Future of digital cooperation, inclusive approach, role of different stakeholders, multistakeholder model (MSM) have been on digital agenda for years. Finally, it seems that national and international actors have accepted the need for MSM. But still there are open questions, starting with who should be included into the MSM and finishing with the process - how exactly MSM should take place.

States are making politically right statements on importance of cooperation with other stakeholders, like the Paris Call^[1] but working with stakeholders such as the private sector and civil society is still not in the DNA of majority of Governments.

Launch of a High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation (HLP)^[2] by the Secretary-General of the UN was a timely and necessary initiative. Among other things HLP was asked to consider models of digital cooperation to advance the debate surrounding governance in the digital sphere.

Unfortunately, HLP did not have time to discuss all topics in full length. The Panel strove for consensus but did not always agree. HLP Report (Report) notes areas where the views differed and tries to give a balanced summary of the debates and perspectives. It reiterates what has been already agreed internationally, including applicability of international law to cyber, respect for human rights, identifies nine values that should shape the development of digital cooperation – inclusiveness, respect, human-centeredness, human flourishing, transparency, collaboration accessibility, sustainability and harmony - and proposes architectures for global digital cooperation.

In this paper/article I would like to discuss the following two topics from the Report: multistakeholderism and future of digital cooperation - IGF+.

Report states in the Executive Summary that “effective digital cooperation requires that multilateralism, despite current strains, be strengthened. It also requires that multilateralism be complemented by multi-stakeholderism – cooperation that involves not only governments but a far more diverse spectrum of other stakeholders such as civil society, academics, technologists and private sector.” This understanding is one of the cornerstones of the Report. Multistakeholderism was discussed in all Chapters, starting with inclusive digital economy (Recommendation 1C – “We call on the private sector, civil society, national governments, multilateral banks and the UN to adopt specific policies to support full digital inclusion…”) and finishing with cyber security (“Private sector involvement is especially important to evolving a common approach to tracing cyber-attacks, assessing evidence, context, attenuating circumstances and damage”). Recommendation 4A calls for “a multi-stakeholder Global Commitment on Digital Trust and Security to bolster these existing efforts”. Recommendation 5B declares that “We support a multistakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age.”

HLP Report is very clear and strong on multistakeholderism. Now it is time for practical steps. Hopefully the ongoing GGE^[3] and OEWG^[4] processes that are convened under the auspices of the UN will follow the recommendations of the Report. As well as other forums.

The Panel had many discussions about the future architecture for global digital cooperation. It agreed that improved cooperation is needed, it even identified six gaps but did not agree on a single scenario.

HLP proposed three models aiming at generating political will, ensuring the active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, monitoring development and identifying trends, creating shared understanding and purpose, preventing and resolving disputes, building consensus and following up on agreements:

1. Internet Governance Forum Plus (IGF+)

2. Distributed Co-Governance Architecture which builds on existing mechanisms

3. Digital Common Architecture which envisions a “commons” approach with loose coordination by the UN.

IGF+ enhances and extends the multistakeholder IGF. The Panel saw the strengths of this model in the fact that IGF is the main global space convened by the UN for addressing internet governance and digital policy issues. IGF+ concept would provide additional multi-stakeholder and multilateral legitimacy by being open to all stakeholders and by being institutionally anchored in the UN system. UN can play a key role in enhancing digital cooperation by developing greater organisational and human capacity on digital governance issues and improving its ability to respond to member states´ need for policy advice and capacity development. IGF already has a well-developed infrastructure and procedures, acceptance in stakeholder communities, gender balance in IGF bodies and activities, network of 114 national, regional and youth IGFs. HLP took also into account the shortcomings of the IGF that could be addressed by the IGF+: decision-making process, lack of actionable outcomes, limited participation of Governments and private sector, not very active participation from developing countries etc.

The IFG+ would comprise of 5 bodies:

1. Advisory Group that prepares annual meetings and policy issues. It could be appointed by Secretary General for 3 years.

2. Cooperation Accelerator that accelerates issue-centred cooperation across a wide range of institutions, organisations and processes. It should consist of members of multidisciplinary experience and expertise.

3. Policy Incubator that proposes norms and policies. It could provide a missing link between dialogue platforms identifying regulatory gaps and existing decision-making bodies. It should have a flexible composition involving all stakeholders concerned by a specific policy issue.

4. Observatory and Help Desk that will deal with requests from drafting legislation to tackling crisis situations. It will also coordinate capacity and confidence building activities, monitor trends, identify emerging issues and provide data on digital policies.

5. IGF+ Trust Fund – a dedicated fund for the IGF+ comprised of contributions by all stakeholders. Should be linked to the Office of the UN SG to reflect its interdisciplinary and system-wide approach.

To conclude - HLP Report is not a dogma. It is a living document that should be discussed, improved and implemented. IGF Berlin 2019 is a good place to continue the discussion that was taken to a new level in 2018 at the IGF Paris where the UN Secretary-General for the first time delivered an opening statement in person.^[5]

^[1] Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace has been endorsed by more than 550 official supporters, including 67 states. USA, Russia, China have not acceded to the Paris Call. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/paris_call_cyber_cle443433-1.pdf.

^[2] See https://www.un.org/en/digital-cooperation-panel.

^[3] See https://undocs.org/A/RES/73/266.

^[4] See https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/73/27.

^[5] See https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2018-11-12/address-internet-governance-forum