, explored lessons from global leaders in the digital commons space and how Europe can learn from these experiences.

Key Points:

  1. Opening Remarks (Robin, Moderator):

    • The panel began with an acknowledgment that governing digital infrastructure is complex, concentrating power and requiring careful oversight. The focus was on real-world experiences, with panelists sharing what works and what does not in the realm of digital infrastructure and commons.

  2. Sujit Nair (India Stack):

    • Sujit explained India’s journey with India Stack, which revolutionized financial inclusion and digital services in India. He emphasized how the infrastructure was built to support scale, complexity, and diversity by creating modular, interoperable, and purpose-driven building blocks.
    • India's approach to public infrastructure focuses on minimalism, privacy by design, and a techno-legal approach, which integrates technology with policy to ensure compliance without relying solely on post-facto regulations.
    • He discussed the scalability of systems like Aadhaar and UPI (Unified Payments Interface), both of which have facilitated widespread banking access and digital payments, stressing the importance of creating economic incentives for private sector participation.

  3. Renata Avila (Open Knowledge Foundation):

    • Renata highlighted the dangers of excluding civil society and citizens from the digital policy-making process. She argued that exclusive rooms where only governments and big tech collaborate create a democratic deficit, eroding public trust.
    • She emphasized the need for participatory governance models, where citizens have a say in technological development, especially for public infrastructure like AI and open data systems.
    • Renata also pointed out that while public and private partnerships are crucial, they must be balanced with transparency and inclusive governance to avoid situations where big tech dominates public digital infrastructure.

  4. Luca Belli (Brazil, CyberBrics):

    • Luca provided an overview of Brazil’s digital sovereignty efforts, particularly the successes and failures. Brazil’s pioneering use of free and open-source software in the public sector in the early 2000s was a missed opportunity due to a lack of industrial policy to support the ecosystem.
    • However, Brazil’s more recent success with Pix, a public digital payments system, was highlighted as a model for how public infrastructure can break monopolies (in this case, Visa and Mastercard) while promoting financial inclusion.
    • He also discussed the role of community networks in rural Brazil and other BRICS countries, emphasizing that local governance and self-determination are key to building resilient, inclusive digital infrastructures.

  5. Noel Hidalgo (Decidim, Barcelona):

    • Noel shared the experience of Decidim, a participatory democracy platform developed in Barcelona that has expanded globally. The platform is open source and serves as an example of how digital commons can foster democratic engagement and transparency.
    • He stressed the importance of political and technical alignment in digital governance, advocating for hybrid teams that combine policy-makers with technologists to design digital systems that are both functional and democratically governed.
    • He also made the case for public procurement policies that favor open-source solutions, ensuring that public digital infrastructure remains accessible and transparent.

  6. Sebastiano Toffaletti (SMEUnited):

    • Sebastiano wrapped up the session by emphasizing the need for adoption of digital public infrastructure. He pointed out that while Europe has invested in many digital projects, the lack of a strong adoption strategy has limited their impact.
    • He gave examples from China, where energy and economic policies have driven mass adoption of electric vehicles and digital payments. Europe, he argued, needs to focus more on industrial strategy and creating incentives for businesses and citizens to adopt digital public goods.
    • He concluded by urging the European Commission and governments to work closely with SMEs and startups, many of which are leading innovations in areas like open-source and privacy-first technologies.

Conclusion:

The panelists collectively highlighted the importance of:

  • Adopting digital commons models based on transparency, open-source principles, and citizen participation.
  • Avoiding the concentration of power within big tech companies by fostering public-private partnerships that support local ecosystems.
  • Ensuring that digital sovereignty is not just about infrastructure but also about empowering citizens, SMEs, and local governments to actively participate in and benefit from digital services.

The session concluded with a focus on the need for action-oriented strategies in Europe, especially around adoption, governance, and collaboration with SMEs to ensure that the European digital ecosystem remains competitive, democratic, and inclusive.

My comments

While the "Toward European Digital Independence: Building the Euro Stack" conference addressed key aspects of digital sovereignty, collaboration, and public infrastructure, there are significant gaps in the practical realization of these initiatives. Organizations like APELL, Euclidia, CNLL, and others must engage with relevant stakeholders to ensure that these gaps are acknowledged and addressed, particularly with respect to open-source software and the role of SMEs.

Open Source as the Foundation for Digital Sovereignty

The discussions at the conference rightly emphasized the need for European digital sovereignty, but I believe they did not go far enough in positioning open-source software (OSS) as the foundation of this sovereignty. For Europe to truly control its technology stack and avoid dependency on non-European actors, OSS must be a non-negotiable principle, with policies like "Open Source First" in public procurement and "Public Money, Public Code" as mandatory for any publicly funded projects. As APELL and CNLL have argued, OSS offers transparency, security, and autonomy, which are critical elements for any sovereign digital infrastructure. Europe’s "Euro Stack" must not only be European-controlled but also built on open, interoperable, and accessible OSS technologies. This approach ensures that European SMEs and citizens can actively contribute to and benefit from these systems while reducing the risks of vendor lock-in and extraterritorial influence from large non-European hyperscalers.

The Role of SMEs in Europe’s Digital Ecosystem

I strongly believe that the role of European SMEs was underemphasized in the discussions. Euclidia has consistently stressed that SMEs must be at the core of any European digital strategy. SMEs in the cloud and software sectors are often the most innovative and agile players, able to bring forward disruptive technologies that larger corporations may overlook. Public procurement processes should be restructured to prioritize SMEs and open-source projects, offering them more opportunities to scale and compete. Without this focus, we risk allowing the Euro Stack to be dominated by a few large players, sidelining the potential of smaller but highly innovative companies. This is not just a question of economic fairness, but one of diversity and resilience in Europe’s technological ecosystem.

