Contact
17 Jul 2026

Joint Multistakeholder Statement on the Objections to the Participation of Stakeholders in plenary meetings and review conferences of the UN Global Mechanism

Coordinated by Global Partners Digital and LetsTalkCyber, this joint statement brings together more than 30 organisations and experts calling for inclusive, transparent and meaningful stakeholder participation in the UN Global Mechanism on ICT security. The statement raises concern about the unprecedented number of objections to stakeholder participation and sets out practical steps for Member States and the Chair to uphold an inclusive process.

—

We, the undersigned stakeholders, reaffirm the importance of ensuring inclusive, transparent and effective multistakeholder participation in the work of the Global Mechanism, in line with the agreed modalities in the OEWG final report of 2025 (A/80/257).

The multistakeholder community plays an essential role in promoting cybersecurity by operating and defending infrastructure, maintaining standards, supporting the implementation of agreed norms and international law, advancing capacity and confidence-building measures while also translating international commitments into practical implementation through trusted public-private collaboration, technical expertise, and operational cooperation. As malicious ICT activity is increasingly affecting civilians, through attacks on critical infrastructure, healthcare, and other essential services, the expertise of a diverse stakeholder community and governance consistent with international law, including human rights and international humanitarian law, are critical to addressing these threats.

While the multistakeholder community will be allowed to participate in dedicated thematic groups (DTGs) following UN practice for informal meetings, meaningful inclusion of stakeholders in the plenary meetings and review conferences of the Global Mechanism is critical to ensuring informed outcomes and advancing an open, secure, and peaceful ICT environment. Plenary meetings and review conferences shape policy directions, and stakeholders’ input is far less relevant after outcomes have already been negotiated.

Against this background, we express serious concern regarding the unprecedented number of objections raised by Member States to the participation of stakeholders in plenary meetings and review conferences, affecting a large number of relevant and respected entities across Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia and Oceania, as well as multiple sectors. A large majority of these objections were raised by a single Member State without accompanying rationale. This list includes stakeholders which have dedicated significant efforts in the OEWG on ICTs through written submissions, statements, side events, policy and technical support. These exclusionary objections will have a disproportionate impact on civil society and organizations based in the Global Majority while limiting access to expertise for less-resourced States which often rely on expertise provided through multistakeholder engagement and partnerships with private sector and the technical community. This would ultimately weaken global cybersecurity.

While recognizing the prerogative of Member States to raise objections in accordance with paragraph 15c of Annex I, the current disproportionate use of objections undermines the inclusivity and legitimacy of the Global Mechanism as well as the credibility of the process as a whole. Exercised at this scale, the objection procedure acts not as a procedural safeguard but as a general bar to non-governmental participation. This contradicts para. 15 of Annex I which mentions that “Member States are encouraged to utilize the non-objection mechanism judiciously, bearing in mind the spirit of inclusivity.”

As part of the process, we welcome the efforts from the Chair of the Global Mechanism to actively facilitate the timely resolution of objections, in accordance with the process set out in Annex I, including through informal consultations, exchanges of views in plenary meetings, and proactive engagement with concerned Member States and stakeholders. We also appreciate the Chair’s commitment to inclusivity and transparency, in line with the consensus report of the OEWG, including the prompt dissemination of information regarding objections raised by Member States.

In this context, we strongly encourage the following actions for meaningful stakeholder participation as part of the Global Mechanism:

  • We invite Member States to exercise restraint in raising objections and to ensure that any objections are grounded in transparent, objective and consistent criteria, accompanied by sufficient rationale to facilitate dialogue and their timely resolution.
  • We further respectfully request Member States that have raised objections to engage constructively and in good faith in consultations with stakeholders and, where appropriate, to reconsider or withdraw objections, with a view to resolving them as early as possible. We also ask those Member States that have not yet clearly communicated the rationale underpinning their objections to do so without delay. This would facilitate informed and constructive consultations, strengthen transparency and confidence in the process, while discouraging arbitrary objections.
  • We call on all Member States concerned by the excessive use of the objection procedure to raise this issue during the first plenary meeting and to take steps to engage in dialogue with the stakeholders subject to objections that are disproportionate or not meaningfully justified to identify concrete ways in which their views can be brought into the plenaries.
  • We recall that, in accordance with Annex I of the OEWG final report of 2025, which provides for dedicated thematic groups (DTGs) to convene “with the participation of, inter alia, technical experts and other stakeholders”, objections only apply to participation in formal meetings (i.e. plenaries and review conferences) and not to informal DTGs. Open and inclusive stakeholder participation in such groups is essential to the effective functioning of these DTGs. We further encourage a clear and transparent process for nominating and selecting technical experts to the pool from which DTG briefers may be drawn, with attention to equitable geographic, diverse, and thematic representation.
  • The signatories of this joint statement stand ready to support the Chair in ensuring the resolution of all the objections and reaffirm their commitment to constructive engagement in support of an open, secure, and peaceful ICT environment.
  • Finally, we invite Member States to keep objected stakeholders informed of ongoing and future discussions within the Global Mechanism.

    Supporting organizations and individuals (in alphabetical order):
  1. Academia Mexicana de Ciberseguridad y Derecho Digital (AMCID)
  2. AccessNow
  3. Allison Pytlak, Sr. Fellow and Cyber Program Director, Stimson Center
  4. Annita Larissa Sciacovelli, Professor of International Law, Cybersecurity Specialist, Law Department, University of Bari Aldo Moro
  5. Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
  6. Christina Rupp, Lead International Cybersecurity Policy, interface
  7. Christopher Painter, Founding Partner of Cyber Policy Group
  8. Competence Center START4.0
  9. CREST International
  10. Cybersecurity Tech Accord
  11. Cyber4.0 – Cybersecurity Competence Center
  12. Data Privacy Brazil
  13. Developing Capacity
  14. Digi Americas Alliance
  15. Global Partners Digital
  16. Heartland Initiative
  17. Hiperderecho
  18. Institute for Security and Technology
  19. Instituto Panamericano de Derecho y Tecnología (IPANDETEC)
  20. InternetLab
  21. Joanna Kulesza, Assistant Professor of Public International Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Łódź, Poland
  22. Karine Bannelier, Director, Grenoble Alpes Cybersecurity Institute (CyberAlps), University Grenoble Alpes
  23. Kubo Mačák, Professor of International Law, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
  24. Leeds Beckett University Law School
  25. Liis Vihul, Chief Executive Office, Cyber Law International
  26. Madinah S. Ali, Chairwoman and CEO of SafePC Solutions
  27. Media Foundation for West Africa
  28. Microsoft
  29. Oxford Information Labs (OXIL)
  30. Paradigm Initiative (PIN)
  31. Patryk Pawlak, Part-time Professor, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute
  32. Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales, R3D
  33. Temple University’s Institute for Law, Innovation & Technology
  34. The Protect.ngo Foundation
  35. The Shadowserver Foundation