We, the undersigned civil society organisations and individuals, welcome the consensus adoption of the United Nations (UN) Global Digital Compact (GDC) annexed to the Pact for the Future. From the onset, the GDC has been an ambitious and well-intentioned effort for stakeholders – especially Member States and the private sector – to agree upon a set of shared principles and commitments for a more collaborative digital future. We particularly welcome the explicit affirmation and application of the international human rights framework to digital technologies, the explicit recognition of the multi-stakeholder model, and the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) – centring multi-stakeholder participation – as a predominant platform and model for policy-making. While we value these aspects of the GDC, we highlight the need for greater, concrete commitments to ensure an open, inclusive and transparent, people-centred and rights-based approach to GDC implementation, and to ensure that any new bodies or processes emanating from it do not duplicate or delegitimise existing multi-stakeholder venues.
Key issues and the Global Digital Compact: successes, shortcomings, and failures
The final GDC document closely aligns with the UN Secretary-General’s previous initiatives on digital governance. As such, it covers a range of key issues such as internet shutdowns, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and encryption. Nonetheless, in its attempt to cover such topics, the GDC necessarily lacks depth and nuance. In general, obligations of States under international human rights law are not sufficiently robust nor consistently mainstreamed throughout the GDC. Although Member States commit to applying international human rights law to the full life cycle of digital and emerging technologies, the GDC does not contain a commitment to refrain from or cease the use of technologies that are fundamentally incompatible with international human rights as set out in a recent General Assembly resolution. Furthermore, the language to ‘refrain from internet shutdowns’ is not as strong as in some of the resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly or the Human Rights Council that ‘condemn’ internet shutdowns, and also omits specific reference to applicable legal principles like legality, legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality. The same applies to the language on surveillance and encryption, which remains vague and refers solely to the need to ensure ‘compliance with international law’ rather than the need to avoid interference and ensure adherence with the obligations of States under international human rights law. Similarly, while we welcome explicit references to human rights due diligence, the language on accountability, particularly in relation to Big Tech, could have been stronger. Overall, we understand that it would have been unwieldy for Member States to give each topic a full review. However, we regret that the GDC does not advance norms, but instead risks being misinterpreted as undermining baseline standards.
We deeply regret that, despite our efforts and unlike the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Action Lines, the GDC takes a step back and fails to adequately incorporate an intersectional gender lens. Following the feminist principles presented by various civil society organisations at the beginning of the process, an intersectional gender perspective is essential to avoid deepening inequalities. An intersectional gender lens should not only be applied as a distinct and independent objective, but incorporated into all aspects of policy and programme development and through implementation.
Similarly, while the GDC makes reference to international law generally, and international human rights law specifically, it fails to adequately integrate intersecting issues surrounding international humanitarian law and climate change. Such references are necessary to future-proof the GDC for realities surrounding such issues as access to accurate information on climate change, internet connectivity in times of crisis and conflict, and the protection of digital infrastructure. For example, the GDC takes on a very techno-solutionist approach to the climate crisis and environmental issues. The GDC ignores the negative impact of tech development and deployment on the environment, and on the human rights of communities affected by the production and disposal of technologies.
Lack of robust civil society engagement in the Global Digital Compact process
We, however, continue to remain concerned that the GDC does not reflect the reality of what we see on the ground and in our diverse communities across the contexts of the Global Majority and Global North. While the GDC drafting process sought to include diverse voices and inputs from stakeholders, it fell short. It lacked transparency and meaningful engagement with stakeholder inputs. We have invested countless hours over the past two years informing and guiding this process (when such opportunities permitted us to do so) and we see the potential of GDC implementation — especially if a broad group of stakeholders work together – to take forward certain recommendations that align with our advocacy priorities. However, our support for implementation or endorsement of the GDC, should not be interpreted as an endorsement of a process, which did not meaningfully engage with, nor incorporate, diverse civil society perspectives, particularly with the Office of the Tech Envoy as well as within its negotiation process, and therefore its final outcome document. We therefore call on the UN, and its Member States, to ensure more robust and transparent civil society 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.
Moving forward: Implementing the Global Digital Compact and other key UN processes
The GDC establishes new mechanisms and spaces relevant to GDC implementation to rightfully facilitate buy-in from all stakeholders, especially Member States. While it is important to ensure the GDC is properly resourced, we call for the UN, and its Member States, to ensure that any new mechanisms or processes are open, inclusive and transparent in their design, and facilitate meaningful stakeholder engagement, and that they do not duplicate or delegitimise existing arenas like WSIS — particularly the upcoming WSIS+20 review process — and the IGF. The IGF also requires greater formal commitments for financial support to continue its impact. We urge coordination and complementarity, seeking synergy with these established fora. We also call on the UN to ensure effective system-wide coherence and collaboration, including with key UN bodies, such as the OHCHR, to ensure strong guidance relating to the application of international human rights law to the internet and digital technologies. We also draw attention to upcoming convenings, like RightsCon and the Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum (DRIF) and DataFest Africa, as opportunities for Member States to meaningfully engage with civil society, especially those from the Global Majority. Overall, we remain committed to the implementation process of the GDC — especially any working groups or roundtables around relevant topics and encourage robust support for and resourcing of civil society participation — in order to seize this moment for the UN, and its Member States, to openly address how technology impacts its mandate and overall efforts to extend inclusion, human rights, peace, and security.
Signatories (alphabetically ordered)
- Access Now
- ARTICLE 19
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Center for Democracy & Technology
- Centre for Internet and Society
- Center for Media Research – Nepal (CMR-Nepal)
- Collaboration On International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)
- Derechos Digitales
- Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF)
- Digital Rights Nepal (DRN
- European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL)
- EngageMedia
- Fundación InternetBolivia.org
- Global Partners Digital
- Hiperderecho
- International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL)
- Instituto Panamericano de Derecho y Tecnología – IPANDETEC
- Dr. Katharine Millar, Associate Professor of International Relations, London School of Economics (in individual capacity)
- KICTANet
- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Global Governance and Democracy Lead, Democracy and Tech Initiative, Atlantic Council (in individual capacity)
- Paradigm Initiative (PIN)
- Pollicy
- Tech Global Institute
- TEDIC
