Internet governance no longer belongs to engineers and diplomats. Decisions made in these forums now shape how artificial intelligence evaluates people, how digital identities are issued, how public services are delivered and whether new technologies expand human freedom or repeat old patterns of exclusion. Yet the people most affected by inaccessible technology remain among those least able to enter the rooms where these decisions are made.

An estimated 1.3 billion people, 16 percent of the world’s population, live with significant disability. The World Health Organization is clear that most of the exclusion they face comes from inaccessible environments and systems, not from disability itself. The same logic governs Internet governance spaces. Unreadable websites, uncaptioned videos, unreachable venues and unfunded personal assistants are not accidental gaps. They are exclusion built into the process.

Against this backdrop, the fellowship run by the Internet Governance Forum’s Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability (DCAD) matters. It proves that inclusion cannot be achieved by simply opening registration to everyone. It requires deliberate investment in the participation, preparation and leadership of persons with disabilities.

A fellowship built around real barriers

DCAD’s programme starts from the barriers persons with disabilities actually face. With support from Vint Cerf and Google, it has funded their participation, and that of disability advocates, at the global IGF for several years. The 2026 grant round lets applicants request onsite or remote support and itemise exactly what they need: sign-language interpretation, personal assistance, accessible transport, communication support or reliable connectivity, alongside travel and accommodation.

This matters because an airline ticket does not create equal access on its own. A deaf fellow may need an interpreter. A blind fellow may need help navigating an unfamiliar airport. A remote participant may need equipment others take for granted. The cost of inclusion is not the cost of attendance, and DCAD’s model understands the difference.

The programme also treats fellows as contributors, not ceremonial guests. Applicants must show a background in disability or Internet policy and connect their advocacy to substantive areas such as AI, privacy or cybersecurity. Selected fellows complete leadership training, take part in IGF sessions and report on outcomes afterward. Funding, preparation and follow-up combine into a leadership pathway, not a one-off grant.

Beyond symbolic representation

The fellowship’s value is not measured by attendance counts. It is measured by what changes in the discussion. Persons with disabilities understand how automated identity checks fail when they depend on visual gestures, how inaccessible authentication locks people out of banking, and how a digital-first public service can quietly remove rights that were once accessible offline. Their presence sharpens debate on AI, digital infrastructure, privacy and human rights, not disability alone.

The demand is real. DCAD launched its travel fellowship in 2023 with five fellows; by 2024 it had received close to 130 applications and selected fellows from Mexico, Kenya, Cameroon and The Bahamas. Qualified advocates exist. What is missing is funding, accessible process and a sustained path into leadership.

What the wider NRI landscape reveals

The IGF’s own network of National and Regional Initiatives confirms the gap: persons with disabilities are repeatedly named among the most underrepresented groups, and open registration alone has not closed it. A review of public fellowship information shows encouraging models, but DCAD remains unusual in explicitly funding individually required accessibility support.

The Asia Pacific School on Internet Governance reserved one fellowship seat for a person with a disability as far back as 2023, a precedent the wider APrIGF fellowship has hesitated to matched. APrIGF’s own 2022 conference report named Vashkar Bhattacharjee its first fellow with a disability and recommended a reserved seat at future editions, a recommendation still not written into policy. The Pacific IGF fellowship funds airfare and accommodation but does not name disability as a category. The Muriel Alapini Fellowship at the West African IGF, honouring the Beninese Internet-governance leader who coordinated its regional school until her death in January 2026, centres women and underrepresented voices but not disability specifically. EuroDIG 2026 confirmed a wheelchair-accessible venue, which helps, but accessibility infrastructure and a disability fellowship do the same job for different people: one makes an event usable, the other makes it reachable.

No NRI programme reviewed matches DCAD’s model of funding individually required accessibility support. That silence in public fellowship information is itself a barrier: applicants cannot decide whether to apply when nobody says if interpretation or accessible transport will be available.

What every NRI should commit to

Reserve at least one fully funded seat for a person with a disability. Fund reasonable accommodation from a separate budget, never deducted from ordinary travel allowance. Make applications, interviews and reporting accessible from the start. Give fellows real roles in mainstream sessions, not one specialist panel. Publish the numbers each year, because what is not measured is easily forgotten.

Participation is a question of power

Calling a disability fellowship “assistance” understates what it does. It is an investment in democratic legitimacy. Internet governance cannot call itself multistakeholder while one-sixth of humanity remains underrepresented, or people-centred while persons with disabilities are consulted only after the policy is drafted. It cannot invoke “nothing about us without us” while leaving unfunded the conditions that make “us” present at all.

The IGF-DCAD fellowship, and APSIG’s reserved seat, point to a better model: prepare people to participate, not just attend. Every region needs a shared disability-participation fund, reasonable accommodation as standard practice and a fellowship pathway of its own.

A seat means little when the route to it is inaccessible, the form cannot be read and the support to participate remains unfunded. The future of the Internet will be shaped by whoever is present when its rules are written. Persons with disabilities must be among its designers, not invited in after the design is done.