Everything you need to know about the WSIS+20 Review
Next year will bring the twenty year review of the landmark World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20)—an ongoing process which began with a duo of summits, culminating in 2003 and 2005.
Twenty years on, from the purview of today’s complex web of forums dealing with the governance of digital technologies, the novelty of these original summits is hard to overstate. In the early 2000s, there was no accepted understanding of Internet governance as a policy field and no overarching framework on digital cooperation.
WSIS marked the very first time stakeholders had convened to discuss these matters—and the outcomes and mandates from its two summits have gone on to shape directions of travel within our field. The Tunis Agenda, agreed in 2005, set out a vision for a distributed, multistakeholder approach to Internet governance which has since underpinned the work of other global forums like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It also resulted in the set-up of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which remains a cornerstone of multistakeholder policy dialogue. In parallel, the Geneva Plan of Action, agreed in 2003, comprised a set of Action Lines which reflect a set of technologically-neutral targets to achieve the people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented information society envisaged by the WSIS.
WSIS+20 is a moment to evaluate the WSIS framework, its realisation through the Action Lines and the institutions it created, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and ask whether they are fit for purpose.
For human rights defenders, it will be critical to ask what value the WSIS framework and its implementation has served in advancing (or not) human rights as the prerequisite for achieving the people-centred society envisaged by WSIS. And to what extent multistakeholderism, as it has been operationalised through the institutional outcomes of the WSIS, particularly the IGF, has (or hasn’t) resulted in greater protections for human rights.
In this blog, we recap the issues at stake, share information about the process we have collected so far, and outline the opportunities to shape its outcomes.
What is WSIS+20?
WSIS+20 is the second review of the outcomes of the original WSIS which took place in two phases in 2003 (the Geneva phase) and 2005 (the Tunis phase). It was set up by UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183 in 2001 in recognition of the “urgent need to harness the potential of knowledge and technology for promoting the goals of the United Nations Millennium Declaration.” While the Geneva phase was predominantly development focused, elaborating Action Lines to “to advance the achievement of the internationally-agreed development goals” (the Geneva Plan of Action), in the second phase, attention turned to governance issues. This focus is reflected in the Tunis Agenda which set out a definition of Internet governance, outlined the roles of different stakeholders, mandated the establishment of the IGF, and initiated the process towards enhanced cooperation.
Since the original WSIS summits, different UN bodies and agencies like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have held different responsibilities for the implementation of aspects of the Geneva and Tunis outcomes. Responsibility for UN system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes was designated to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD).
The Tunis Agenda also mandated the ten-year review of the WSIS outcomes (WSIS+10) which culminated in 2015 with an UNGA-negotiated outcome document—largely reaffirming the existing framework, mandating the set up of a working group on enhanced cooperation, and extending the mandate of the IGF. The modalities for the 10-year review are set to inform the 20-year review as well.
The stakes of WSIS+20
The scope of the review is wide-ranging. Given the significantly changed landscape and set of challenges—ranging from new, disruptive technologies, corresponding questions of how to regulate them, and shifting geopolitical dynamics—a number of topics could be brought to the table. At the very least, we anticipate discussions will cover the intersection of ICTs and development (the Sustainable Development Goals in particular), the Internet and digital technology governance, and the norms, structures and values that underpin it. These norms include multistakeholderism and human rights, while the structures include the IGF and question of its mandate renewal, and synergies with the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the new structures evolving from it. What is still uncertain at this stage is how much leverage there is within the WSIS+20 process to adjust the existing framework, including the scope to adjust or reopen any of the WSIS Action Lines.
Based on recent discussions relating to the GDC, we expect emerging issues like AI to dominate discussions, with the possibility of calls for new Action Lines or efforts to update existing ones. For example, changes could be made to action line C2 on ICT infrastructure to reflect the need to address the unequal distribution of computer infrastructure. There may also be calls to update other Action Lines to reflect the changing landscape, such as C5 on confidence and security to reflect emerging threats, or action line C7 on the benefits of ICT applications to encompass digital public goods and digital public infrastructure. At the same time, these calls are likely to rub up against those seeking a more technologically neutral approach.
What should be clear is that the Review will be a site of contestation, with the potential for different visions of the Internet and digital technologies and their governance to be defended, advanced or eroded.
Our focus going into WSIS+20 is to build upon the WSIS outcomes in ways that better embed international human rights standards and their implementation, including through enhanced normative coordination with UN human rights bodies like the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). At the same time, we’d like to see better application of the WSIS multistakeholder ethos through structures like the IGF, ensuring the full integration of principles of openness, inclusivity, transparency and accountability.
WSIS+20 modalities (and how they compare to WSIS+10)
If the stakes are clear, the modalities are notably less so. In planning our engagement as a civil society organisation, we have to contend with multiple uncertainties. During the WSIS+10 process, a resolution was published outlining the modalities for the overall review. It is likely that the same resolution will serve as the basis for WSIS+20 modalities. If WSIS+10 modalities are anything to go by, the process will include stocktaking efforts by relevant UN agencies, a CSTD-issued report and resolution, and an intergovernmental negotiation coordinated by two government co-facilitators, culminating in the 79th UNGA session at the end of 2025.
