Digital Governance Needs the IGF More Than It Needs a New UN Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies

This week, the 19th installment of the annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) convenes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Usually, the IGF is one of those Internet-related events the Internet community highly anticipates; it is an opportunity for people to congregate and discuss key policy and technology issues that shape our digital future. For the past 18 years, the IGF has been one of the most constant and predictable events in the Internet governance calendar.

Not this year.

This year’s IGF is happening in the midst of major geopolitical shifts and UN internal politics. The fact that it is hosted by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, renowned for its human rights violations, has been difficult for everyone to digest, especially for civil society organizations and human rights advocates, many of who have decided not to show up to Riyadh out of fear for their own safety and out of protest. In the meantime, rumors that the IGF Leadership Panel, the multistakeholder body tasked to promote and advocate for the future of the IGF, may be disbanded at the IGF have further left the community perplexed and frustrated about how much the UN values the long-standing bottom-up and collaborative governance model of the Internet.

Change is coming

In the context of digital governance, change has never happened this fast before, and it will never be this slow again. The hype about AI, the increasing activity by governments to regulate the Internet and emerging technologies, ongoing concerns about data, and the seismic shifts in the world order all point to the fact that change is inevitable.

With change, of course, comes disruption. One such disruption will come in the form of the new UN Office of Digital and Emerging Technologies, a body that is the offspring of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). The GDC is a UN-initiated process that member states officially concluded back in September with the aim of fostering multilateral collaboration. Under the terms of the GDC, the Secretary-General, based on consultations with member states, had to “submit a proposal […] for the establishment of an office, building on and incorporating the activities and resources of the existing Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology, to facilitate system-wide coordination, working closely with existing mechanisms.”

When the UN originally floated the idea of a Digital Cooperation Forum back in 2023, a hub-and-spoke space that “would accommodate existing forums” and “help identify gaps where multistakeholder action” would be required, stakeholders were quick to dismiss it as an unnecessary bureaucracy. Under the original proposal, the Forum would be responsible, among other things, for the implementation of the GDC. It would facilitate multistakeholder dialogue and ensure coordination. During the public consultation period, the Digital Cooperation Forum idea received zero support from the wider Internet community, including some member states; to most of us, that was enough to seal the fate of such a body. But throughout the GDC negotiations, the provision for a new office continued to linger, and eventually, it made it into the final text. Paragraph 72 of the GDC anticipates the creation of a new office “to facilitate system-wide coordination, working closely with existing mechanisms.”

In terms of the scope and functions of this new office, little information was presented during the GDC negotiations. Even after the GDC was officially concluded and annexed to the Pact of the Future, there were still no details about the office. Member states tried to scope it, and the final text of the GDC includes a sentence that obliges the Secretary-General to include in his proposal for the establishment of the Office “detailed information on operational functions, structure, location, mandate renewal, resources and staffing.”

Four months after the GDC was finalized, information about the mandate of the new office was scattered and evasive. It became clear that the office had the same aspirations as those of the Digital Cooperation Forum, but nothing official was coming out of the Secretary-General’s office.

Until now.

The New Office

In a submission made to the UN’s 5th Committee, the entity responsible for overseeing the administration of the UN and for approving its budgets, the Secretary-General has finally laid out his vision for the new office. According to the submission, the newly established office “would incorporate the existing activities and resources of the Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology, while also […] supporting the follow-up and implementation of the GDC.” Its functions would include the following:

• Advise senior UN leadership on key trends in technology;
• Serve as a focal point for digital cooperation through engagement with stakeholders;
• Facilitate multistakeholder policy dialogue;
• Strengthen system-wide coordination within and across the UN;
• Support the follow-up and implementation of the GDC.

In effect, the new office is designed to perform functions similar to the ones the rejected Digital Cooperation Forum was envisioned to undertake. This constitutes the first point of distrust the new office will face, given how the original idea of such an entity was received. The fact that the UN is moving forward with the creation of a body that its constituents have dismissed is an indication that the Office of the Secretary-General is tone-deaf to the concerns regarding both the existence of this new office and how it fits in the broader Internet governance institutions.

Moreover, despite the fact that the GDC clearly articulates the need for “detailed information” regarding the mandate renewal of the new office, in the same submission to the 5th Committee, this expectation is not met. Instead, when it comes to the lifespan of the new office, the intention seems to be the creation of something permanent. “The Secretary-General is of the view that the mandate of the office as it relates to emerging technologies and trends is an ongoing function that would continue to evolve based on decisions of the Assembly.” This is another point of disconnect between the UN and the rest of the Internet community. If this office is a creation of the GDC, why would it then have a life beyond it? Wouldn’t it be logical for the office to be disbanded as soon as the implementation of the GDC is completed?

