Cybersecurity

UN Global Mechanism on ICT security begins translating cyber norms into practice

The UN’s permanent cyber mechanism has begun shifting from identifying cyber threats towards implementing the international commitments already agreed by member states, with delegations broadly calling for practical action under the existing UN framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

During the fourth meeting of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, member states concluded discussions on the evolving cyber threat landscape before turning their attention to the implementation of the 11 voluntary and non-binding norms first agreed by the UN Group of Governmental Experts in 2015.

While views differed on whether additional norms may eventually be required, a broad range of delegations agreed that the immediate priority should be helping countries apply the existing framework through practical cooperation, capacity development, and exchanges of national experience.

From agreement to implementation

The discussion reflected a broader evolution in international cyber diplomacy.

Rather than negotiating new principles, many delegations argued that the Global Mechanism should now concentrate on translating existing commitments into national legislation, operational practices, and international cooperation.

The Pacific Islands Forum, speaking through Tonga, noted that many countries, particularly small island developing states, are still developing the institutional and technical capacity needed to implement the agreed norms. It called for the mechanism to support this work through practical guidance, peer learning, and contributions from technical experts, regional organisations, academia, civil society, and the private sector.

The European Union similarly presented an overview of how its member states are implementing the norms through legislation, institutional arrangements, and operational cooperation, encouraging other countries to share their own experiences. The EU also described the Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs) as the appropriate forum for developing practical approaches linked to specific cybersecurity challenges.

Existing norms remain the foundation

Many delegations stressed that the 11 voluntary norms continue to provide a sufficient framework for responsible state behaviour.

Countries, including the Republic of Korea, Vanuatu, Portugal, Botswana, Nigeria, Ireland, New Zealand, and Costa Rica, argued that implementation should take precedence over negotiating additional commitments.

Several delegations highlighted the voluntary implementation checklist developed through previous UN processes as a practical tool for helping governments assess progress and exchange good practices. Others suggested that publishing national implementation experiences could improve transparency and strengthen mutual confidence.

Capacity development emerged as a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with many speakers emphasising that successful implementation depends on strengthening national institutions, technical expertise, incident response capabilities, and regional cooperation.

Some states support further normative development

Although implementation attracted broad support, several delegations argued that the framework should continue evolving alongside technological change.

China, Morocco, Armenia, Thailand, Brazil, Iran, and Cuba suggested that emerging issues, including AI, data security, supply chain resilience, and new forms of cyber activity, may eventually require additional voluntary norms or, in some cases, legally binding international instruments.

Rather than presenting these approaches as mutually exclusive, several countries argued that implementation and discussions on possible future norms could proceed in parallel, provided decisions continue to be reached through consensus.

Threat discussions reinforce implementation priorities

Before moving to the norms agenda, delegations completed their discussion on the evolving cyber threat landscape.

Countries highlighted ransomware, attacks on critical infrastructure, AI, disinformation, supply chain vulnerabilities, and cybercrime as continuing challenges requiring closer international cooperation.

Ghana described efforts to strengthen the protection of critical information infrastructure following the disruption caused by damage to a submarine cable, while Pakistan warned that cyber threats are increasingly intertwined with geopolitical competition and emerging technologies. Institutional participants, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol, and the African Union, contributed perspectives on cyber operations during armed conflict, organised cybercrime, and the importance of strengthening cyber resilience across developing countries.

Summarising the discussion, the Chair highlighted recurring calls for greater information sharing, cooperation, capacity development, incident response, and resilience, noting that these priorities would help shape the future work of the mechanism.

Dedicated Thematic Groups move to the centre of the process

Throughout the session, delegations repeatedly pointed to the Dedicated Thematic Groups as the mechanism’s primary vehicle for turning broad political agreement into practical cooperation.

States proposed using the groups to exchange implementation experiences, discuss specific cyber challenges, develop scenario-based exercises, refine the voluntary implementation checklist, and strengthen cooperation across the five pillars of the UN cyber framework.

Alongside these substantive discussions, several rights of reply reflected wider geopolitical tensions among some member states. However, the majority of interventions remained focused on practical implementation and strengthening the shared framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

The session, therefore, marked an important transition for the Global Mechanism. Having identified many of the principal cyber threats facing states, delegations increasingly turned their attention to the practical question of how existing international commitments can be translated into national action and international cooperation.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN Global Mechanism on ICT security shifts towards practical cybersecurity cooperation

The UN’s permanent cyber mechanism continued its substantive discussions by identifying shared priorities for international cooperation, with member states highlighting ransomware, AI, critical infrastructure protection, and capacity development as areas requiring practical action.

