How sovereign is your video conferencing solution?

Video conferencing is now an integral part of business-critical digital infrastructure. Expectations regarding functionality, availability and user experience are correspondingly high. At the same time, the question of how organisations can shape their digital communication in an autonomous manner is becoming increasingly important.

Digital sovereignty cannot be defined by a single characteristic. What is crucial is the interplay of various factors: from the location of data processing, through legal frameworks and operating models, to long-term control over the technology used.

1. Where and how is data processed?

Video conferencing generates various types of data. These may include, for example, audio and video streams, participant information, chat messages, metadata, shared files or recordings. Organisations should therefore be able to trace where relevant data is processed and, where applicable, stored. Service providers and subcontractors involved may also play a role in this.

A German or European server location is an important aspect. However, on its own, it is not sufficient to assess the sovereignty of a solution.

2. What is the applicable legal framework?

Closely linked to the location of processing is the question of which law governs providers and involved service providers. Factors such as a company’s registered office, ownership structures and legal obligations outside the European Union may be relevant here. The physical location of a data centre therefore represents only part of the legal framework.

When making a selection, it is worth taking a closer look: Who provides the service? Who can access the data? Which legal system applies to the provider and the infrastructure? Particularly when it comes to sensitive communications, these questions should form part of your own risk assessment.

3. How much freedom of choice does the operating model offer?

Digital sovereignty does not mean having to operate all applications yourself. For some organisations, a managed service is the right solution. Others may wish to run an application on their own infrastructure or via a service provider they trust.

It is crucial that the operating model fits your own technical, organisational and legal requirements and still allows for flexibility should these requirements change. New regulatory requirements, changing security requirements or strategic decisions may necessitate a change in the operating model.

The more a piece of software is permanently tied to a specific infrastructure or provider, the more this flexibility is restricted. Freedom of choice in operation is therefore not just a technical issue, but also a question of long-term control.

4. How open and verifiable is the technology?

Anyone wishing to maintain long-term control over digital infrastructure should also consider how transparent its technical foundation is. Open-source software opens up additional possibilities here: the source code can be viewed and independently audited. Depending on the licence, documentation and architecture, the software can also be operated, adapted or further developed by various stakeholders. Documented interfaces and established technical standards can also expand the scope for action. However, the extent of these possibilities in a specific case should always be assessed on the basis of the respective solution and one’s own deployment scenario.

Our article ‘Sovereign communication: How open source reduces dependencies' explains the role that openness plays in sovereign communication.

5. What long-term dependencies arise?

When introducing a new platform, the initial focus is often on how well it meets current requirements. Equally important, however, is the question of what dependencies this creates in the long term.

To what extent does an organisation become tied to a particular manufacturer, service provider or specific infrastructure? Can technological decisions be reversed at a later stage? And what technical, organisational or financial effort would this entail?

Highly integrated systems, in particular, can make a switch difficult. What starts as a practical dependency can thus develop into a vendor lock-in, which has not only technical but also strategic and economic consequences.

Modern IT can hardly function entirely without dependencies. Digital sovereignty therefore does not mean self-sufficiency. Rather, it is crucial to recognise dependencies, assess them and, where possible, shape them consciously.

This also includes the ability to switch: a decision made today should not unnecessarily restrict tomorrow’s scope for action.

Read more about this in our article ‘From choice to digital sovereignty’ .

6. How are security and operations ensured?

Digital sovereignty requires that a solution can be operated not only in a controlled manner, but also reliably and securely. The assessment should therefore not focus solely on individual security functions. What is relevant is the interplay between technical architecture, the operating environment, access and authorisation concepts, security updates, vulnerability management and organisational processes.

The specific requirements that apply depend on the particular use case. An internal meeting may have different security requirements to confidential consultations by a public authority or business-critical communications within a company.

Anyone who cannot understand how a centralised communications solution is secured, maintained and operated will only be able to assess the associated risks to a limited extent. Sovereignty therefore also means knowing one’s own security requirements and being able to check whether a solution and its operating model are suitable for them.

Digital sovereignty means remaining capable of acting

When it comes to video conferencing solutions, the bar is rightly set high for functionality and user experience. However, data control, the legal framework and long-term technological dependencies deserve the same attention.

Digital sovereignty does not mean doing without technology providers, service providers or infrastructure partners. What matters is how much control and freedom of choice an organisation retains despite these dependencies.

Those who, when selecting a video conferencing solution, take into account not only features but also the legal jurisdiction, operating model, openness, security and long-term options for switching, create better conditions for being able to act autonomously in the future.