Civil society raises concerns over draft procedures for the UN Cybercrime Convention
Civil society organisations have published a joint statement calling for changes to the draft Rules of Procedure that will govern how the Conference of States Parties to the UN Cybercrime Convention operates. The statement focuses on participation, transparency, and safeguards to ensure the Convention’s implementation remains inclusive and rights-respecting.
A group of civil society organisations has issued a joint statement on the draft Rules of Procedure for the Conference of States Parties under the UN Convention against Cybercrime. The Rules of Procedure are the internal rules that determine who can participate in meetings, how decisions are taken, and how transparent the process will be once the Convention enters its implementation phase.
The statement notes that during the negotiation of the Convention, non-governmental organisations, academics, technical experts, and private sector actors were able to contribute through relatively open and transparent processes under the Ad Hoc Committee. According to the signatories, maintaining similar participation during implementation is important to ensure continuity, institutional memory, and alignment with international human rights standards.
The organisations identify several areas where the draft Rules of Procedure could be strengthened. One concern relates to accreditation. While the draft recognises observers, it allows a single objection by a state to delay or block an organisation’s participation. Civil society groups warn that this could lead to politicised exclusion, particularly for organisations working on sensitive issues such as human rights, journalism, or digital security. They also argue that organisations already accredited during the negotiation phase should be able to continue participating without having to restart the process.
Another issue highlighted is the lack of clear rules on how observers can engage in practice. Although observer status allows attendance, the draft provides limited guarantees on when observers can speak or whether they will receive documents in time to contribute meaningfully. The statement argues that without predictable opportunities to intervene or timely access to materials, participation risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Transparency is a further concern. While the draft Rules refer to public and private meetings and to meeting recordings, they do not establish a clear presumption that meetings should be open, nor do they guarantee that recordings and documents will be made publicly available. Civil society groups point out that during the Convention’s negotiation phase, online platforms enabled broad access to documents and discussions, and that moving away from this practice could disadvantage organisations, especially those unable to attend meetings in person.
Finally, the statement looks ahead to future bodies that may be created under the Convention, such as review or monitoring mechanisms. It argues that the draft Rules do not include basic safeguards to ensure that these future processes will be transparent or open to stakeholder participation. Without such safeguards, important oversight functions could be developed with limited visibility or engagement.
The joint statement sets out detailed recommendations to address these issues, including fairer accreditation rules, clearer participation modalities for observers, stronger transparency requirements, and baseline guarantees for future institutional processes. The signatories say their aim is to ensure that the implementation of the Convention builds on the participatory practices established during negotiations, rather than narrowing them.
