First Organisational Session of the Global Mechanism on ICTs in the Context of International Security: A Readout
On 30–31 March 2026, UN Member States convened for the first Organizational Session of the Global Mechanism on ICTs in the Context of International Security. The session marks a turn from negotiation finalised last year in the OEWG to implementation, testing whether years of carefully balanced compromise reflected in the final report can turn into an effective process.
Persistent questions
Yet, as the OEWG experience made clear, consensus has often come at a cost. The establishment of the Global Mechanism itself was the product of protracted negotiations shaped by deep geopolitical divisions, with key compromises required to secure agreement. The Organizational Session therefore offered an early indication of whether those compromises would hold, or whether the same tensions would resurface as states began operationalising the mechanism. As the process moves from principle to practice, the question posed by GPD in July 2025 remains as pressing as ever: consensus but at what cost?
Scope, structure and modalities
Opening the session, El Salvador was elected Chair for a two-year term. Following which the Organizational Session formally confirmed the structure and modalities of the Global Mechanism, as mandated by the final report of the OEWG. Operating in five-year cycles, each comprising two consecutive two-year phases followed by a review conference. The Mechanism will convene twice annually through week-long sessions, one plenary and one dedicated to thematic discussions. For the first cycle, two Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs) were established, focusing on specific challenges to international peace and security in the cyber context and on capacity-building. All decisions will be adopted by consensus in plenary, under the rules of procedure of the United Nations General Assembly. The DTGs will be co-facilitated to ensure neutrality and geographical balance, operating in a hybrid format and aligned with the five pillars of the UN framework for responsible state behaviour in the use of ICTs. Together, the decisions taken at the organizational session serve as a guide for the group’s future functioning, with the expectation that they will enable prior agreements to be translated into sustained and structured international cooperation.
Support for inclusivity in principle
Encouragingly, inclusivity and gender-responsive approaches featured prominently in discussions, particularly among African and Latin American states. At least in principle, many countries voiced strong support for meaningful stakeholder engagement and for the Global Mechanism to be practical and action-oriented. However, debates over how such participation should be implemented revealed persistent divisions. Concerns were also raised about potential overlap between the DTGs and plenary discussions, with some delegations warning that mandates could become overextended or unfocused if roles and outputs are not clearly defined.
Disagreement over decision-making modalities
These tensions were further underscored by disagreements over decision-making modalities. Russia, supported by Iran, stressed that all aspects of DTG work, including agenda-setting, recommendations, and stakeholder engagement, must remain strictly consensus-based and state-driven. This raises a familiar and critical question: what does “consensus-based” mean in practice? If interpreted as requiring unanimity, it risks slowing progress and diluting ambition. While consensus is often applied more flexibly in multilateral settings, there remains a clear risk that the Mechanism could encounter the same frustrations that hindered its predecessor, the OEWG.
The test
The Organizational Session did not deliver substantive outcomes, nor was it intended to. Instead, it marks a first test of whether the Global Mechanism can honor the learnings from its predecessor. A real challenge lies ahead: ensuring that consensus drives progress rather than paralysis. As the Mechanism moves toward its first substantive session, the question remains whether it will become a platform for meaningful cooperation or another arena for geopolitical stalemate.
Looking ahead
Looking ahead, the first substantive plenary is scheduled for 20–24 July 2026, followed by DTG meetings from 7–11 December. These milestones will set the stage for translating the outcomes of the OEWG into concrete, operational results. For human rights advocates, the coming months will be critical. Close attention should be paid to how consensus-based decision-making is applied, the extent to which stakeholder participation is meaningfully enabled for shaping the agenda and engaging, and whether discussions on capacity-building and emerging cyber threats integrate international human rights law. These early deliberations will offer important insights into whether the Global Mechanism can function as a meaningful space for discussion and action, and how far it can support inclusive and rights-respecting engagement in practice.