Evolution of Digital Public Infrastructure as a Digital Sovereignty Solution

In recent years, AI technologies and ‘Digital Public Infrastructure’ (DPI), are the two technological developments that have emerged as key policy imperatives and generated significant interest in global discussions on technology sovereignty and economic development. Current digital economy is characterized by Big Tech capture and technological dependency on a handful of mostly US-based companies. As the global race to dominate the artificial intelligence landscape intensifies, governments and corporations have geared to drive substantial investments in underlying digital infrastructure that is central to gaining AI supremacy. In mid-February 2025, a new report EuroStack was launched to secure the European Union’s (EU) digital sovereignty to ensure an independent, open, and sustainable digital future for the EU. The report is the most comprehensive and ambitious contribution, so far, to the policy discourse on European digital sovereignty and the strategic role of digital public infrastructures. This is the latest and one of the most crucial policy directions among many digital tech initiatives around the world that has broadened the scope of DPI. IndiaStack is considered one of the major sources of inspiration for other DPI initiatives around the world. The other notable DPI initiatives being launched are from Brazil, Ethiopia, Estonia, etc. The DPI initiatives are largely from the Global South and are confined to providing scalable and interoperable technologies and systems that provide essential public services and critical functions. Though there are various examples of Digital Public Infrastructures (DPIs), yet, there is no common definition to understand what it really entails. DPI was defined at the G20 Summit of August 2023 as “a set of shared digital systems that should be secure and interoperable and can be built on open standards and specifications to deliver and provide equitable access to public and/or private services at societal scale”. Open Future Foundation proposes an expanded conception of digital public infrastructure, moving beyond software and governance to encompass both the hardware and social frameworks that form the critical foundations for effective technological rollout. It also calls for open, democratic discourse to address the diverse goals these infrastructures can serve. As digital public infrastructure spreads globally, national and region-specific adaptations and innovative conceptualizations are emerging. These span a spectrum from digital commons to its integration into industrial policy and its interplay with artificial intelligence.

Big Tech Control Over Compute and Digital Infrastructure

The perceived potential of new advancements in generative AI, from anticipating productivity gains to accelerating scientific breakthroughs, has sparked widespread enthusiasm. However, this rapid deployment of advanced AI models hinges on two foundational pillars: compute (computational power) and cloud infrastructure. These pillars not only enable AI innovation but are increasingly concentrated under the control of a handful of U.S. tech giants, raising concerns about power imbalances and systemic risks.

Compute, a critical layer in the AI supply chain, comprises a complex stack of interdependent components:

• Hardware: Specialized chips like GPUs (Graphic Processing Units) and CPUs form the backbone of AI systems, enabling parallel processing for training complex models.
• Software: Tools like Nvidia’s CUDA programming framework optimize chip performance, acting as gatekeepers to hardware capabilities.
• Infrastructure: Data centers—with their servers, cooling systems, and cabling—aggregate hardware into scalable computational powerhouses.

This infrastructure is not neutral. Its design and accessibility shape who can participate in AI development, privileging entities with the resources to commandeer vast computational resources.

The digital infrastructure underpinning AI is dominated by a near-oligopoly of the U.S.-based corporations—Amazon (AWS), Microsoft (Azure), and Google (Cloud)—which collectively control 70% of the global cloud market. Their dominance extends to physical infrastructure, including over half of the world’s undersea internet cables (when Meta is included). These firms have leveraged their monopolies over cloud services and compute resources to exert unparalleled influence across economic, social, and political spheres.

The AI boom has further entrenched this power asymmetry. Training advanced large language models like GPT-4 requires massive computational and infrastructure investments, accessible only through hyperscale cloud providers. Even emerging competitors, such as Chinese tech firms, face significant barriers to challenging this hegemony. Meanwhile, the environmental toll of data centers—from energy consumption to water usage—remains underregulated, as corporations prioritize rapid scalability over sustainability.

In essence, AI’s promise is inextricably tied to a system where computational power and infrastructure are controlled by a few Big Tech gatekeepers.

In essence, AI’s promise is inextricably tied to a system where computational power and infrastructure are controlled by a few Big Tech gatekeepers. This concentration risks stifling real innovation, exacerbating environmental harm, and deepening societal dependence on entities whose priorities are driven by profit, not public interest.

AI Supremacy and Digital Nationalism Eroding Multilateral Governance

In an era defined by geopolitical rivalry and the urgent quest for digital sovereignty, the Global South faces mounting pressure to build resilient DPI amid a fractured global landscape. While initiatives like the ’50 in 5′ campaign—backed by multilateral organizations and philanthropies—aim to accelerate DPI adoption in 50 countries by 2029, the absence of cohesive leadership and major powers like the U.S. and China pursuing national AI goals threatens to undermine these efforts. Both nations prioritize competing technological paradigms: the U.S. champions market-driven, private-sector dominance, while China exports state-aligned infrastructure through initiatives like the Digital Silk Road. This rivalry leaves the Global South navigating a polarized ecosystem, where dependency on foreign technologies risks eroding local control over data and AI governance. Meanwhile, the promise of open, collaborative “digital commons”—exemplified by projects like Wikipedia and Apache—offers an alternative vision of shared infrastructure. Yet, these decentralized models struggle to scale without robust support, as geopolitical tensions and the lack of aligned incentives among powerful states fragment resources and standards. The result is a precarious balancing act for Global South nations, caught between great-power agendas and the urgent need to secure equitable, sovereign digital futures. As countries prioritize technological sovereignty and data security, divergent regulatory frameworks and technical standards are emerging, complicating cross-border interoperability.

