A call to action for an inclusive WSIS+20 Review

Last week, GPD, together with 111 organisations and 54 individual experts from civil society, the technical community, industry and academia, presented a set of cross-stakeholder community recommendations aimed at operationalising the modalities for the twenty-year review of the WSIS (WSIS+20).

The open letter responds to the adoption on 25 March of a UN General Assembly resolution on WSIS+20 modalities, advocating for a transparent and inclusive review process that meaningfully engages all relevant stakeholders. Drawing on decades of international digital policymaking experience, it outlines a Five-Point Plan with practical recommendations to guide UN bodies and agencies in designing a WSIS+20 review process rooted in multistakeholder principles. 

The legacy of WSIS: A pivotal moment for Internet governance

This cross-stakeholder intervention is both timely and necessary. The original WSIS was pivotal in concretising the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, securing almost universal government endorsement. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during WSIS in 2005, laid out a working definition of Internet governance that recognised the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders. The upcoming 20-year review is expected to test this legacy, with different actors striving to maintain, strengthen or weaken the multistakeholder ethos consolidated by the original WSIS. In this context, the modalities of the WSIS+20 Review are crucial.

From WSIS+10 to WSIS+20: contextual changes shaping the process

Even though the text of the modalities resolution includes provisions for stakeholder engagement and is nearly identical to the WSIS+10 version, it arrives in a very different context. These shifts will impact how the review unfolds and which voices are included in the process.

First, issues of international digital governance are more complex today and more heavily disputed, resulting in increased geopolitical contestation and attempts to control both the outcomes and modalities of international digital policymaking processes. Concretely, this means there is a greater risk that some governments will push for the recently adopted WSIS modalities resolution to be interpreted more narrowly and seek to operationalise the guidance it provides in a restrictive manner. 

Second, the WSIS+20 review process will lack the multi-year preparatory process which preceded the WSIS+10 review, which included a dedicated open consultation process initiated by the ITU, known as the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP). In the context of the WSIS+10, this meant that extensive consultative work had already taken place before the modalities resolution was approved. Inevitably, non-governmental stakeholders cannot be consulted to the same extent as took place during the WSIS+10 Review: the timeline is already too compressed to enable a multi-year consultation process to take place. (For more details of how the MPP worked and how civil society leveraged it, see GPD’s Advocacy Bytes series and our reporting on civil society engagement in the WSIS+10 review.) 

Third, there is a more complex UN ecosystem with more bodies and agencies battling for their share of the mandate on technology issues. The advent of new structures like the Office on Digital and Emerging Technologies (ODET) and parallel processes like the GDC has led to questions about their respective mandates and responsibilities vis-a-vis the WSIS+20 review. This has contributed to a more complex—and, some would argue, fragmented—landscape, creating a more opaque environment for stakeholders seeking to shape the outcomes of the review process.

Learning from past shortcomings: the need for meaningful engagement

Given this context, there is a clear risk that–in lieu of more detailed operational guidance–the WSIS+20 may follow the recent Global Digital Compact (GDC) negotiations as a model for engaging non-governmental stakeholders. Such an approach would be problematic. For reasons detailed here and here, GPD, alongside other civil society actors, cannot endorse the GDC process. The process “did not meaningfully engage with, nor incorporate, diverse […] perspectives” and we have called on the UN and its Member States “to ensure more robust and transparent […] consultations so that future efforts — including implementing the GDC and WSIS+20 — do not repeat the same shortcomings witnessed during the negotiation of the GDC.”

Similarly, stakeholders must play a role in shaping the WSIS+20 outcomes—to bring expertise, raise concerns, or represent the viewpoints of the people most impacted by policy decisions made in the context of use and deployment of digital technologies. Without their meaningful engagement, processes are less democratic and may inadvertently lead to harm. Finally, integrating multistakeholder principles into multilateral processes isn’t just beneficial, it’s necessary for effective and legitimate global digital governance.

Designing and implementing an inclusive WSIS+20 review process

While the final negotiations will be intergovernmental, the modalities resolution mandates that the preparatory process “takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders”. In light of this, our communities have provided a plan for how the WSIS process modalities should be interpreted, implemented and operationalised to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement and avoid the deficiencies of the GDC process.

The recommendations cover five categories of actions including: 1) publishing and maintaining a clear timeline for the process, with adequate opportunities for stakeholder input; 2) ensuring transparency and accountability through maintaining a public record of inputs, live-streaming negotiations, and publishing written summaries of how stakeholder inputs have been accounted for; 3) facilitating meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including but not limited to ensuring opportunities for input on a recurring basis and according to equal participation rules; 4) broadening and diversifying participation through measures such as a more inclusive criteria for accreditation, financial support for under-represented groups, and adjustments to the process to ensure accessibility; and 5) maximising stakeholder participation in the intergovernmental negotiations.

This Five-Point Plan offers concrete recommendations for the institutions responsible for operationalising the process –namely, the Office of the President of the General Assembly, UN DESA as the secretariat of the review, and the WSIS co-facilitators. In addition, UN member states and other agencies can exert their influence to shape the process. 

Role for Member States to support stakeholder engagement

Beyond UN-led mechanisms, national governments can take additional steps to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement. By organising national consultations, governments can ensure that country positions reflect a broad range of stakeholder viewpoints. Furthermore, including non-governmental stakeholders in official delegations during negotiations can enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of the WSIS+20 review.

A call to action

We urge responsible agencies to adopt these recommendations and integrate them into the WSIS+20 review process. Governments should support these efforts through dedicated consultations and inclusive national processes. Without these guarantees, WSIS+20 risks setting a precedent for stakeholder engagement that is exclusionary and inconsistent with the multistakeholder ethos of WSIS+10. However, by ensuring meaningful participation, we can guide international digital policymaking toward a more inclusive and people-centered future.