However, there are several key factors contributing to a more chaotic scenario.
Firstly, as the GDC negotiations have shown, digital issues have grown in importance and, as a result, have become more contested. With more at stake, there is greater pressure on all stakeholders—particularly governments—to control the outcomes and the modalities of the process.
Secondly, there have been delays resulting from the need to align the process with other UN processes, namely the GDC and its implementation. As a result, the co-facilitators for the intergovernmental part of the review are still to be announced, although there are reports of possible candidates and an announcement is expected imminently.
Finally, ten years on from the last Review, we face a more complex UN ecosystem with more bodies and agencies battling for their share of the mandate on technology issues. While the ITU continues to assume a key interagency role and is set to co-host the High Level Event in July 2025, it is not entirely clear how the agency’s efforts will connect with other elements of the Review. Also, unfortunately, we are unlikely to see a revival of the ITU-led multistakeholder preparatory platform (known as the MPP). The MPP was initiated by the ITU during the +10 process to foster stakeholder consensus towards the drafting of two outcome documents. While at times challenging, this process facilitated open and inclusive consultation among WSIS stakeholders, and the decision not to reinvigorate it is disappointing.
Arguably, the key novel development since the +10 review has been the establishment of the Office of the Special Envoy of Technology (OSET) in 2022. As mandated by the GDC, OSET is now set to be merged into a new office under the UN Secretary-General designed to “facilitate system-wide coordination, working closely with existing mechanisms”. A proposal for this office with details of its operational functions, structure, location, mandate renewal, resources and staffing is due to be presented at the UN General Assembly’s fifth (budgetary) committee before the end of this year.
Viewed together, these shifts since WSIS+10 mean a more complex landscape. The advent of new structures like OSET are likely to bear influence over the Review, even though they are not reflected in WSIS’s formal outcomes. The implication of this for the WSIS+20 review is an increasingly fragmented and less coordinated structure, which is likely to disproportionately impact stakeholders like civil society who are less resourced and therefore benefit from a clearer process.
How to engage
For those seeking to engage, we have an up-to-date calendar on our digital technology governance hub covering key milestones and opportunities related to the WSIS+20 review process.
A major milestone to look toward is the development and adoption of the CSTD’s twenty-year (substantive) progress report of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes. CSTD–the ECOSOC body responsible for UN system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes–will develop its report following a consultation process with UN agencies and stakeholders. The report will be prepared for consideration by the CSTD at its 28th session, taking place 7-11 April 2025, and submitted to UNGA to inform its overall Review of WSIS. During the session, the CSTD will also publish a resolution relating to WSIS+20. In terms of formal opportunities to input, in March 2024 the CSTD sought input via a questionnaire, and recently sought inputs on twenty years in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes with a deadline of 15 November 2024 (read GPD’s submission here).
While CSTD holds the mandate for the UN’s system-wide follow-up on the WSIS outcomes, individual agencies will also be undertaking their own review processes. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is currently seeking inputs from stakeholders through the Council Working Group on WSIS & SDGs (CWG WSIS&SDG) on its work in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes and the future of the outcomes beyond 2025, with a deadline of 31 January 2025.
Next, the WSIS+20 High Level Event in July 2025—hosted by the ITU and co-organized by ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, and UNCTAD—will provide a formal platform for different stakeholders to contribute to the discussion and “to take stock of the achievements and key trends, challenges and opportunities since the Geneva Plan of Action”. This gathering is likely to provide a final opportunity for multistakeholder dialogue on the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, although there is a risk that the fundamentals of the Review will already be settled by this stage. The ITU, UNESCO, UNDP and UNCTAD will also be hosting monthly consultative meetings, starting from 18 November 2024, as part of an “open consultation process” to gather inputs from stakeholders to shape the agenda, program, and format of the High Level Event. Stakeholders are also invited to submit written submissions, with a deadline for submissions of 14 March 2025.
While the timing is uncertain, the UN Secretary-General will also provide its overall report on progress made in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes. As part of this report, the Secretary-General will publish an implementation map, signalling how the WSIS structures will be used alongside newly created mechanisms like the International Scientific Panel on AI, the Global Dialogue on AI and the CSTD Working Group on data governance to advance the GDC’s roll-out.
Then, at the final stage, during UNGA’s 79th session, a draft outcome document of WSIS+20 will be presented for adoption by governments. At this point in the process, there will be few formal or substantive opportunities for non-governmental actors to shape the outcomes, with the process pivoting to intergovernmental negotiations of an UNGA resolution.
It goes without saying that civil society engagement is vital to ensure the Review reflects a rights-based and people-centred approach and responds to the broader community’s concerns. Given the significant questions remaining around both the process and substance of WSIS+20, GPD will continue to track and highlight opportunities to engage.