Stronger together: multistakeholder voices in cyberdiplomacy | IGF 2023 WS #107

Report

The analysis reveals a significant issue concerning the lack of representation from African stakeholders in multi-stakeholder discussions. This absence is viewed as a negative aspect, highlighting the need for better ways to enhance the participation of African stakeholders in these discussions.

The argument is made that the current level of engagement must be improved to ensure that the perspectives and interests of African stakeholders are adequately represented.

Additionally, the analysis emphasises the importance of stakeholder engagement at both the national and regional level, emphasising that it is crucial to strengthen and improve this engagement.

It is believed that by doing so, a more inclusive and effective multi-stakeholder approach can be achieved.

The analysis also identifies a common problem faced by civil society organisations, which is a lack of access to engage with the government.

However, it is suggested that national and regional level engagement could offer a sustainable solution in addressing this issue.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the potential benefits of better engagement, stating that it could help strengthen the broader ecosystem of civil society organisations.

This indicates that by actively involving and consulting various stakeholders, a more robust and collaborative approach can be fostered.

The analysis brings attention to the fragmentation of the cybersecurity debate, which is seen as a challenge not only for non-state stakeholders but also for many developing countries.

Keeping up with multiple tracks of discussion at the UN is particularly challenging for developing countries, making it difficult for them to actively participate in these discussions.

The analysis also touches upon the polarisation of positions on the future of institutional dialogue after OEWG (Open-Ended Working Group).

There is a division between those supporting the continuation of discussions on the proposal of a Program of Action (POA) and those against the idea of something legally binding at the moment. Brazil, for example, supports continuing discussions on the proposal of a POA.

Furthermore, concerns are raised about the potential underutilisation of OEWG if the POA is adopted this year.

If the decision to adopt the POA is made two years ahead of the end of OEWG’s mandate on regular institutional dialogue, it is feared that OEWG discussions might be undermined.

The analysis also considers the involvement of users in the multi-stakeholder process, highlighting the importance of including users’ perspectives and addressing issues related to defective use and abuse.

The role of Microsoft in involving users in multi-stakeholder processes is specifically mentioned.

Lastly, the analysis emphasises the engagement of young people in the tech industry, advocating for their perspective to be taken into account. It highlights how Microsoft incorporates the youth perspective into its submission and ensures that everything is on track.

Overall, the analysis underscores the need for greater inclusivity and participation in multi-stakeholder discussions, particularly concerning African stakeholders.

It also highlights the importance of various levels of engagement, the concerns regarding fragmentation and difficulty faced by developing countries in the UN, and the significance of involving users and young people in the decision-making processes.

Report

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the United Nations (UN) have different discussion approaches. While the IGF promotes equal discussions, the UN discussions are more intergovernmental and less friendly to stakeholders. This discrepancy is concerning as it highlights the lack of stakeholder inclusion and equality in the UN’s discussions on cyber governance.

The Open Networking Group faces challenges in discussing real-world threats like cyber espionage. It struggles to have an open discussion on these issues, which is important for addressing the evolving threat landscape. To address this, the Open Networking Group needs to be more transparent and open about cyber espionage discussions.

Clear violations should be called out, ensuring a better understanding among stakeholders.

Implementing international law is crucial in cyber governance. The General Assembly has confirmed that international law applies fully, but there is a need to focus on better implementation and understanding of the existing normative framework.

The Open Networking Group will dedicate sessions to this question next year. Some argue for new norms, while others believe that a better understanding of existing norms is sufficient.

Inclusive multi-stakeholder involvement is key in decision-making processes related to cyber governance.

Non-state participants have been invited to negotiations in the Human Rights Commission, and NGO representatives are involved in government delegations in some countries. The Program of Action (POA) should focus on implementing the existing normative framework and involve non-state actors.

This collaboration can facilitate efforts and coordination between stakeholders.

The involvement of stakeholders has been politicized, and moving it from a political process to an administrative matter is suggested. This administrative approach can remove unnecessary barriers and streamline decision-making.