During the third plenary of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, delegations repeatedly stressed that discussions should move beyond mere description of cyber threats to developing practical tools to help states prevent, detect, and respond to them.

The discussion reinforced a trend already visible during earlier meetings, that despite differing national perspectives on specific cyber incidents, broad agreement is emerging on the issues likely to shape the mechanism’s future work.

From identifying threats to supporting implementation

Several delegations argued that the mechanism’s success should be measured by its ability to translate years of international negotiations into practical cooperation.

Kiribati captured this approach by observing that discussions on cyber threats should not end with mere descriptions but lead to concrete measures that enable countries of all sizes to strengthen their cyber resilience. Cameroon and Morocco similarly encouraged the mechanism to prioritise practical implementation through the Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs), which are expected to become the forum’s primary venue for detailed technical cooperation.

The emphasis on implementation reflected a broader shift from developing international norms towards helping governments apply them in practice through information sharing, capacity development, and operational cooperation.

Critical infrastructure protection gains momentum

Protection of critical infrastructure emerged as one of the strongest areas of convergence during the session.

Small island developing states offered particularly compelling examples of how digital infrastructure has become essential for national resilience. Kiribati described how its first submarine cable has transformed public services while simultaneously increasing its exposure to cyber risks. Tonga recalled the 2022 volcanic eruption that severed its only submarine cable, leaving the country isolated during a national emergency, and warned that a malicious cyber operation could deliberately produce similar consequences.

Delegations from Australia, Tuvalu, Chile, Ghana, Zimbabwe, and other countries similarly highlighted the growing importance of protecting undersea cables, telecommunications infrastructure, government networks, and other critical systems that underpin economic activity and essential public services.

Rather than treating these as purely national concerns, speakers increasingly framed critical infrastructure resilience as a shared international challenge requiring cooperation across borders.

Ransomware remains a global priority

Ransomware was once again identified as one of the most significant cyber threats facing governments and critical services worldwide.

Delegations described attacks affecting healthcare systems, humanitarian organisations, government institutions, municipalities, telecommunications providers, and energy infrastructure.

National experiences illustrated the scale of the challenge. Tonga described how a ransomware attack encrypted its national health information system, forcing hospitals to return temporarily to paper records. Germany cited estimates placing annual cyber-related economic damage at approximately US$230 billion, while several countries highlighted the growing sophistication and transnational nature of ransomware operations.

Many speakers emphasised that responding effectively will require stronger international information sharing, coordinated incident response, public-private cooperation, and support for countries with more limited cybersecurity capacities.

AI increasingly shapes cybersecurity discussions

AI continued to feature prominently throughout the session as delegations examined its growing influence on the cyber threat landscape.

Countries from different regions observed that AI is lowering barriers to entry for malicious actors while increasing the speed and sophistication of cyber operations. Among the risks identified were AI-generated phishing campaigns, automated vulnerability discovery, deepfakes, large-scale disinformation, and attacks targeting AI systems themselves.

Several delegations also pointed to emerging challenges related to frontier AI models, quantum computing, commercial cyber intrusion capabilities, and digital supply chain security, suggesting these issues should continue to receive attention within the Global Mechanism.

While views differed on how these developments should be governed internationally, there was broad agreement that the mechanism provides an important forum for exchanging experience and improving collective understanding of rapidly evolving technologies.

Capacity development remains central to cyber resilience

Developing countries consistently stressed that discussions on cyber threats should be matched by practical support.

Delegations highlighted the importance of strengthening national institutions, expanding technical expertise, improving incident response capabilities, and ensuring that developing countries can participate fully in the mechanism’s work.

Small island developing states noted that limited resources often magnify the consequences of cyber incidents, while African, Asian, Caribbean, and Pacific countries called for sustainable, demand-driven capacity-building programmes tailored to national priorities. Several speakers also encouraged greater regional cooperation and more structured exchanges of operational experience.

These interventions reinforced the view that improving global cybersecurity depends not only on reducing threats but also on ensuring that all countries have the capabilities needed to address them.

