|
Late on Friday, July 12th, Rev3 of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) dropped and went under silence procedure. In UN lingo this means that, unless one or more member states “break” silence, the GDC would be adopted as a consensus document. The deadline for anyone to “break” silence was Tuesday, July 16th at 3pm EST. Silence was broken just prior to the deadline.
The fact that silence was broken is not that surprising. The co-facilitators, Sweden and Zambia, chose to drop Rev 3 on Friday, late in the afternoon, effectively requiring capitals to read, absorb and coordinate with their New York ambassadors during the weekend. Monday was the only day, therefore, for all this to happen. And, that was simply not enough time. And, this brings me to the other point. The fact that member states ‘broke’ silence also comes to show how miscalculated was the move to call silence in the first place. All sides appear to have issues with Rev3 and what this means is that member states will now have to go back to the negotiations’ table. Quick reminder of what the GDC is The GDC is a process that was originally initiated by the UN Secretary General and, not member states. In fact, member states were preparing to discuss the issues the GDC focuses on next year, during the 20-year review of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). The GDC accelerated this conversation and, in doing so, it also changed much of the modus operandi on how this process would play out. The GDC is a less open and a contrived version of the multistakeholder process compared to WSIS. The GDC is part of a much larger conversation about the reform of the UN multilateral system and aims to contribute towards bringing states together in a collaborative fashion. Once agreed, it will be annexed to the Pact for the Future – a consensus-based document that is intended “to forge a new international consensus on how we deliver a better present and safeguard the future”. Rev 3 At first read, Rev3 appears to be solid. It hits all the sweet spots and uses the right words in most places (human rights, multistakeholder, etc.). It continues to be development focused, which makes it relevant and elevates its importance given the urgency in meeting the 2030 Development Targets. However, after a close read, Rev3 has a lot of issues and creates many gaps that can easily be exploited by any authoritarian government out there – the entire human rights section for instance is a gift to any country that seeks to evade its human rights obligations. Rev 3 also diminishes the role of the multistakeholder and collaborative governance and makes the GDC the main process that every UN institution and every process should be facilitating. This gives the GDC, and any organs that will be attached to it, power to determine where our digital future will be discussed and the processes that will shape it. The Good
Rev3 has explicit language on the need to develop “innovative and blended financing mechanisms” and to “invest in and deploy resilient infrastructure, including satellites and community networks…”. The recognition of blended financing is an important step towards recognizing where connectivity infrastructure investment has moved. Recognition of community networks is also a big deal as it recognizes the bottom-up and collaborative initiatives across the world that address connectivity gaps, especially persistent in small and/or marginalized communities.
Rev3 continues to retain the terms “open, global, interoperable” Internet. It is significant that these terms do not go away in any future revisions. The new term “reliable” is introduced in the text and this is one of the places where it can be misused for claiming a more state-driven notion of internet governance. It should be removed. The term “free” has also disappeared from the latest version which is unfortunate given that it seemed to have wider consensus. The Bad
Although the GDC attempts to address cross-border data flows, which has become increasingly complex over the past few years after many jurisdictions have been enforcing data localization laws, the entire data governance section is baffling. It is difficult to image how the entire section on “data exchanges and standards” will be implemented – how do you build a global data exchange system? Will governments be donating data into a global repository for access only by governments? And, how can the GDC guarantee that this access will not be abused and that is equitable?
Since the beginning, the GDC has put a lot of emphasis on AI governance. Member states have also signalled that AI is of critical importance. Both the US and China have recently led successfully separate resolutions in the UN that make this point as well as that AI is key to issues of development. Surprisingly, none of these resolutions is referenced in the GDC. Also, surprisingly, the High-Level Advisory Panel on AI discussions and report are not referenced. (The final report is not out but a leaked draft shows the inconsistencies between the GDC text and the recommendations in the report). Finally, when it comes to the governance of AI, the GDC opts for a predominantly multilateral structure. “We consider that international governance of AI requires an agile, multi-disciplinary and adaptable multistakeholder approach. We recognize that the UN has an important role to play in shaping, enabling and supporting such governance.” The word “adaptable” before multistakeholder is an attempt to dilute meaningful broader collaboration and to lock AI governance into the UN system.