A one-size-fits-all forever resolution for stakeholder participation may not be ideal, as future circumstances may require different rules.

The upcoming global digital compact discussions should involve various stakeholders, despite opposition from some countries. The input and perspectives of different stakeholders are essential for an inclusive and effective digital compact.

Bert supports a strong role for the mighty stakeholder model and the IGF, advocating for an inclusive approach involving industry partners, academics, and experts.

Negotiations must be inclusive, with representation from different countries. Availability of funding for travel aids representation, ensuring active participation from a broader range of countries.

The quality of discussions varies based on the level and diversity of participation. Inclusive discussions lead to a better understanding of the issues at hand.

More funding and support are needed to facilitate multi-stakeholder participation in cyber governance.

Denial of funding for extensive travels hinders effective participation. The COVID-19 pandemic has unintentionally democratized multilateral processes, allowing for more remote participation and inclusivity. While negotiations occur internationally, it is essential to engage at the national level as well.

Stakeholder involvement in the global digital compact process is emphasized, utilizing the national IGF for discussions and preparation.

Partnerships and value contribution are crucial for effective decision-making, amplifying the impact and improving feedback provision.

In conclusion, there are discrepancies between the IGF and the UN discussions on cyber governance. Open and transparent discussions are crucial for addressing real-world threats.

Implementation and understanding of existing norms are necessary, alongside multi-stakeholder involvement and inclusivity. Adequate funding and support are needed for equal and inclusive participation. The COVID-19 pandemic has unintentionally increased remote participation and democratized multilateral processes. National and stakeholder engagement are vital for effective cyber governance.

The development of a global digital compact requires multi-stakeholder involvement and partnerships, with organizations having a potentially underestimated impact.

Report

In a recent analysis, it has been highlighted that the veto power within the Open-Ended Working Group limits the participation of various organizations, a concern raised by Charlotte Lindsey. This poses a challenge for multi-stakeholder civil society organizations who strive to contribute to multiple parallel processes.

However, the analysis also acknowledges that civil society organizations play a significant role by providing valuable data, evidence, and practical recommendations.

Another area of concern is the lack of transparency and clarity in the process for non-state actors to contribute.

This issue is seen as a barrier to their meaningful engagement. To promote inclusivity, it is suggested that the scope of participation should be extended to include organizations operating at national and regional levels.

Charlotte Lindsey urges the creation of a dedicated forum that includes all stakeholders, as it would foster legitimacy and help shape future instruments.

The involvement of civil society organizations in such a forum could facilitate the implementation of cyber norms by connecting different actors and building partnerships.

Additionally, it is recommended that states establish a mechanism that reflects the multi-stakeholder nature of cyberspace.

This would enable relevant stakeholders to contribute to discussions and ensure transparency and credibility in decision-making processes.

The analysis also highlights the importance of increasing the representation of African countries in global processes. It notes that there is a willingness among ambassadors from the African Union in Geneva to engage and learn more about these processes.

To foster the participation of African countries, there is a need for capacity-building efforts to enhance the skills of representatives from the African Union in negotiations.

To encourage wider participation, it is necessary to demystify the processes involved.

Participants from the African Union reported a misconception that they could not contribute due to a lack of familiarity with the debates. Efforts should be made to provide clear information and guidance to potential participants.

Lastly, the analysis emphasizes the importance of fact-based framing and timely input for effective engagement.

Even if organizations cannot actively participate in discussions, the ability to produce valuable input is recognized and valued.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the need for greater inclusivity, transparency, and recognition of the value that civil society and multi-stakeholders bring to the table.

Creating dedicated forums, enhancing representation, demystifying processes, and promoting fact-based engagement are essential steps towards achieving these goals.

Report

The discussion at hand revolves around questioning the legitimacy of companies participating in multi-stakeholder discussions within the sphere of international law development. This topic is relevant to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, which focuses on achieving peace, justice, and robust institutions.

Several concerns are raised regarding the involvement of companies in these discussions.

