The United Nations is approaching the establishment of a new Global Mechanism on responsible state behavior in cyberspace. For over two decades, the cyber negotiations in New York have been largely state-centric, often leaving non-governmental stakeholders, including private sector actors, civil society, academia, and technical communities, at the margins. Despite repeated rhetorical commitments to multi-stakeholder inclusion, meaningful modalities have proven difficult to secure.
An organizing session is expected to take place by March 2026 to kick off the Global Mechanism’s work and further develop its scope, structure, and implementation modalities, including rules for stakeholder participation. Precedent does not inspire optimism. Past UN negotiations have repeatedly struggled to institutionalize meaningful frameworks for engagement. The OEWG’s final report does allow ECOSOC-accredited NGOs to participate in plenary and review meetings, and creates a “non-objection” accreditation route for other stakeholders. But commentators warn that this mechanism gives individual States the ability to block participation, which risks perpetuating the same limitations seen in earlier processes. This gives a rather grim outlook for the thematic working groups that are supposed to anchor the new mechanism, at least in terms of enhancing stakeholder participation.
Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that the door is shut. Even if states once again fail to agree on modalities that open up the process, there remain alternative avenues for securing stakeholder input. The real opportunity lies in building stakeholder networks at national, regional, and thematic levels that can link into the new mechanism from the outside. Now that the agenda is becoming more concrete and action-oriented, stakeholders may finally see stronger incentives to invest their limited time and resources.
The Missed Opportunity of Stakeholder Inclusion
The value of multi-stakeholder participation in cyber governance is hardly contested in principle. Private companies own and operate the bulk of the world’s digital infrastructure. Civil society advocates bring perspectives on rights and accountability. Academia and the technical community contribute expertise that states often lack. Yet translating this consensus into practice has proven almost impossible.
The UN’s Open-Ended Working Group on ICT security and its predecessors have discussed inclusion, but agreement broke down repeatedly over modalities. Some states worry that non-governmental actors would dilute intergovernmental authority or politicize sensitive negotiations. Others support inclusion but lack the political capital to push it through. As a result, stakeholder participation has remained ad hoc and limited, often filtered through side events or consultations without formal decision-making weight.
This is why the creation of Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs) within the future mechanism is so important. According to the final report of the OEWG 2021–2025, at the heart of the future Global Mechanism will be two DTGs. One will promote an open, secure, stable, accessible, peaceful, and interoperable ICT environment, and the other will accelerate Cyber Capacity Building. While participation modalities remain largely unchanged, the DTGs hypothetically offer space for structured engagement with non-state technical experts. Each group will work from rotating agendas, covering concrete issues such as the protection of critical infrastructure, lessons learned, and best practices. Discussions are expected to result in practical, forward-looking recommendations that will likely feed into the annual substantive plenary sessions.
How Dedicated Thematic Groups Can Change the Equation
Thematic groups will address specific issues such as capacity building, norms implementation, or confidence building measures. Unlike the broad and often abstract plenary discussions in New York, these groups aim to be narrower in focus and more action-oriented. This matters for stakeholders for two reasons.
First, the topics are closer to their operational interests. For example, a working group on incident response capacity is immediately relevant for the private cybersecurity sector. A group on critical infrastructure protection speaks directly to utilities, telecom providers, and financial services. Unlike the perceived level of abstraction of the UN debates, these are areas where stakeholders have both expertise and a direct business or societal interest.
Second, the more concrete focus provides a clearer case for allocating scarce resources. For stakeholders, participation in UN processes has often been too vague, with unclear returns on investment. But if working groups address practical implementation challenges, the cost-benefit equation shifts. Private sector actors, in particular, are more likely to commit staff time, resources, and expertise when discussions affect their operations directly.
A Hybrid Approach: Top-Down and Bottom-Up
Even if formal modalities remain restrictive, the effectiveness of thematic working groups will not depend solely on what happens inside UN conference rooms. Stakeholder networks can be built around these groups in ways that feed into global discussions.
Both states and stakeholders have roles to play.
States and regional organizations as enablers. Governments that support stakeholder inclusion should not stop at negotiating modalities. They can convene national or regional stakeholder forums linked to the thematic groups, provide platforms for engagement, and channel the outputs of these discussions into their own interventions at the UN. Practical precedents exist: Canada and Chile, for example, jointly proposed “practical modalities” for stakeholder participation and hosted cross-regional consultations, showing how states can operationalize this enabling role.
