|
The long-awaited Global Digital Compact (GDC) zero draft dropped on Monday and there is a lot in it. It requires time to absorb it all but discussions are slated to start tomorrow so time is an issue. Also, bear in mind that this is the zero draft and, by the time this process ends at the end of May, the text will look very different. This means that there is no need to panic; at least, yet.
The zero draft gives a good snapshot of where the mind of the UN (and its member states) is. Here’s my high-level take. A quick reminder… Two years ago, the United Nations’ Secretary General initiated the GDC with the aim to tackle key digital issues through the lens of multilateral reform. Some key areas of concern were identified ranging from digital connectivity, to Internet fragmentation, the protection and governance of data, the application of human rights online, the regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and, how best to promote a trustworthy Internet through the introduction of accountability criteria for misleading content. For two years, the co-facilitators of the process, Sweden and Zambia, held informal and formal consultations with both governments and interested stakeholders. Almost 200 written submissions were made from all parts of the world on views about the future of the Internet and digital technologies. Stakeholders participated in formal and informal consultations organized by the co-facilitators and the GDC was a topic of conversation in both New York and Geneva as well as at ICANN and the IGF. The GDC is part of a broader UN process, the Summit for the Future, which will lead to a governmentally negotiated but not binding Pact for the Future. The Summit is scheduled for September 2024. What does the zero draft do? The zero draft is a serious proposal. It is action-oriented, specific and fairly comprehensive. It focuses on the issues the community has been asked to discuss in the past two years and comes across as a real attempt map a path forward. What does it not do? Problematically, the zero draft fails to acknowledge the historical and institutional context of Internet governance and its link to development. Even though WSIS is mentioned, the role of the ITU and the work it has done for the past twenty years in following up and promoting the WSIS Action Lines is omitted. This leaves a big gap and creates a certain degree of duplication that is not necessary. Moreover, the draft introduces the term “multistakeholder cooperation”. This is instead of the historically used terms “multistakeholder governance” or “multistakeholder approach”. I am sure this is not intentional; however, the word “cooperation” is much weaker than “governance” or “approach”. In the latter case, stakeholders are given the opportunity to steer conversations and influence outcomes. Cooperation can be much looser. The most likely explanation for these mishaps is the fact that the New York branch of the UN is responsible for the GDC. Since the beginning of this process, the choice of New York over Geneva was questioned because it is usually in Geneva where such discussions take place. The ITU, the Human Rights Council, WIPO -- all major UN bodies are in Geneva. They have the expertise. Geneva is where the food is cooked. The good. There are some good things in the draft. The reference to cross-border data flows is a pleasant surprise as we all know how key it is for an open Internet. Expect this to be one of the things that will change – the G77+China group will most certainly object to the language, especially the one that points to the Data Free Flow with Trust framework, which is a G7 initiative. Recognition of the importance of open source is the other good thing. Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) has become a focal point in the GDC and it's a good sign that the zero draft acknowledges that for DPI to be effective it must be open, interoperable, based on open standards, human rights protections – much like the Internet. The draft commits, amongst others, to the promotion of the adoption “of open standards and interoperability to facilitate the use of digital public goods across different platforms and systems”. Finally, consistent with the consultations, human rights are also a core part in the zero draft. The language is not strong enough yet it seeks to commit states to apply international law. The draft suggests that human rights must become core part of the consideration on new technologies and can help with issues of inclusion and participation, but does not make any attempt to recognise some of the work that has already been done on this at the IETF and elsewhere. The bad. The section on connectivity is disappointing. The zero draft approaches connectivity in the same monolithic way it has been approached for the past twenty years. It puts all the eggs in the private sector basket and makes industry predominantly responsible for meeting the connectivity targets. The draft disregards the limitations and the poor results this approach has had. It also disregards the new connectivity models that have emerged. For instance, there is no mention or recognition regarding the community-driven initiatives, like Community Networks, that have been prominent in the past years. Nor is there any mention on blended financing models that have proven effective in addressing connectivity gaps. The other worrying thing is the recommendation for new structures, offices and processes. In total, the zero draft recommends the creation of five new ‘things’: a) a UN Digital Human Rights Advisory Service; b) a CSTD-led intergovernmental multistakeholder process; c) a UN-led international Scientific Panel on AI; d) a $100 million Fund on AI; and, e) a dedicated office for coordinating digital and emerging technology in the Secretariat. That’s a lot. But the question is resourcing and the money they will require to be set up. It will be interesting to see which countries will be stepping in to fund or support them. The ugly. The section on Internet governance is a massive let down. There is really no language per se that should make anyone cringe but the problem is not what the zero draft says on Internet governance; the problem is what it does not say. The words we have historically used to describe the Internet: “Open”, “Global” and “Interoperable” are completely left out of the document. Instead, the zero draft reads: “Promote a universal, free and secure Internet and take concrete steps to create a safe, secure and enabling online environment”. This language should raise some red flags to the west. When it comes to the use of the words “open”, “global” and “interoperable” , we use them to identify the single Internet – the one that is decentralized and not subject to top-down control. On the contrary, words like “universal”, “free” and “secure” have been inviting broad and discretionary interpretations. For instance, China has used these terms in all kinds of contexts. The other problem is the missed opportunity to boost the IGF. The zero draft recognizes the role of the IGF but it does not attempt to use its space, its community and its knowledge. For instance, the IGF could be used as part of the follow up and implementation. The GDC draft “encourages” everyone to “engage actively in its work with a view to advancing Compact commitments on Internet governance” but beyond that there is no real attempt to assign to the IGF a more specific role. Ultimately, the zero draft is all about centralizing discussions about digital issues within the UN system. The move to NY points to that as does the idea for creating a bunch of new things under the UN umbrella, the increased role of the CSTD the draft proposes, and the language about the role of governments. One would argue that, if the broader discussion is about multilateralism, this is to be expected. But, the zero draft negates the last twenty years and how they have informed, shaped and determined much of the Internet’s evolution. Key messages for New York:
Comments are closed.
|
|
