ICT4Peace comments and recommendations
regarding the Global Digital Compact (GDC)
Zero Draft
(See Pdf here)
1. ICT4Peace General Comments
ICT4Peace supports in general terms the objectives and
principles of the proposed GDC.
The GDC should build on the objectives and principles of
the United Nations Charter and international law,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 2030 Agenda
and the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
In particular, the GDC should commit to the vision of the WSIS
and reaffirm the WSIS outcome documents.
When undertaking to achieve its objectives, commitments and
actions, the GDC should avoid duplication and use, to the degree
possible, existing UN and other relevant regional institutions
and their mechanisms, platforms, and fora, such as WSIS or
the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
In particular, the GDC should leverage the existing WSIS
processes, like the WSIS+20 process, and employ existing SDG
and WSIS measuring systems and tools.
2. Specific comments and recommendations by ICT4Peace
on the GDC Zero Draft
As with the UN First Committee cyber processes – the theme of
accountability is underrepresented. 7g) for instance, refers to
seeking responsible and accountable conduct via cooperation,
but doesn’t elaborate on how this is to be realized.
We would welcome the indication of a mechanism to help
ensure accountability on the part of states for their digital
conduct. Noticeably in this draft is the absence of
recommendations for inter-governmental forums or actions.
Instead, we find exhortations for state actions (and in
some cases companies) paired with the establishment of
non-governmental bodies as the International Scientific Panel (49a)
and a Digital Human Rights Advisory Service (22).
The Compact flags that “international cooperation on AI
governance is urgently required” (41) but is rather vague in
how this cooperation is to be achieved. We are left with general
statements such as “We assess that international governance of
emerging technologies, including AI, requires an agile, multi-
disciplinary and networked multi stakeholder approach” (47)
We would like to see an affirmation of the goal of fostering
“digital peace” as references to “safe and secure digital space”
(6) or “free and secure Internet” (26a) are inadequate and are
too easily equated with a securitised and militarised digital
environment.
While reference is made to establishing “Robust cyber-security
standards and capacities” (18), the question of who is to be
responsible for developing and implementing such standards is not
addressed.
It is good that an injunction is expressed to “refrain from
Internet shutdowns and ensure that any restrictions are in full
compliance with international law” (26d) , but again this is left to
the goodwill of states and no monitoring of conduct is
advocated.
Similarly, the admonishment to “Ensure law and regulations on
use of technology in areas such as surveillance and encryption
are consistent with international standards and norms” (28d) is
desirable, however ICT4Peace would welcome specific suggestions
regarding international collaboration to ensure that these
abuses are effectively countered.
The draft at times references an important issue, but seems to
fob off relevant action to ill defined non-state actor processes.
For example, “Develop through multi stakeholder consultations,
effective methodologies to measure, track and counter online
violence against women and girls”. (28c). A similar approach is
used with respect to AI-enabled abuses: “Call on digital
technology companies and communities to continue to develop
and publicly communicate actions to mitigate risks from AI-
generated deception…” (32c)
The principal “deliverables” of the GDC are i) a resolution this
UNGA session to establish terms of references for the
envisaged International Scientific Panel on AI; ii) establishment
of Global Fund for AI and Emerging Technologies for
Sustainable Development; iii) creation of a CDC portal within 12
months; and iv) initiate a biennial “High-level Review of the
GDC” to get underway in 2025.
ICT4Peace is not convinced that these proposed type of
outcomes meet the expectations of the international
community. Each should be thoroughly discussed and its
rationale explained. As expressed earlier, when
implementing and reviewing its commitments, the GDC should
avoid duplication and leverage the existing WSIS or IGF
processes and use existing SDG and WSIS measuring systems
and tools.
ICT4Peace Foundation
Geneva, April 2024