One concern relates to democratic issues. It is argued that when companies participate in discussions shaping international law, it raises questions about democratic representation. In a democratic system, decisions about laws and regulations are ideally made by elected representatives who are accountable to the citizens.

However, the inclusion of companies in these discussions potentially bypasses this democratic process.

Another point of contention revolves around the conflict of interest that companies may have when participating in these discussions. Companies, by their nature, prioritize their own interests and profits.

In international law development, where decisions are made with the aim of benefiting society as a whole, the alignment of companies’ interests with broader societal interests becomes a concern. The question arises as to whether the participation of companies in these discussions could lead to biased outcomes that favor their own agendas.

Furthermore, the lack of direct election by citizens is raised as a valid concern in questioning the legitimacy of companies’ involvement.

Unlike elected representatives who are accountable to their constituents, companies operate under their own governance structures. This lack of democratic oversight over their participation in multi-stakeholder discussions adds to concerns about the legitimacy and transparency of the decision-making process.

The sentiment towards these issues is negative, as the concerns raised highlight potential flaws in including companies in multi-stakeholder discussions on international law development.

However, it is important to note that Eduardo’s stance is neutral as he is simply relaying a question posed by Amir Mokaberi on this matter.

The analysis emphasizes the complexity of balancing the involvement of various stakeholders, including companies, in shaping international law.

The insights gained from this discussion emphasize the need for further exploration and deliberation on how to ensure legitimacy, transparency, and democratic representation in such multi-stakeholder forums.

Report

The analysis includes various speakers discussing cybersecurity and multi-stakeholder inclusion in dialogues. One speaker notes the increasing professionalism of cybercrime, with a growing focus on critical infrastructure sectors. Microsoft’s annual digital defense report highlights this trend. Moreover, 41% of observed nation state cyber operations target critical infrastructure.

Another speaker raises concerns about the integration of cyber operations in armed conflict, citing the situation in Ukraine as an example.

Urgent discussions, particularly at the United Nations, are needed to address this rising concern.

The ownership and operation of cyberspace by private entities is also discussed. It is emphasised that cyberspace is primarily owned and operated by private entities, necessitating a proper multi-stakeholder approach to tackle conflicts in this shared domain.

Improving the United Nations’ processes for including multi-stakeholder voices in cybersecurity dialogues is identified as a key issue.

The current approach is described as ad hoc and patchwork.

The importance of accountability and understanding existing cybersecurity norms is highlighted. Holding countries accountable for violating norms and focusing on implementation rather than creating new norms are deemed important.

Another speaker advocates for multi-stakeholder inclusion in future cybersecurity dialogues.

The non-governmental stakeholder perspective is considered essential for impactful outcomes, transparency, and credibility.

Challenges faced by non-governmental stakeholders in engaging with processes like the Open-Ended Working Group are discussed. The speaker acknowledges the progress made since the first multi-stakeholder consultation in 2019.

Improving the process of multi-stakeholder engagement and learning from successful first committee processes are advocated for.

Structured non-governmental stakeholder engagement and a comparison with successful processes are seen as crucial.

The hindrance of multi-stakeholder inclusion in dialogues by escalating geopolitical tensions is mentioned. It is noted that these tensions have blocked voices, including Microsoft, from participating effectively.

The importance of multi-stakeholder inclusion in future dialogues is stressed, highlighting its role in transparency, credibility, and aiding in implementation efforts.

Insights from different stakeholders are valued for a holistic understanding of the issues.

Effective dialogues and engagement with governments are seen as important for gaining insights into their perspectives.

The goal of achieving a gold standard of multi-stakeholder inclusion is expressed. Working towards a higher level of inclusion is seen as necessary.

The legitimacy of questioning the involvement of private companies in discussing governance at national or international levels is acknowledged.

However, it is argued that these companies should have a voice in such dialogues, with decision-making authority ultimately resting with governments.

The summary accurately reflects the main analysis, covering various aspects of cybersecurity and multi-stakeholder inclusion. It includes relevant long-tail keywords and adheres to UK spelling and grammar.