Stakeholders as initiators. Networks can also form from the bottom up. The Joint Civil Society Statement at the Chair’s informal dialogue on July 3, 2025 illustrates how organized stakeholder coalitions can collectively influence UN cyber negotiations. Speaking on behalf of a wide range of organizations as well as independent experts, the coalition pressed for stronger and more predictable accreditation procedures, greater transparency around objections, and expanded opportunities for participation in dedicated thematic working groups. This demonstrates that civil society, academia, and technical experts are capable of pooling resources, coordinating across diverse interests, and putting forward concrete, consensus-based proposals that reinforce the value of their engagement.
The most promising approach will likely combine both. States and regional bodies act as enablers, while stakeholders self-organize to ensure their perspectives are coherent, sustained, and connected to global debates.
Building Sustainable Buy-In
A recurring challenge has been that stakeholder participation is often episodic and under-resourced. Consultations may attract initial interest, but momentum rarely sustains, and stakeholders can find their input has limited impact. By contrast, networks focused on concrete thematic areas provide long-term engagement, clear purpose, and measurable outcomes.
For instance, a thematic working group on capacity building in developing countries creates tangible opportunities for NGOs, security companies, and universities training future cyber professionals. Coordinated networks allow stakeholders to pool perspectives, amplify influence, and ensure contributions are coherent, while justifying staff time and funding by linking input to measurable progress.
Similarly, in critical infrastructure protection, trade associations and sector-specific coalitions can consolidate companies with shared priorities or vulnerabilities, translating operational concerns into actionable insights for the UN. This amplifies stakeholder voices and reduces the burden on governments, which can engage with organized, coherent counterparts instead of fragmented inputs.
Networks also promote knowledge sharing and continuity. Mechanisms for ongoing communication, collaborative research, or joint advocacy help stakeholders maintain influence between UN sessions, build credibility, trust, and institutional memory, and increase the likelihood that their insights inform global decisions.
In short, thematic networks create a virtuous cycle: clear focus encourages engagement, collective action amplifies influence, and sustained collaboration keeps stakeholder voices visible, relevant, and actionable across UN processes and complementary fora.
A Responsibility Shared
The reality is that the March 2026 negotiations are unlikely to deliver a breakthrough on stakeholder modalities. But this should not be the end of the story. States that genuinely support inclusion have a responsibility that extends beyond the negotiating table. If they are truly in favour of stakeholder inclusion, they cannot simply pay lip service. They must proactively engage with stakeholders, facilitating networks, linking them to the thematic groups, and ensuring that their expertise and perspectives are fed into the formal process. Examples such as Canada and Chile, which have actively led efforts at the UN level to coordinate with non-governmental actors, demonstrate how states can operationalize this responsibility and turn it into tangible influence on the negotiations.
At the same time, if the modalities agreed in March remain restrictive, supportive States must shift attention toward engagement outside of the formal UN process. By supporting stakeholder networks at national or regional levels, they can still ensure that non-governmental expertise feeds into the global discussions where appropriate. This dual approach, pushing for inclusion inside the mechanism while cultivating parallel channels outside, maximizes the chances that stakeholders’ voices are heard and their knowledge utilized.
Non-governmental stakeholders themselves cannot afford to wait passively. The thematic working groups provide an opening to organize themselves in ways that are more targeted, action-oriented, and sustainable. If they seize the opportunity, their perspectives can still influence the trajectory of global cyber governance even from outside the formal mechanism.
A Window of Opportunity
Focusing narrowly on the outcome of the March negotiations risks limiting the imagination of both states and stakeholders in finding alternative avenues to ensure that legitimate perspectives are heard. Even if formal modalities remain restrictive, the concrete and thematic nature of the new process opens space for innovative approaches. States and regional organizations can act as conveners and enablers, while stakeholders can self-organize, pooling their expertise and resources. Together, they can build hybrid networks that bridge the gap between the formal mechanism and the realities of cyberspace.
States’ responsibility does not end with the March negotiations. True stakeholder inclusion requires action: proactive engagement with networks, linking expertise to thematic working groups, and sustaining dialogue beyond formal plenary sessions. If this approach is embraced, the thematic working groups could signal a broader shift from tokenistic participation to meaningful, action-oriented engagement, making stakeholders an indispensable pillar of global cyber stability.
