The WSIS+20 Zero Draft: A Test for Accountability and Inclusion
The publication of the Zero Draft at the end of August is a key step toward the eventual outcome document of the WSIS+20 review. Its purpose is to assess progress towards the WSIS goals and propose reforms to the UN system that could shape their future achievement. The stakes for human rights defenders are high: the process could fundamentally alter how digital policymaking happens, and how far its key institutions and actors embed, or dilute, norms of inclusion and human rights.
With our partners in the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS (GDRC-WSIS), we will soon publish a dedicated input to the Zero Draft. In the meantime, we offer an initial assessment of where the text moves in the right direction, and where it could go further.
On the positive side, the Draft represents an important advance forward compared with earlier Elements Paper. Human rights are clearly embedded in both the introduction and a dedicated section, with valuable references to the responsibility to adopt human rights due diligence, oversight and remedy mechanisms, and detailed reaffirmation of the centrality of human rights to Internet governance and digital policymaking. Stronger references should also be incorporated elsewhere, but the follow-up section is promising: it requests Action Line facilitators to develop implementation roadmaps, and calls on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to “play a part in the facilitation and assessment” of all Action Lines. If this is understood to mean that OHCHR will be included in the development of the implementation roadmaps, this is a significant marker of progress to embed human rights considerations from the outset.
The Draft also unequivocally affirms the permanence of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), recognising its ecosystem of intersessional work and National and Regional Initiatives, and requesting the Secretary-General to develop proposals for future funding. In addition, it takes steps toward system coherence by moving to integrate the Global Digital Compact (GDC) into the WSIS framework, through a joint implementation roadmap, joint reporting by the Secretary-General, and combined review mechanisms via CSTD and ECOSOC. Finally, it shows increased attention to the needs of specific rights-holders, including marginalised communities and disadvantaged groups, and requires gender mainstreaming – although further efforts are still needed to align the text with equality and non-discrimination principles.
The process through which the Draft was developed also deserves praise. Multiple virtual and hybrid consultations were held across different timezones, and efforts made to summarise and consolidate inputs received.
These gains are significant, but they are not comprehensive. Recognition of the IGF is not the same as reform, and commitments on its strengthening remain underdeveloped. Many of the Draft’s promises – including on financing, capacity building, human rights integration and gender mainstreaming – are left without clear strategies or resources, raising doubts about implementation.
Ambiguities around how different processes and bodies will work together risks resulting in fragmented rather than integrated implementation. Specifically, the absence of clear feedback loops between the WSIS architecture and initiatives evolving from the Global Digital Compact – the AI Global Dialogue, Scientific Panel and the Data Governance Working Group – risks narrowing in practice the scope of internet governance and diminishing the IGF’s role just when it should be broadening. Structural drivers such as monopolistic practices, market concentration and entrenched divides should be more clearly addressed, otherwise we risk leaving intact the forces that entrench inequality.
Taken together, these gaps underline the importance of understanding not only the text itself but also the forces shaping it. The submissions made by governments and stakeholders ahead of the Zero Draft provide a window into where consensus is emerging, where divisions remain, and which proposals may gain traction as negotiations unfold. To support this, GPD has produced a comparative analysis mapping priorities and points of convergence and divergence across eleven themes. This analysis helps identify both areas where the Draft could be reinforced and those where disagreements are likely to persist.
A few themes stand out. On AI and data governance, while there is disagreement on how these topics should be addressed, there is strong support for avoiding fragmentation. Concrete proposals may help navigate this, such as Switzerland’s suggestion to integrate AI into Action Line roadmaps with multistakeholder oversight.
While there is broad agreement on the need to empower oversight mechanisms and embed accountability, approaches vary, from reinforcing competition and taxation frameworks (UK, India), to innovative digital taxation (Togo, Cuba), or enhanced anchoring in human rights mechanisms (OHCHR, EU). In our view, the Draft’s emphasis on OHCHR’s role should be reinforced and adequately financed.
Greater institutionalisation of multistakeholder principles and procedures was a key goal for some, with proposals such as Switzerland’s call for WSIS helpdesks or the uptake of the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines offering practical ways forward. Calls to operationalise capacity building, technology transfer and cooperation mechanisms are also likely to receive continued attention, especially as a means to address power asymmetries affecting the Global Majority.
Financing also remains a major fault line: while some governments prefer reinforcing existing mechanisms (EU, UK, Canada, Australia), others propose innovative financing (India, Togo) or new taxation models (Cuba, G77, Togo). Civil society has advanced one of the few holistic approaches, proposing a Global Taskforce on Financing for Inclusive Digital Transformation, grounded in equity.
Ultimately, the road to WSIS+20 is not about fine-tuning prose; it is about making choices that will determine whether WSIS remains relevant. Success will depend on moving beyond broad and voluntary commitments toward concrete, resourced measures that strengthen the IGF, ensure a unified digital architecture, and address the systemic barriers driving digital inequality. From GPD’s perspective, proposals should be carefully assessed against their ability to enable the exercise of human rights, tackle structural barriers, and facilitate genuine multistakeholder collaboration in digital policymaking.