Avoiding Redundant Competition and Duplication of Efforts

The creation of a Euro Stack must avoid the pitfalls seen in France with La Suite Numérique, which was recently criticized by the French Court of Auditors and CNLL for its high cost, low usage, and competition with existing market solutions. Europe must leverage and build on existing OSS solutions rather than trying to reinvent the wheel without the resources and expertise to properly act as an open source vendor. Its efforts should focus on integrating and improving what already exists in the European open-source landscape, such as projects developed by European SMEs. A unified strategy that builds on existing strengths will prevent fragmentation and ensure that European funds are spent efficiently, fostering innovation without duplicating efforts.

Ensuring Effective Coordination and Execution

A recurring theme in the conference was the challenge of coordination across European member states and sectors. I fully agree with the concerns raised, and I believe that the Euro Stack initiative must prioritize collaborative frameworks that bring together national governments, SMEs, and open-source communities. As seen with GAIA-X, failure to execute on these collaborations can result in stalled projects and missed opportunities. CNLL and Euclidia have been vocal in the past about the amount of red tape and the lack of openness and actual code within the GAIA-X initiative. Europe must also avoid overly bureaucratic processes that stifle innovation—streamlining regulatory and operational hurdles, especially for SMEs, will be critical for the success of the Euro Stack. We must accelerate harmonization efforts across member states and ensure regulatory flexibility to accommodate diverse players in the tech ecosystem. The CRA is an unfortunate example of Europe lack of understanding of, and willingness to work with, the open source ecosystem during its legislative process.

Sustainable Financing and Long-Term Support for Open Source

The conference did not sufficiently address the need for sustainable financing mechanisms, especially for open-source projects. Open-source software requires continuous maintenance, development, and community engagement to remain secure and viable. Public sector funding should be allocated not just for the development of new tools but also for the long-term sustainability of existing open-source projects. Without this, Europe risks relying on underfunded tools that are vulnerable to obsolescence or co-option by larger, non-European companies. Both Euclidia and CNLL have argued that OSS projects must receive ongoing public support to ensure they can scale and remain resilient in the face of global competition.

Open Cloud and Avoiding Hyperscaler Lock-In

The emphasis on building a European cloud stack is a step in the right direction, but I believe the focus must remain firmly on open-source solutions within this stack. As the discussions on data sovereignty revealed, the dominance of U.S. and Chinese hyperscalers poses a significant threat to European autonomy. The solution, however, is not merely to replicate these giants in Europe. Instead, we must focus on building a cloud ecosystem that is open, modular, and interoperable, allowing for vendor-neutral solutions that can be easily adopted and scaled by European businesses. This will prevent lock-in and give Europe the flexibility it needs to adapt to changing technological landscapes.

Building Digital Skills through Open-Source Education

I agree with the panelists who emphasized the importance of education and skills development, but I believe we need to be more specific. The future of Europe’s digital sovereignty depends on a workforce that is fluent in open-source development and cloud technologies. I think Europe must embed OSS principles into its ICT curricula, fostering the next generation of open-source developers and engineers. APELL and CNLL have long advocated for cross-border educational initiatives that focus on building a culture of openness, ensuring that Europe’s digital future is both innovative and self-reliant.

The Euro Stack Must Reflect European Values of Transparency and Democracy

The Euro Stack’s success will depend on its alignment with European values, such as privacy, transparency, and inclusivity. Europe has a unique opportunity to lead by example in the global digital economy by promoting privacy by design, open governance models, and non-extractive business practices. The digital commons model discussed in the conference provides a viable path forward, but I believe it must be expanded to ensure that civil society, SMEs, and open-source communities have a meaningful role in shaping and governing Europe’s digital infrastructure.

Leveraging Horizon Europe for Bottom-Up Open Source R&D Funding

I believe that Horizon Europe offers a significant opportunity to drive innovation in the open-source ecosystem. However, there needs to be a stronger bottom-up approach in R&D funding, where funding instruments are designed to directly benefit open-source SMEs and independent projects. Most current funding structures favor large-scale projects, which can inadvertently exclude smaller, agile players from the open-source community. A focus on decentralized, small-scale projects that empower open-source developers and SMEs will not only accelerate innovation but also create a more sustainable, diverse, and resilient European tech ecosystem. The Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative has demonstrated how targeted, flexible funding mechanisms can support open-source innovation, contributing to Europe’s digital sovereignty. This model must be preserved, and improved with more focus on actionable results, in the upcoming iterations of the Horizon Europe programme. By advocating for targeted funding instruments within Horizon Europe, we can help ensure that the open-source ecosystem becomes a pillar of Europe's digital sovereignty, with public funding aligned to foster collaboration, interoperability, and long-term growth of European-led open technologies.

Conclusion: A European Digital Future Rooted in Openness and Collaboration

In conclusion, I believe that Europe’s digital future must be rooted in openness, both in terms of technology and collaboration. The Euro Stack has the potential to secure Europe’s digital sovereignty, but only if it is built on a foundation of open-source software, with SMEs and open-source communities at its core. By avoiding duplication, streamlining regulations, and providing sustainable financial support, Europe can create a digital ecosystem that is resilient, inclusive, and competitive on the global stage. Importantly, funding must not only come from R&D programs, but also through contracts with actual open-source innovators, ensuring that public sector investments are directed toward those who are already contributing to the open-source ecosystem and to products that are supported and maintained. This approach will help scale and maintain critical OSS infrastructure, and foster long-term innovation and sustainability. I strongly advocate for a distributed, ecosystem-driven approach to building the Euro Stack, one that prioritizes open standards, collaboration, and long-term sustainability.

Back to Blog