Dedicated Thematic Groups move into focus

Attention also turned to the role of the Dedicated Thematic Groups as the mechanism’s principal vehicle for translating discussions into practical outcomes.

Delegations proposed using the groups for scenario-based discussions, expert briefings, exchanges of operational experience, and the development of practical recommendations on issues such as critical infrastructure protection, supply chain security, ransomware, and implementation of agreed voluntary norms. Several countries argued that the groups should focus on a limited number of concrete priorities that could produce measurable results.

Alongside these substantive discussions, some delegations continued to express differing views regarding state attribution of cyber incidents and recent geopolitical developments. While these exchanges reflected broader international tensions, the majority of interventions remained focused on strengthening cooperation within the Global Mechanism and identifying practical areas where progress can be achieved.

As the session concluded, the Chair confirmed that discussions would continue with the remaining speakers before the mechanism moved to its next agenda item on voluntary norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Zambia and South Sudan tighten cybercrime laws amid free speech concerns

Zambia and South Sudan have stepped up enforcement of cybercrime laws amid concerns over their potential effects on privacy, journalism and freedom of expression.

Zambia’s government has reminded citizens and public officials that the Cyber Crimes Act No. 4 of 2025 remains fully operational, warning against the unauthorised recording and circulation of private communications.

The law, which entered into force in May 2025, makes it an offence to record a private conversation without notifying the participants.

Exceptions include unintentional recordings, certain law-enforcement situations and cases where recording is reasonably necessary to protect the lawful interests of a party to the conversation.

The renewed enforcement focus follows the detention of a Zambian journalist accused of recording and publishing audio from a private meeting. Press freedom advocates argue that the material is a matter of public interest.

South Sudan has meanwhile begun coordinated implementation of its Cybercrime and Computer Misuse Act, 2026, after President Salva Kiir instructed government institutions to enforce the legislation.

Authorities say the law will strengthen cybersecurity, protect critical infrastructure and address offences including hacking, fraud, identity-related crimes and cyber harassment.

Civil society and media rights groups have raised concerns about provisions covering ‘undesirable content’ and ‘false or misleading information’.

Critics warn that broadly worded offences could be used against journalists, political opponents and people expressing legitimate criticism online, particularly without independent oversight and clear enforcement guidelines.

Why does it matter?

The two cases demonstrate the tension between tackling genuine cybercrime and protecting fundamental rights online. Broad offences covering private communications, reputational harm and vaguely defined harmful content may create legal uncertainty for journalists, whistleblowers and ordinary users, especially when enforcement powers lack clear public-interest safeguards and independent oversight.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

US seizes more than 1,000 illegal World Cup streaming domains

The US Department of Justice has seized more than 1,000 domains used to illegally stream FIFA World Cup matches, following three enforcement operations carried out during the 2026 tournament.

The domains provided unauthorised real-time broadcasts of World Cup matches protected under US copyright law. Homeland Security Investigations said agents confirmed the sites were actively streaming matches without authorisation before obtaining seizure warrants.

The operation formed part of Operation Offsides, coordinated by the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center. FIFA helped identify the domains, while broadcasters, sports organisations and anti-piracy groups provided additional intelligence.

Officials also warned that pirate streaming services frequently expose users to malware, payment fraud and other cybersecurity risks, while generating revenue for wider criminal networks and harming legitimate broadcasters and rights holders.

Enforcement also expanded across Latin America through Operation Red Card, with authorities blocking hundreds of piracy websites, including 309 in Brazil, 256 in the Dominican Republic and 1,140 in Colombia.

Colombian investigators also carried out search-and-seizure operations targeting counterfeit sports merchandise and arrested members of a cybercrime group accused of selling pirated streams using stolen credentials, VPNs and intercepted security codes.

The wider operation involved prosecutors, police and cybercrime specialists across Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and the Dominican Republic, alongside cooperation with Europol.

The Justice Department said Operation Offsides will continue targeting domains used for illegal sports streaming, while international partners pursue related piracy, cybercrime and counterfeiting networks.

Why does it matter?

The operation illustrates how online piracy has evolved beyond copyright infringement into a broader cybersecurity and organised crime issue. Pirate streaming platforms often expose users to malware, credential theft and payment fraud while generating revenue for criminal networks.