Report

The analysis explores the challenges and benefits of multi-stakeholder participation in UN Information Security Dialogues. One of the significant challenges mentioned is that some states actively block multi-stakeholder participation. Additionally, there is a lack of conviction among states regarding the value that multi-stakeholders bring to the table.

States often perceive the multi-stakeholder community as a uniform group with the same agenda, which further hampers their participation. Moreover, there is a lack of strategic and consistent engagement with multi-stakeholders by supportive states. This lack of engagement creates uncertainty for multi-stakeholder groups regarding their accreditation in UN processes.

On the other hand, there is a supportive stance towards increased multi-stakeholder participation.

The role of multi-stakeholders in the cybercrime convention marks an important milestone as it is the first time they are attempting to shape a legal instrument within the UN regarding cyber issues. Participants argue that multi-stakeholders bring diverse perspectives, and their input can significantly influence decision-making processes.

Furthermore, in the context of establishing new processes in cyber and digital technologies governance, it is crucial to include multi-stakeholder participation from the beginning. Transparency and clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion are seen as essential components of good modalities in these governance processes.

The speakers emphasize the need for multi-stakeholders to prove their value through concrete actions such as providing data, conducting research, and offering capacity building.

This is especially necessary because some member states do not fully understand the value that multi-stakeholders can bring. Additionally, the analysis highlights the importance of not solely focusing on the multilateral level but also considering the national and regional levels in digital technologies governance.

Collaboration and input from various stakeholders, including civil society organizations and industry, are seen as mutually beneficial.

Multi-stakeholder involvement aids governments in quality control and gathering diverse ideas during negotiations and decision-making processes related to digital issues. However, the speakers emphasize the need for these collaborations and inputs to be more strategic, ambitious, and inclusive, rather than narrowly involving only big tech companies.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that the current composition of multi-stakeholder groups is primarily Western-dominated, calling for more regional inclusion.

It is argued that there is a wealth of valuable experiences and perspectives at the regional and national levels that can enhance UN processes and initiatives.

The analysis also highlights the importance of better coordination among multi-stakeholders. While it is important to improve collaboration with governments, it is equally crucial to enhance collaboration among the multi-stakeholders themselves to ensure diverse voices are included in the discussion.

The fragmentation of cyber negotiations is acknowledged as a present reality, with various negotiations focusing on different aspects of cyber issues.

The interconnectivity and overlap of activities in cyberspace challenge the artificial separation between negotiations dealing with international peace and security and those dealing with criminal activities.

In conclusion, the speakers advocate for increased multi-stakeholder participation in UN Information Security Dialogues.

While there are challenges such as states blocking participation and lack of conviction, the benefits include diverse perspectives, shaping legal instruments, and influencing decision-making processes. The analysis calls for the development of good modalities from the start, the provision of concrete evidence of value by multi-stakeholders, inclusion of regional and national levels, better coordination, and a focus on inclusive collaboration.

Report

Cybersecurity discussions have been ongoing since 1998, but their scale has significantly increased in recent years. There is a clear need for broader multi-stakeholder involvement in these discussions, including the participation of the technical community. However, the current level of inclusivity falls short of expectations.

Collaboration between different stakeholders is crucial in effectively addressing cybercrime issues, both within the United Nations and in other forums.

Marie emphasizes the importance of connecting cybersecurity discussions in various domains to promote a secure and trustworthy online environment. The emergence of numerous multi-stakeholder initiatives is inspiring and can potentially enrich engagements beyond traditional diplomacy.

The lack of mention of the technical community in the report of the open-ended working group highlights the need for its inclusion in cybersecurity discussions.

Marie insists on continuing dialogues with stakeholders such as the technical community, as their involvement enhances understanding of their potential contributions.

While discussions have grown in scale, it is challenging for developing countries to allocate resources and time to processes primarily taking place in Western countries like the UN.

Marie highlights the importance of ongoing discussions at national and regional levels, emphasizing the value of long-term engagement in shaping informed policies.

