WSIS+20: Obstacles to Meaningful Participation by Academia and Civil Society Put the Human Rights Legacy at Risk—by Vladimir Garay
This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in November 2005 in Tunisia. Originally conceived as a forum for discussion on the social impact of new information technologies—with special attention to the issue of the digital divide—the Summit shaped the current Internet governance framework: for example, it established the multi-stakeholder model—an anomaly within the UN system, which is used to multilateralism— and created the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as an annual forum for discussion with a consultative and non-binding role. It also provided the first and most widely used definition of Internet governance.
WSIS had two major milestones: a first summit held in Geneva in 2003, which resulted in a Declaration of Principles , and the meeting in Tunis, from which the Tunis Commitments and the Agenda for the Information Societyemerged. The process also included an assessment of progress made after ten years, through a process known as WSIS+10. Currently, the second review phase of the Summit— WSIS+20—is underway. It will culminate in a High-Level Meeting during the 79th United Nations General Assembly in December, following a series of consultation processes initiated in 2024 and the WSIS+20 High-Level Event, which will take place in July in Geneva.
Clearly, much has changed in the past twenty years. Information technologies are now at the center of most economic, legal, political, and sociocultural debates, and with that comes much greater attention, interest, and pressure surrounding their governance. In fact, WSIS+20 is just one of the many discussion platforms on the role of technology that have emerged in recent years, including within the UN. The most prominent of these is the Global Digital Compact (GDC), a parallel process that is part of the United Nations’ "Our Common Agenda" initiative and whose objectives sometimes overlap with those of WSIS, without sufficient clarity regarding the hierarchy between the two or how they coordinate with each other. From civil society, there have been suggestions to use the WSIS platform to implement the GDC, but doubts remain.
This presents a barrier to meaningful participation that has not been adequately addressed by the institutions organizing these spaces. The ability to contribute to the debate is diminished when participants' resources must be spread across a multitude of consultations, forums, surveys, drafts, and panels occurring one after the other.
This is particularly harmful to academia and civil society in countries in the Global South. It is a concern that CELE has previously raised, offering concrete actions to address it — yet unfortunately, we have not seen any substantial improvements.
A clear example: the WSIS+20 High Level Event will be held in Geneva two weeks after the IGF, which this year will be held in Lillestrøm, Norway. There are not many participants from outside Europe who have the capacity to attend two events held in expensive countries, such a short gap between them. And it is not only a matter of financial resources — it is also about the ability to dedicate the necessary time and attention due to each event. To this, one must add a shorter and more limited consultation and preparation process for WSIS+20 compared to the previous cycle, which further restricts the ability to contribute — especially for academia and civil society, whose role was crucial in ensuring that the outcomes of WSIS and WSIS+10 are now regarded as significant achievements.
Recently, CELE, along with more than 100 organizations from around the world, submitted a letter proposing a five-point plan to improve participation conditions in WSIS+20, including broadening and diversifying participation, facilitating inclusive and meaningful stakeholder consultations, and publishing a clear timeline.
Looking Back
All international agreements are products of the specific context in which they were created. However, we often forget or are unaware of those circumstances and therefore do not understand why the texts take the form they do. As David Souter reminds us, both WSIS and WSIS+10 nearly failed due to the difficulty of reaching agreements among the different participating stakeholders.
The first paragraph of the WSIS Declaration of Principles, famous for making explicit the link between the document and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was a point of contention with some governments that refused to make this the foundation of the treaty. As Ralf Bendrath and Rikke Frank Jørgensenexplain, the discussions were originally intended to have a predominantly technical perspective. Furthermore, the preparatory stages took place at the height of the so-called U.S. "War on Terror," and there was a real possibility that the treaty would prioritize a security-focused agenda. It was the involvement of academia and civil society that enabled a shift in the focus of the discussion, ensuring that the text incorporated a number of clear acknowledgments of a rights-based agenda, including a reference to freedom of expression in Article 4.
For its part, the preparatory process for WSIS+10 was heavily criticized and there were well-founded doubts about the outcome, including the risk of reversing some of the achievements made ten years earlier. Despite everything, a text considered progressive was achieved, which not only maintained the multi-stakeholder approach and extended the IGF's mandate for another ten years, but also included a section dedicated to human rights in the information society, with several references to the importance of freedom of expression.
A relevant precedent to consider is that, parallel to the preparatory discussions for WSIS+10, the world became aware of the mass surveillance operations conducted by the United States, thanks to the information compiled by Edward Snowden. This is important not only because it helps explain the references against surveillance in Article 46, but also because it allows for a better understanding of the context of the discussions — and how this context may have provided a sense of urgency, purpose, and opportunity to academia and civil society, which may have helped focus efforts and achieve a strong final text.
An Uncertain Future
As with the previous review, WSIS+20 theoretically offers the possibility of a comprehensive review of the implementation of the treaty over the past two decades, including the multistakeholder approach, the role of human rights in the treaty, and the continuation of the IGF.
In thematic terms, if the discussion had taken place five years ago, the main topics would probably have been the challenges posed by technologies such as the metaverse or blockchain, virtually forgotten in the current debate. Artificial Intelligence will likely dominate much of the discussion, and it remains to be seen whether issues such as data integrity, included in the GDC, will emerge in the debate.
One issue to watch closely is a trend observed in some regulations, mainly from Europe—for example, the Digital Services Act— but also in governance documents such as the Global Digital Compact, which adopt frameworks focused on risk mitigation in the use of digital technologies, often in tension with the exercise of human rights, particularly freedom of expression.
Added to this is a complex geopolitical and economic context: the United States has implemented a series of protectionist measures and aligned the interests of large Silicon Valley companies with those of the government, alienating many of its historical allies.
On the other hand, the academia and civil society participating in these spaces are today more numerous and diverse. And although they have never been monolithic actors, this growth may make the already difficult task of aligning efforts, strategies, and purposes even harder.
The outlook is complex, but it is also true that the past was never easy either. And despite all the difficulties, important milestones have been achieved that have shaped a legacy that today seems vital to defend.