The coordinated enforcement effort also demonstrates the increasingly international nature of digital copyright enforcement. As major sporting events become global targets for online piracy, cooperation between governments, law enforcement agencies, rights holders and technology companies is becoming essential to disrupting cross-border criminal operations.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN Global Mechanism on ICT security identifies ransomware and AI among key global cyber threats

The UN’s new permanent mechanism on international cybersecurity shifted from organisational discussions to substantive exchanges on the evolving cyber threat landscape, with member states identifying ransomware, attacks on critical infrastructure, and the malicious use of AI among the most pressing challenges requiring international cooperation.

Meeting during the first substantive plenary session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, delegates also continued discussions on the organisation of the mechanism’s Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs), which are expected to play a central role in translating years of normative work into practical cooperation.

While delegations expressed different views on some procedural aspects of the DTGs, there was broad agreement that the groups should focus on practical, action-oriented work and avoid duplicating discussions already taking place during the annual plenary sessions.

Dedicated Thematic Groups take shape

Several delegations described the DTGs as one of the Global Mechanism’s most important innovations, providing an opportunity for more detailed discussions than are possible during formal plenary meetings.

Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Kiribati and New Zealand encouraged the groups to concentrate on a limited number of priority topics capable of producing practical recommendations. Germany similarly proposed focusing on thematically coherent issues, including ransomware and the protection of critical infrastructure, while ensuring that discussions ultimately feed back into the plenary through concrete recommendations.

A recurring message throughout the discussion was that the mechanism should now move from establishing common principles towards supporting their implementation. Several delegations cautioned that attempting to address too many issues simultaneously could reduce the effectiveness of the DTGs, advocating a focused approach instead during their first biennium.

Delegations also highlighted the importance of maintaining predictable working methods, ensuring meaningful participation by all regions, and enabling smaller countries to contribute effectively throughout the process.

Broad support for stakeholder expertise

Another recurring theme was the value of involving technical expertise in DTG work.

Countries from different regions highlighted the contributions that academia, the private sector, civil society, and technical organisations can make to understanding rapidly evolving cyber threats and supporting the implementation of agreed commitments.

Oman stressed that governments alone cannot access all relevant technical knowledge, while Argentina called for transparent and predictable arrangements for stakeholder participation. France argued that cybersecurity requires cooperation across different communities, describing cyber diplomacy as a ‘team sport’. The African Group likewise recognised that expertise from non-state actors complements the intergovernmental character of the mechanism.

Many delegations also underlined that meaningful stakeholder engagement would be particularly valuable during the more interactive discussions planned within the thematic groups.

Ransomware and critical infrastructure emerge as shared priorities

As discussions moved to the evolving cyber threat landscape, a strong degree of convergence emerged across regions.

Ransomware was consistently identified as one of the most significant threats facing governments, businesses, and societies. Delegations pointed to attacks affecting healthcare, public administration, financial services, energy systems, telecommunications, and other essential services.

Several countries drew on national experience to illustrate the impact of such incidents. Costa Rica referred to the disruption caused by major ransomware attacks in 2022, while Ireland highlighted the effects of the 2021 cyberattack on its health service. Singapore noted that nearly 8,000 ransomware incidents were publicly reported worldwide during 2025, underlining the increasingly transnational nature of the threat.

The protection of critical infrastructure also emerged as a common concern. Delegations discussed the resilience of healthcare systems, government services, energy networks, transport infrastructure, telecommunications, and undersea cables, with several suggesting these issues should become early priorities for the DTGs.

AI reshapes the cyber threat landscape

The malicious use of AI featured prominently throughout the session, with delegations from all regions describing its growing impact on cybersecurity.

Countries warned that AI is accelerating the speed and sophistication of cyber operations while lowering barriers to entry for malicious actors. Among the concerns raised were AI-enabled phishing campaigns, automated vulnerability discovery, deepfakes, synthetic media, disinformation, and attacks targeting AI systems themselves.

Several delegations also pointed to emerging challenges, including quantum computing, post-quantum cryptography, commercial spyware, and increasingly sophisticated cybercrime ecosystems. While views differed on whether these developments require new international norms, there was broad recognition that the mechanism should continue examining their implications within its existing mandate.

Capacity building remains central for developing countries

Capacity building remained a cross-cutting priority throughout the session, particularly for developing countries and small island developing states.

The African Group called for practical implementation of existing capacity-building initiatives, including the ICT security cooperation portal, fellowship programmes, and the global network of national points of contact. Other delegations highlighted regional initiatives aimed to strengthening resilience, improving cyber hygiene, and supporting national institutions.