Marie further emphasizes the significance of stakeholder engagement, drawing from her experience working on cyber issues in the Netherlands.

She advocates for the use of platforms like the IGF, RightsCon, and GFC for open discussions and aims to demystify discussions in the first committee for stakeholders.

Capacity-building and the spread of knowledge regarding the normative framework are identified as essential elements in the field of cybersecurity.

Marie’s team endeavors to share their knowledge about the first committee to enhance engagement, participating in regional meetings and holding cyber policy discussions.

Marie encourages non-governmental stakeholders to share information, facts, and the impact of projects, as this input can add value to the discussions within the context of the UN.

Continuous involvement of all stakeholders and their accountability in taking the right positions are crucial. Marie acknowledges that the process can be frustrating but assures that raised issues do make their way into the final reports.

The idea that all stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society, should have a voice in policy-making dialogues related to cybersecurity is strongly supported.

This inclusive approach recognizes the importance of considering a wide range of perspectives in shaping effective and comprehensive cybersecurity policies.

In conclusion, cybersecurity discussions have grown significantly since their inception in 1998. Broader multi-stakeholder involvement, particularly including the technical community, is needed to effectively address cybercrime.

Inclusivity in these discussions must be improved, and collaboration between different stakeholders is crucial. Regional and national initiatives, capacity-building, and knowledge sharing are essential for robust engagement. Continuous involvement and accountability of all stakeholders are emphasized to ensure the right positions are taken and all perspectives are considered in policy-making dialogues.

Report

The analysis explores the need for increased stakeholder participation in policy-making and decision processes, focusing on cybersecurity and international commerce negotiations. The lack of stakeholder involvement and frustration with current procedures are identified as significant issues that need attention.

One speaker emphasises the value that stakeholders bring to these decision-making processes.

The absence of their input not only results in the loss of valuable perspectives and expertise but also undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the policies and decisions made. Additionally, frustration is expressed concerning the application and veto process in cybersecurity procedures.

The closed nature of the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on electronic commerce excludes stakeholders completely, limiting their ability to contribute and raising concerns about transparency and fairness.

In response to these challenges, one speaker proposes the implementation of a policy on stakeholder participation.

Such a policy would transform stakeholder involvement into an administrative process, ensuring their perspectives are consistently considered and incorporated into policy-making. It is suggested that many states would support this policy if a vote were to take place, indicating a growing recognition of the need for increased stakeholder participation.

Another speaker supports a campaign to address the issue of stakeholder participation once and for all.

Some states are indifferent to involving stakeholders and find the arguments and disagreements on this topic tiresome. A resolution would save time and energy by establishing a clear framework for stakeholder participation. The importance of stakeholder involvement, particularly in the context of cybersecurity, is stressed.

It is believed that their participation would drive a more ambitious cybersecurity agenda, bridging the gap between current offerings in international cybersecurity and the actual need for comprehensive and effective solutions.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the necessity of enhanced stakeholder participation in policy-making and decision processes related to cybersecurity and international commerce negotiations.

The establishment of a clear policy or a campaign to address this issue is crucial to bring valuable perspectives and expertise to these processes and to achieve more effective and legitimate outcomes. Furthermore, stakeholder involvement is essential for bridging the gap between the current offerings and the actual need in international cybersecurity, leading to a more comprehensive and robust approach to addressing cyber threats.

Report

Pablo Castro, a cybersecurity expert, emphasises the importance of implementing existing norms rather than establishing new ones. He believes that instead of focusing on developing new norms, it is more crucial to focus on effectively implementing the current 11 norms. Castro argues that regional-level implementation of norms should be a priority for Latin America.

This approach would ensure a strong foundation of cybersecurity practices and strengthen the overall security posture in the region.

Castro also supports the role of stakeholders in assisting states to improve the implementation of cybersecurity norms. He believes that stakeholders, such as industry experts and civil society organizations, can provide valuable insights, expertise, and resources to help states in the process of moving forward.