Global South nations are increasingly pressured to align with competing tech blocs, fragmenting DPI development. For example, U.S.-led initiatives like the Clean Network campaign discourage partnerships with Chinese firms, limiting affordable options for countries like Indonesia, which faces costly overhauls to comply with Western data norms. This contestation forces Global South governments into a lose-lose scenario: choosing between China’s cost-effective but opaque ecosystems and the West’s pricier, regulation-heavy alternatives. For example, Brazil’s GOV.BR digital platform, designed to integrate AI-driven public services, has faced delays as U.S. cloud providers resist data localization demands, while Chinese alternatives trigger scrutiny over security risks. The absence of neutral, multilateral frameworks leaves these nations navigating a fractured landscape, where their DPI priorities—such as inclusivity and ethical AI—are sidelined by great-power agendas. This dynamic not only stifles innovation but also deepens global inequities, as the Global South remains a battleground for technological dominance rather than a partner in shaping equitable digital futures.

The absence of neutral, multilateral frameworks leaves these nations navigating a fractured landscape, where their DPI priorities—such as inclusivity and ethical AI—are sidelined by great-power agendas.

Digital public infrastructure (DPI) initiatives in the Global South face mounting challenges in achieving AI sovereignty, as they grapple with resource constraints, technological dependency, and inequitable global power dynamics. Many countries lack the funding, skilled workforce, and computational infrastructure to develop homegrown AI systems, forcing reliance on foreign technologies that often come with strings attached. For instance, Ethiopia’s nascent AI strategy struggles with limited access to cloud computing and high-performance hardware, pushing it to depend on partnerships with foreign firms like Huawei or Western tech giants, which retain control over critical data and algorithms. Similarly, Kenya’s digital ID system, Huduma Namba, has faced setbacks due to biases in outsourced biometric technologies and public distrust over opaque data-sharing agreements with foreign vendors. These dependencies risk perpetuating ‘digital colonialism’, where Global South nations cede control over their data ecosystems to external actors, undermining their ability to shape AI governance frameworks that align with local needs. Compounding this, stringent intellectual property regimes and restrictive licensing terms imposed by Global North corporations further marginalize efforts to build sovereign AI capabilities.

Can EuroStack be the Model for Global Digital Public Infrastructure?

The recently launched EuroStack report warns that AI and digital tech’s future is being dictated by the U.S.-China duopoly controlling 90% of advanced semiconductors and 75% of cloud infrastructure. This dependency, EuroStack argues, leaves the EU and the Global South vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and algorithmic imperialism. EuroStack’s most radical proposition is a “fair compute” initiative, redistributing 20% of EU cloud capacity to partner nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This would enable regions lacking data centers to train AI models on local languages and priorities—a direct challenge to the current paradigm where Global South nations lease computational power from foreign hyperscalers, often forfeiting control over data and innovation. However, it remains to be seen how this will be implemented in reality.

EuroStack’s most radical proposition is a “fair compute” initiative, redistributing 20% of EU cloud capacity to partner nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

It proposes binding standards for energy-efficient data centers, mandating renewable energy use, and taxing high-intensity AI training runs. Crucially, it reimagines computational infrastructure itself: incentivizing modular, repairable hardware over disposable server farms and prioritizing public cloud systems that share resources across institutions. But EuroStack risks replicating past power imbalances. Its ‘partnerships’ with the Global South remain framed through European strategic interests. Yet, by centering sustainability and sovereignty in the same agenda, it provides a crucial counterweight to dominant AI narratives—one where technological progress isn’t built on ecological sacrifice or digital colonialism.

Call for A Commons-Led DPI

Building a digital ecosystem that prioritizes people and the planet demands collective action: governments and communities must unite to dismantle the unchecked dominance of tech giants, reclaim shared knowledge and data, and redistribute power and profits concentrated in corporate hands. Central to this vision is the creation of a ‘public-led digital stack’ grounded in open, ecological infrastructure, universal platforms, and democratically governed services—alongside robust public education to counter Big Tech’s manipulative narratives. DPI governance should be transparent and accountable. Regular audits of DPIs’ social, economic, and environmental impacts should be undertaken and made public. While international cooperation is vital, countries can take immediate steps by enacting regulations to foster sovereign digital foundations and dismantle reliance on extractive corporate systems. Critically, these efforts must be interconnected; standalone digital public infrastructure (DPI) projects risk becoming mere extensions of Big Tech’s control if not anchored in a holistic, publicly owned ecosystem. Only by integrating material infrastructure, ethical governance, and civic empowerment can societies forge a sustainable alternative to today’s exploitative digital paradigm—one that serves collective needs rather than private profit.