Small island developing states added an important practical perspective to the discussion. Vanuatu described how cyber resilience has become closely linked to disaster preparedness, while Nauru observed that countries connecting to the internet today immediately face the full spectrum of contemporary cyber threats rather than encountering them gradually over time.

The session concluded with the Chair confirming that consultations on the DTGs would continue ahead of their first meetings in December. While some organisational questions remain under discussion, the exchanges demonstrated growing convergence on the substantive issues likely to shape the mechanism’s future work, particularly ransomware, critical infrastructure protection, AI-enabled threats, and strengthening cyber capacity across all regions.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

China and Thailand launch AI weather forecasting laboratory

China and Thailand have launched a joint laboratory dedicated to applying AI to meteorological disaster forecasting and early warning, aiming to strengthen climate resilience and support cross-border infrastructure and economic cooperation.

Announced during a meteorological sub-forum of the 2026 World AI Conference and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance in Shanghai, the initiative will support disaster forecasting while providing meteorological services for cross-border projects in sectors including energy, agriculture and infrastructure.

Described as the world’s first bilateral laboratory dedicated to AI applications in meteorology, it will develop intelligent early warning technologies for hazards including typhoons, heavy rainfall, heatwaves and droughts. The collaboration builds on the China Meteorological Administration’s MAZU intelligent early warning system.

The laboratory will bring together more than 40 researchers specialising in atmospheric science, AI, power systems, agricultural meteorology and regional cooperation. By combining expertise across these fields, the partners aim to improve forecasting accuracy and strengthen preparedness for shared climate risks.

The partnership reflects the growing role of AI in climate resilience and disaster risk management while highlighting increasing international cooperation on applying AI to environmental monitoring and critical infrastructure.

Why does it matter?

The project illustrates how AI is increasingly being deployed in critical public-interest applications beyond generative AI, including disaster preparedness, climate adaptation and environmental monitoring. More accurate forecasting can help governments, infrastructure operators and communities respond more effectively to extreme weather events.

The initiative also reflects a broader trend towards international cooperation on AI for public goods. By combining scientific expertise, data and forecasting technologies across borders, countries can strengthen regional resilience to climate-related risks while supporting sectors such as energy, agriculture and transport.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!  

UNIDIR publishes guidance on gender-responsive cybersecurity

The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) has published a compendium of good practices to help governments integrate gender perspectives into cybersecurity policies and strengthen the implementation of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

Drawing on a series of multistakeholder workshops held with the Stimson Center in 2025, the report brings together existing initiatives and practical examples from governments and other stakeholders. It also identifies lessons learned and recommendations for incorporating gender considerations into national ICT architectures and implementing the UN Framework for Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace.

The compendium covers four themes: the gendered impacts of ICTs, the application of international law in cyberspace, the integration of gender into national cybersecurity institutions and strategies, and gender-responsive cyber capacity building. It also includes practical recommendations and a toolbox of resources for policymakers and practitioners.

UNIDIR said the compendium is intended to help governments and other stakeholders strengthen cybersecurity governance through more inclusive policy development and implementation.

Why does it matter?

The compendium reflects growing recognition that cybersecurity governance should consider how cyber threats, policies and digital technologies affect different groups of people. Rather than treating gender as a standalone issue, the report presents it as an element of effective, inclusive cybersecurity policymaking.

By collecting practical examples and recommendations from governments and the wider multistakeholder community, the publication also supports international efforts to strengthen responsible state behaviour in cyberspace and build more inclusive national cyber capacity.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity begins work with focus on participation and consensus

The United Nations’ new permanent mechanism on international cybersecurity has begun its substantive work, opening a new phase of multilateral discussions on responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

The first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security opened on 20 July at UN Headquarters in New York under the chairmanship of Ambassador Egriselda López of El Salvador. The meeting marked the first time member states had convened within a standing UN framework dedicated to ICT security and responsible state behaviour.

The mechanism succeeds years of negotiations under the Open-Ended Working Group and is intended to provide a permanent, single-track forum for discussions across five established pillars, such as existing and potential ICT threats, rules and norms of state behaviour, the application of international law, confidence-building measures, and capacity development.

