How to meet sovereignty requirements for video communication

If you work in the public sector — such as defense, public safety, or government — then you are likely aware of the growing expectations for ‘digital sovereignty’ in your organization. Several European countries are tightening their digital strategies, placing expectations on agencies and organizations to use tools that support digital sovereignty to the extent possible, including their video conferencing systems. Many organizations are also reassessing their reliance on non-European cloud providers and looking more closely at how sensitive communication is hosted, governed, and protected.

Key considerations when selecting a sovereign video conferencing solution 

When it comes to video conferencing, especially for critical or classified meetings, an essential requirement for these sectors is digital sovereignty. From my perspective, organizations in defense, public safety, and government are increasingly seeking greater control over their data, operations, and legal exposure. For instance, the German Ministry of the Interior explicitly defines in their federal digital strategy that digitalization must include digitally sovereign solutions to the extent possible. That makes sovereignty a practical requirement in software selection.

The reality is that many of these public sector organizations are embracing hybrid solutions. This means they have one video conferencing solution for everyday non-sensitive meetings and a secondary digitally sovereign solution suited for mission-critical uses. For these environments, organizations also need to consider who controls it, which laws apply, and how easily it can be adapted or replaced over time.

Importance of digitally sovereign video conferencing solutions 

There are two key reasons why a digitally sovereign video conferencing solution is important for mission-critical use cases. The first is about control over the video conferencing data. For mission-critical meetings, it’s essential to maintain control over where that data is stored and where it is transported to comply with data sovereignty requirements. This requires a self-hosted or private cloud solution. It also requires confidence that sensitive communication is not subject to unnecessary external control or foreign jurisdiction. 

The second reason is to avoid technological and commercial lock-in. If video conferencing systems are deeply integrated into communication and collaboration systems, it makes it almost impossible to replace them, which is not ideal for sensitive areas. In contrast, if you have a more autonomous and interoperable video conferencing solution, it would be easier to replace if needed. This reduces the risk of being tied to a single vendor or proprietary stack. 

Ensuring digital sovereignty in secure video communication

There are four dimensions of sovereignty that organizations should consider: 

• Data sovereignty: This involves controlling where and how your data is stored, processed, and transported as well ensuring complete control over who has access to it.
  
  
• Operational sovereignty: Achieve operational autonomy by running the video conferencing solution yourself on-premises or having a trusted partner run it for you in a private cloud. This includes both technical and commercial aspects, ensuring you are not bound to a public cloud subscription model. You should have the option to host the solution yourself or use fully managed services from partners. This also supports continuity and resilience if your provider faces disruption or if your operational requirements change.
  
  
• Technological sovereignty: Avoid becoming too dependent on a single vendor or proprietary technology. Integrate the solution into your existing systems to the extent possible, support multi-vendor environments where needed, and adapt the user interface to your requirements. 
  
  
• Legal and compliance sovereignty: Ensure the solution can support local, regional, or industry-specific regulatory requirements, and help protect sensitive communication and data from unnecessary exposure to foreign laws or external influence.

For less critical applications, public cloud solutions can work well for organizations. However, for mission-critical use cases, standalone sovereign cloud solutions are necessary to maintain digital sovereignty. Public sector organizations operating in Europe now need to look beyond cloud convenience and prioritize control, resilience, and jurisdictional clarity in their secure video environment.

Open source is often associated with transparency, security, and digital sovereignty. But for mission-critical video communication, organizations should also weigh the operational demands that come with building and maintaining such environments. Video has become critical infrastructure, and that raises the importance of expert support, rigorous quality assurance, and predictable updates.

Open source and sovereign collaboration: who carries the responsibility?

Next steps for organizations 

Public sector organizations should start by assessing their current video conferencing solutions and identify areas where sovereignty can be improved. Engage with vendors that offer fully sovereign solutions and consider the long-term implications of vendor lock-in. That assessment should cover not only data and residency, but also operational control, legal exposure, interoperability, and long-term flexibility. By doing this in the pre-tender phase, organizations can influence the requirements in tenders, ensuring they meet digital sovereignty mandates and support secure, resilient communication for mission-critical video use cases. 

Reflecting on these aspects can help ensure that we are prepared for the increasing requirements for sovereign and secure video communication in Europe. 

Learn more about Pexip secure meetings solutions here.