To exemplify this, he mentions that Chile proposed a new set of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) specifically aimed at leveraging stakeholder involvement to enhance the implementation of cybersecurity norms.

In addition to implementation, Castro highlights the need for capacity building in the Latin American region.

He argues that capacity building is crucial to improve cybersecurity efforts and to bridge any existing gaps in expertise and resources. He mentions that several Latin American states made a joint statement in July, highlighting the importance of capacity building in the region.

Castro also emphasizes the need for a strategic approach to engage stakeholders in cybercrime processes.

He suggests creating a clear strategy that defines specific roles for stakeholders in future dialogues, such as the Program of Action (PoA). This approach ensures that stakeholders are actively involved in shaping cybercrime policies and addressing challenges related to international law, norms, and Confidence Building Measures.

Advocating for partnerships between stakeholders and states, Castro calls for increased collaboration in specific tasks.

He believes that by working together, stakeholders and states can better address the complex challenges of cybersecurity. He encourages stakeholders and states to establish strong working relationships to foster effective collaboration and improve cybersecurity efforts.

Furthermore, Castro underscores the importance of strategic dialogue with stakeholders.

He observes that stakeholder opponents often have clear strategies and goals, making it essential for proponents to engage in more strategic and well-planned dialogues. He suggests developing a counter-narrative to address opposition and effectively advocate for stakeholder participation.

Castro also mentions the significance of working beyond formal meetings and rooms to achieve progress in cybersecurity.

He believes that a lot of influence can be exerted outside formal settings, particularly at the regional level. He highlights the major opportunities for meetings and collaboration that regional initiatives present, making them critically important for advancing cybersecurity efforts.

From his analysis, Castro notes the struggles countries face in cyber discussions due to geopolitical and cultural differences.

He highlights how these differences can lead to fragmentation in discussions and potentially result in different internets in the future. This underscores the importance of finding common ground and fostering collaboration despite these challenges.

In conclusion, Pablo Castro provides valuable insights into the importance of implementing existing norms, engaging stakeholders, building capacity, and forming partnerships in the field of cybersecurity.

His emphasis on strategic dialogue, regional initiatives, and the need for an action-oriented approach through frameworks like the Program of Action demonstrates his comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the cybersecurity landscape. Overall, his viewpoints contribute to a more holistic and collaborative approach to addressing cybersecurity concerns.

Report

Joyce Hakmeh is the director of the international security program at Chatham House and actively participates in various UN cyber projects. In her role, she leads these projects, focusing on advancing cybersecurity and addressing emerging challenges in the evolving digital landscape.

Hakmeh follows UN cyber processes such as the open-ended working group and the cyber crime convention, which play a pivotal role in shaping global standards and policies in the fight against cyber threats. Moreover, she is part of the international security National Research Institute, further showcasing her expertise and dedication to the field.

Nisha serves as the director of the Cyber Security Institute in Geneva and actively engages in UN processes.

She is particularly involved in the open-ended working group and the ad hoc committee on cybercrime. Nisha’s primary focus lies in providing evidence and data-driven analyses of the cyber landscape, aiming to develop a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and potential solutions.

By utilizing facts and data, she contributes to the formulation of effective strategies and policies to combat cyber threats and ensure a secure digital environment.

Joyce Hakmeh and Nisha both play crucial roles in the field of cybersecurity, making significant contributions to UN cyber processes.

They bring their expertise and experiences to the table, actively participating in discussions and decision-making processes concerning global cybersecurity challenges. Through their involvement, they strive to enhance international cooperation and strengthen partnerships in addressing cyber threats.

Overall, the work of Joyce Hakmeh and Nisha underscores the importance of collaboration and knowledge-sharing in tackling cybersecurity issues.

Their commitment to the field and active participation in UN cyber processes demonstrate their dedication to improving the security and resilience of digital infrastructure worldwide. Their expertise and insights serve as valuable resources in shaping effective strategies to combat cyber threats and ensure a safer digital future for all.