In a pre-recorded statement, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu described the mechanism as holding ‘tremendous promise’. She highlighted its permanent and consensually agreed character and called for stakeholder engagement to take place in a systematic, sustained, and substantive manner.

A permanent forum takes shape

Opening the session, López described the meeting as a historic moment that would help shape not only the first two-year cycle of the mechanism but also the UN’s wider approach to ICT security in the years ahead.

She acknowledged that the forum was beginning its work amid a complex international environment marked by attacks against critical infrastructure, disruptions to digital supply chains, the use of ICTs in conflicts, and the growing interaction between cybersecurity and emerging technologies such as AI.

The Chair also emphasised that agreement would require sustained diplomatic effort.

‘Consensus is not automatic,’ López told delegations, arguing that it must be built through commitment, flexibility, and political will.

She noted that multilateral processes are often advanced through ‘small steps, difficult compromises, and the willingness to keep talking even when there are differences’.

The session achieved an early procedural milestone with the adoption, by consensus, of the provisional agendas for the 2026 and 2027 plenary sessions. The mechanism also noted its provisional programme of work, creating a framework for the substantive discussions scheduled for the week.

The mechanism tests its approach to stakeholder participation

A substantial part of the opening discussion focused on how non-governmental stakeholders should participate in the mechanism.

Under the agreed accreditation procedure, applications are accepted unless a member state submits a written objection. The Chair reported that she had held consultations with states that raised objections, although the positions of the concerned governments remained unchanged.

Several delegations expressed concern that a large proportion of stakeholder applicants had not received accreditation. They argued that technical experts, civil society organisations, industry representatives, and academic institutions can provide knowledge that supports informed negotiations and practical implementation.

The issue was particularly important for smaller and developing states, some of which said they rely heavily on external partners because they have limited domestic technical and diplomatic capacity.

Kiribati emphasised that technical partners and regional organisations had contributed to its national cybersecurity posture and helped shift international discussions from problem identification to solution delivery. It called for greater transparency around objections, arguing that explanations could help states understand and potentially address the concerns raised.

‘Transparency here costs the objecting state little; silence costs the rest of us a great deal,’ the delegation said.

Other delegations placed greater emphasis on ensuring that participating organisations meet the agreed standards of objectivity and impartiality. They maintained that the non-objection procedure was negotiated by consensus and that states retained the right to raise concerns about individual applicants.

The discussion, therefore, reflected a broader institutional question of how the mechanism can preserve state oversight while gaining access to the technical expertise needed for meaningful cybersecurity cooperation.

Participation rules remain important for thematic work

Delegations also considered how stakeholder participation should function in the Dedicated Thematic Groups scheduled to meet from 7 to 11 December.

The mechanism will operate two such groups. One will address general substantive issues, while the other will focus on capacity development. Their purpose is to enable more detailed and interactive discussions that build on the work of the annual plenary.

Some delegations argued that, because the thematic groups are informal, they should be able to include a wide range of experts and stakeholders without requiring the same accreditation process used for formal plenary sessions.

Others maintained that the agreed participation modalities for the mechanism should apply consistently across all its formats. From this perspective, applying different rules to the thematic groups could weaken their intergovernmental character or create uncertainty over the status of their outcomes.

The debate highlighted the need for predictable working methods before the December meetings. Clear guidance on participation, expert briefings, meeting formats, and reporting procedures will be particularly important for delegations with limited resources.

Procedural questions shape preparations for thematic discussions

The Chair also announced the appointment of four co-facilitators for the thematic groups, selected from Australia, Egypt, Malaysia, and the Netherlands.

López said the appointments reflected geographic and gender balance and that the co-facilitators would serve in their personal capacities under the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and inclusion.

Many delegations welcomed the appointments as a practical step towards ensuring that preparations for the December meetings could move forward. They viewed the selection of facilitators as consistent with practices used in other UN processes.

Other delegations preferred the appointments to be formally agreed upon by consensus among all member states. They argued that the mechanism’s state-led character requires collective agreement on both procedural and substantive decisions.

The exchange demonstrated that the meaning of consensus will remain an important issue as the new forum develops its institutional practices. The challenge will be to preserve the confidence of all states while allowing the mechanism to carry out the organisational work needed to function effectively.

From general debate to practical cooperation

Beyond the procedural questions, delegations began outlining how the thematic groups could contribute to the mechanism’s wider objectives.

