CIVICUS discusses the Global Digital Compact (GDC) recently adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly with Peter Micek, General Counsel and UN Advocacy Manager of Access Now, an international civil society organisation working to defend and extend the digital rights of people and communities at risk.

As part of the broader UN agenda to strengthen cooperation, UN member states gathered in New York on 22 and 23 September for the Summit of the Future. Following negotiations that included consultations with civil society, they adopted the Pact for the Future and its two annexes: the Declaration on Future Generations and the GDC, aimed at creating a comprehensive blueprint to promote an open, free, secure and human-centred digital future. Despite its engagement with the process, civil society remains sceptical about whether these commitments will lead to real change.

What’s your overall assessment of the GDC?

The GDC was a timely and well-intentioned effort to bring stakeholders together around key digital issues. It didn’t come up with any groundbreaking new principles, but it did provide an opportunity to assess the current landscape and the UN’s role and initiatives on digital issues. It took stock of key existing agreements and norms and sought to chart a course for future governance on emerging issues such as artificial intelligence.

The final document is closely aligned with previous efforts by UN Secretary-General António Guterres on digital governance, including the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and the work of high-level panels and roundtables on digital cooperation. It covers some key issues and is in many ways the culmination of these efforts.

The process genuinely sought to include diverse voices and inputs from different stakeholders around the world. But it fell short. It could have been more transparent and more reflective of stakeholder input. Many of us participated in thematic consultations – face-to-face and virtual – on issues such as data protection, digital security, human rights online and internet governance. We spoke out about the most dangerous ways in which the use of new technologies by states and companies can impact on human rights and sustainable development.

Many organisations invested significant time and effort in the consultation process, but it was unclear how our submissions were captured in the final text. This lack of transparency left us wondering whether our input had genuinely been considered.

Is there anything in the GDC that you see as a significant civil society victory?

We were pleased to see the text mentions the need for strong encryption and privacy protections, and takes a position against internet shutdowns and unlawful surveillance technologies, in line with the global consensus that such measures violate human rights.

This clear emphasis on human rights is a major victory. Civil society has long called for the international human rights framework to be applied in the digital age, and this document reaffirms that principle. It clearly states that human rights should be at the heart of data and internet governance, and the way states and companies use new technologies.

Another victory is support for multi-stakeholder participation and the recognition of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a central platform and model for policymaking. While the IGF still faces some challenges, we hope to build on these achievements in future global discussions, such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) review.

The WSIS process began in 2003 to 2005, with the intention of expanding access to the internet and information and communications technologies, to their development and governance, and to their benefits for sustainable development and human rights. The initial goal was to collectively create ‘a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge’, and global progress has been reviewed on the 10th and upcoming 20th anniversaries of the 2005 WSIS event in Tunis.

The document also innovated in mentioning the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ digital human rights advisory service. Although it’s limited to voluntary funding, this is a positive step because it adds new elements to the digital rights conversation.

What else would you have liked to see included?

The GDC could have been stronger on internet shutdowns, where the language isn’t as strong as some of the resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council. In some ways, the GDC took a step back; for example, it only called on states to refrain from shutting down the internet, whereas previous resolutions condemned such actions.

There was also a missed opportunity on gender. Several civil society organisations leading on gender initiatives, including the Association for Progressive Communications, had promoted 10 feminist principles for the GDC, which it presented at the IGF in Kyoto, Japan, a year before the Pact for the Future was adopted. However, the GDC did not recognise technology-enabled gender-based violence as a critical risk, nor did it acknowledge the impact of online abuse on women and girls, which forces them to avoid online spaces and has significant implications for human rights and sustainable development.

The GDC also didn’t adequately address cybersecurity, which is critical to the protection of human rights online. While it was expected to be included in the pact, it was removed at the last minute. There has been work at the UN for over a decade to assert that international law, including human rights law, applies in cyberspace, but this was not fully reflected in the GDC.

The language on accountability, particularly in relation to big tech, also could have been stronger. The GDC missed an opportunity to link digital issues to broader concerns such as climate change and the protection of climate defenders, and the role of digital tools in humanitarian action and the protection of civilians. In these areas, the approach was not as holistic as it could have been.

How should civil engage with the implementation of the GDC?

Civil society should push for a more robust and transparent consultation process to ensure future efforts do not repeat the same shortcomings we saw during the negotiation of the GDC. We need greater engagement.

Civil society also needs to figure out how the GDC fits in with other ongoing processes, such as the WSIS+20 review. We don’t want to duplicate efforts, particularly when there’s potential for overlap between different review processes.

We will monitor progress on specific commitments, such as the call to address internet shutdowns, protect encryption and ensure government surveillance complies with international law. We will actively participate in the development of implementation plans for these commitments and engage with stakeholders at all levels, including through working groups and the UN’s digital rights advisory service.

Participating in these working groups and contributing to the implementation process will be key to shaping how the GDC is operationalised. Civil society must make sure it’s not sidelined and its expertise is taken into account in policymaking.