Since the beginning of the GDC, one of the burning questions has been how this process will interplay with the WSIS+20 review next year. Paragraph 71 seems to address this stating that the WSIS+20 review should “identify how WSIS processes can support the implementation of the Compact”. It was always important that the GDC acknowledges the existing processes, like WSIS, and fora, like the IGF. However, the GDC gets this in reverse. The discussion should be about how the GDC serves and advances the WSIS Action Lines and the WSIS Tunis Agenda. Not the other way around. A better language could state: “We look forward to the WSIS+20 Review in 2025 to identify how WSIS processes can implement the Compact”. The ugly
In terms of multistakeholder governance, Rev3 has significantly watered-down the language on the value of multistakeholder participation. The term appears 13 times in the document and – in none of them – is there a recognition of the importance of the model for the internet and other technologies. Currently, paragraph 27 states: "We recognize that Internet governance must remain global in nature, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, technical and academic communities, and all other relevant stakeholders in accordance with their respective roles and responsibilities. We reaffirm the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as the primary multistakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues." The text could be strengthened by adding that "Internet governance must remain global_and multistakeholder_in nature." In other places as well, like AI, the term must also be strengthened.
One of the GDC’s main selling points was its focus on human rights. The promise was that the GDC would advance human rights and would make international human rights law a core part of the document. Rev3 backtracks significantly on this promise and weakens the role human rights will end up playing in the GDC. The biggest issue has to do with the phrasing. Throughout the text, the obligations member states have, are “under international law, including international human rights law”. The word “including” is troubling and should be replaced by “and”. Adherence to international law does not equate adherence to international human rights law. What is even more frustrating is that the GDC text on human rights is not consistent with the text that is currently being negotiated in the Pact of the Future. Paragraph 11 of the Pact of the Future states: “Every commitment in this Pact is fully consistent and aligned with international law. We reaffirm the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fundamental freedoms and protections enshrined therein and we will place human rights at the heart of our actions to implement the Pact. We will protect and promote all human rights, recognizing the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness and we will be unequivocal in what we stand for and uphold: freedom from fear and freedom from want for all without discrimination”. This text is more solid on human rights and the GDC should ensure consistency.
The GDC never fully understood the significance and role of the IGF and, in all versions, the language consistently reflected that. Whereas though the previous versions used language that was more supportive, Rev3 diminishes the IGF’s role to that of a “platform” for internet governance discussions. The IGF is a process, not a platform. It is process that is recognized in the Tunis Agenda and has been recognized by the UN’s General Assembly. It is not some platform that just discusses internet governance issues. Article 72 of the Tunis Agenda, clearly articulates the IGF’s mandate and it should guide the way the GDC talks about the IGF. Where’s the money coming from? Since the beginning of the process, one of the looming questions has been the financing of the GDC implementation. The GDC creates a number of new bodies, it calls for implementation by a swath of different stakeholders and proposes a number of new processes. This sounds expensive and lots of money will be needed. Where is this money going to come from? Who’s going to fund all these new activities? The GDC talks about private funding or philanthropy but let’s be real: the issues the GDC covers are so niche that won’t be able to attract the required financial resources. Member states will have to step in and provide some funding. Which member states will race to the start will be key. China is a likely candidate to provide funding especially given its increased interest in the UN development agenda. According to a report on China’s engagement in the UN development pillar by the German Institute of Development and Sustainability: “China’s contributions to the UN development system have grown significantly over the last decade. Its total contributions of roughly 451 million US dollars in 2020, are more than four times the size of its contributions in 2010”. Saudi Arabia can be another candidate, considering its increased interest in UN-related processes in the past few years. It is imperative that the GDC includes language that calls for transparency regarding the ‘who’ will be supporting the implementation of the GDC and its new bodies. Conclusion So far, the GDC gamble does not seem to be paying off. Digital issues are proving to be a sticking point for member state collaboration and that’s not surprising considering that for many countries they constitute part of their broader foreign policy agendas. Looking at the issues member states have broken silence over in Rev3, they may seem trivial to the untrained eye but on aggregate the GDC fails to capture the essence of collaborative governance and the role human rights should play in shaping our digital future. The Pact for the Future can still go forward without the GDC but it is unlikely at this stage that this will happen. It becomes imperative, therefore, that the GDC does not become a vehicle for changing the governance norms or that it ends up introducing new processes that can undermine the internet and the work of the communities that have supported it. Note: Unlike the Zero Draft, Rev1 and Rev2, Rev3 of the GDC is not publicly available yet. These comments are based on a leaked version of the text. The official GDC website is here: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/global-digital-compact Comments are closed.
|
|