Several countries supported focused, scenario-based discussions addressing concrete challenges such as ransomware, attacks against critical infrastructure, AI security, operational technology, quantum readiness, and post-quantum cryptography.

Others emphasised that the groups should maintain a balanced approach across all five pillars of the framework and avoid prioritising specific topics without the agreement of member states.

Capacity development emerged as a particularly important theme. Developing and smaller states highlighted the role of partnerships with governments, international organisations, industry, academia, and civil society in strengthening national cyber resilience.

Questions of accessibility were also raised. Colombia and Mexico called for simultaneous interpretation to support participation by experts from different linguistic communities, while Mauritius stressed the need for clear rules, timelines, and coordination between the two thematic groups.

These proposals suggest that the success of the mechanism will depend not only on reaching agreements at the diplomatic level but also on translating them into practical cooperation that responds to national needs.

Building consensus in a permanent mechanism

The opening plenary showed that establishing a permanent international forum involves more than adopting a mandate. Member states must also develop shared expectations about participation, decision-making, working methods, and the relationship between formal negotiations and technical expertise.

Despite differing interpretations of some procedures, delegations broadly reaffirmed their support for the Global Mechanism and its objective of strengthening international cooperation on ICT security.

The consensus adoption of the agenda provided a foundation for the substantive work ahead. The Chair also pledged to continue consultations with states and maintain sustained dialogue with stakeholders.

The mechanism’s first session, therefore, represents both an institutional achievement and an early test of multilateral cooperation. Its ability to deliver practical results will depend on whether member states can balance inclusivity, state leadership, procedural predictability, and the consensus principle on which the forum was founded.

As the mechanism moves towards its first Dedicated Thematic Group meetings in December, the immediate priority will be to turn its permanent mandate into working arrangements capable of supporting trust, resilience, and responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Victoria proposes tougher child safety laws for social media and AI

Victoria’s Labor government plans to introduce child safety laws that would make it easier for families to bring legal claims against social media and AI companies accused of harming children.

The proposed reforms would remove the requirement for claims brought on behalf of minors to demonstrate permanent psychiatric impairment of at least 10% before proceedings against social media or AI providers can begin.

The government argues that addictive platform features can damage children’s mental health and that the current legal threshold creates an unnecessary barrier for affected families seeking compensation.

The reforms would also give the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) new powers to issue ‘demasking orders’, requiring social media companies to reveal the identities of anonymous users accused of online vilification.

Premier Jacinta Allan said families should be able to hold technology companies accountable when their platforms harm children and that anonymity should not shield users responsible for hateful conduct.

The government will also consider whether the lower legal threshold should apply to claims involving adults before finalising the legislation. The reforms will be developed through targeted consultations with VCAT, the courts and other stakeholders before being introduced to parliament.

Why does it matter?

The proposed reforms reflect a growing international trend towards holding technology companies more accountable for the real-world impacts of platform design, particularly where children are concerned. Lowering the threshold for legal claims could make it easier for families to seek redress while increasing pressure on platforms to address features that may contribute to harm.

The introduction of ‘demasking orders’ also illustrates how online safety policy is expanding beyond content moderation to include stronger legal mechanisms for identifying anonymous users and enforcing accountability. If adopted, the legislation could influence similar debates in other jurisdictions considering tougher platform liability rules.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Kenya restricts presidential website after cybersecurity incident

Kenya temporarily restricted access to the President’s official website after detecting a cybersecurity incident, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Digital Economy announced.

The ICT Authority activated its established incident response procedures after reports of the attack. Access to the website was restricted as a precaution to support containment, forensic analysis and restoration.

The ministry said mitigation measures had already been implemented and work to restore the website was underway. Officials added that there was no evidence of unauthorised access to sensitive data, data exfiltration or information loss, and that other government systems and digital services remained secure and operational.

The ICT Authority of Kenya is continuing to work with government agencies and technical partners to investigate the incident and determine its full scope and cause.

Why does it matter?

Government websites are high-profile targets because they provide official public information and can influence trust in state institutions even when no sensitive systems are compromised. Temporary restrictions and forensic investigations are standard measures that help contain potential threats while authorities assess the scope of an incident.

The case also highlights the importance of transparent incident reporting. Confirming what was, and was not, affected can help maintain public confidence while allowing investigators time to establish the cause and strengthen future cyber resilience.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Diplo chatbot can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.