Moreover, as is to be expected, the new office will require significant resources. According to the budget information submitted, it is estimated that the new office will require a budget ranging between $6-10 million between 2025 and 2026 and a staff office of around 20 personnel. This amount will cover the salaries of existing and new staff, consultants, travel, hospitality, and other general operating costs. This is a significant amount of money for an office that no one really wants or needs, and it certainly begs the question as to why this amount is not allocated to spaces like the IGF that have broad endorsement and are in need of financial support.

In terms of location, the new office will be housed within the United Nations Headquarters in New York, with a limited presence in Geneva. It will be split into three main divisions: the office of the Under-Secretary-General, the United Nations System Coordination Unit, and the Policy, Research and Support Section. This is another cause of anxiety as New York is not really a welcoming place to the multistakeholder community.

There is no question that, through this office, digital governance will be more concentrated and centralized within the UN system in New York. The location of the office is important considering that the UN in New York operates under a more Byzantine structure compared to the UN agencies in Geneva. This will create an accountability deficit that the Internet community will most likely have to address. Once the new office passes the 5th Committee hurdle and becomes operational, member states will have very little control over it, considering that it will exist within the office of the Secretary-General. Unlike most of the UN bodies that are governed by member states, it is unclear what the governance structure of this new office will be. Who will it be accountable to? Who will be responsible for ensuring that it does the job it is supposed to be doing? And, more importantly, who will have the authority to pull the plug if it does not deliver on its promises?

This lack of accountability is troubling. Unlike the IGF, which is comprised of and is held accountable by the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the IGF Leadership Panel, as well as an entire community of participants from different geographies and backgrounds, the new office for Digital and Emerging Technologies will mainly consist of UN appointees that, so far, have shown little interest in truly engaging or hearing the concerns of the broader internet community. In fact, in these past two years of GDC negotiations, it has been disappointing to see the interactions with non-state actors being condensed to engagement that felt more like an exercise of ticking the multistakeholder box rather than a real attempt to hear the concerns and partake in constructive dialogue.

Make the IGF great again

Some of these concerns can easily be lifted through existing mechanisms and fora. The IGF, despite its own limitations, provides an established and trusted platform for stakeholders to interact. It craves reform, and there is a great deal of appetite from its participants for it to have a more advanced role. Given that it exists within the UN ecosystem, the IGF is uniquely placed and ready to take on more responsibilities. To this end, one such responsibility could be the idea of becoming the accountability pitstop for the new office for Digital and Emerging Technologies, allowing its multistakeholder community to provide checks and balances to the way the office performs. This is both logical and practical. It’s a win-win for the UN and for the multistakeholder model and something the Office of the Secretary-General should encourage.

If the new office is committed to the multistakeholder model, as it suggests and often re-enforces, then it should lean to existing multistakeholder fora, like the IGF and the WSIS Forum, and try to integrate itself within these mechanisms. Recognizing the ability of the IGF community to serve such an accountability function will not only legitimize the Office but will further address some of the existing skepticism.

Conclusion

The recently concluded GDC, the lack of meaningful multistakeholder engagement, and the many unknowns regarding its implementation path have left stakeholders both exhausted and demoralized regarding their ability to be active and contributing members to digital governance discussions.

Moving forward, collaboration will be key. But the thing about collaboration is that it cannot be forced; involuntary collaboration rarely works. This is something that the Internet community has learned the hard way over the past twenty years. To this end, stakeholders have made significant strides towards ensuring that the conditions for organic collaboration are present. Places like the IGF and the WSIS Forum have been facilitating this. The Office of the Secretary-General has a duty of care towards these processes and should abstain from antagonizing them. True and meaningful collaboration is the only way to achieve a digital future that is inclusive, human rights-based, and instructive of the needs of all people.

Related Reading

• More from Konstantinos Komaitis
• Reactions to the Adoption of the UN Global Digital Compact
• Who Wins from the IGF? Not Those Locked Up for Speaking Out
• Belarus Internet Governance Forum: No Civil Society Dialogue from Behind Bars
• Internet Governance Is At A Crossroads
• The Struggle Over Digital Infrastructure