Collaborative governance

Importance of collaborative regulation

Over the last several years, ITU has developed a comprehensive model for tracking the maturity of telecommunications markets – the Generations of Regulation Model. The model presents a framework for considering how policy and regulation have evolved over recent decades, from a narrower telecommunications focus to a broader ICT focus and ultimately to collaborative digital governance (Figure 1) (ITU 2023a). As presented by ITU, fifth-generation (G5) regulation is framed under the premise ‘collaboration across sectors, cooperation across borders, and engagement across the board.’

Figure 1. Generations of regulation

Source: ITU

Leading G5 regulation is the desired destination point for ICT regulation worldwide. It highlights the increased importance of more flexible and collaborative regulatory frameworks capable of addressing the broad impacts of the digital economy across sectors. Further, it enables stakeholders to create and implement appropriate regulatory frameworks as digital technologies and services continue to evolve.

ITU research and observation points to the need for continued development and implementation of collaborative regulation for the benefit of all stakeholders. This is supported by four key observations (ITU 2023b):

• Digital transformation has placed ICTs at the foundation for every economic sector and as a necessity for business performance and national growth.
• A combination of enabling frameworks and appropriate networks and services are critical to leveraging ICTs to transform sectors and activities, including education, health care, environmental management, agriculture, trade, and entrepreneurship.
• Silo-style ICT sector regulation is not viable in the digital world. G5 regulation reflects the interplay between digital infrastructure, services, and content across industries and borders, while also harmonizing rules and ensuring consistent implementation of policy and regulatory frameworks.
• Collaborative regulation considers sustainability and long-term gains, with leading countries engaged in connecting marginalized and underserved populations. These considerations require more innovative, more collaborative policymaking and regulation.

Key characteristics of countries that have embraced G5 regulation include (ITU 2023c):

• innovative, open, incentive-based, cross-sector;
• navigates towards broad, inclusive, meaningful connectivity;
• centered on people, sustainability, and long-term gains, not on profit-taking;
• fosters vibrant markets and fast-evolving technologies, products, and services that bring social and economic value;
• finds market solutions to challenges as new technologies and business models test existing regulatory paradigms;
• builds consensus that protects consumers while encouraging market growth and innovation;
• features an expanded leadership role for the ICT regulator in driving cross-sector collaboration; and
• lends itself to connecting marginalized individuals, persons with disabilities, those communities of low-income or challenged by educational impoverishment, and remote or isolated populations lacking infrastructure.

ITU tools including the G5 Benchmark and the ICT Regulatory Tracker – and the Unified Framework combining the two tools that was introduced in the Global Digital Regulatory Outlook 2023 – provide insightful data for taking a holistic view of the enabling environment for digital transformation (ITU 2023d). The Unified Framework provides a set of benchmarks that can be used to take stock of the readiness of countries for digital transformation and their policy, regulatory and governance capacity.

Intragovernmental collaboration

The Intragovernmental Collaboration section focuses on intragovernmental regulatory collaboration – collaboration between and within government agencies. This primarily focuses on the agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing regulatory frameworks, including sector regulators and horizontal regulators, but also taking account of the roles of policymakers and other government leadership. ICTs are a foundational component of a wide range of economic sectors, leading to an increased need for collaboration between ICT sector regulators and the regulatory and policymaking agencies that govern other sectors.

Importance and drivers of intragovernmental collaboration

To make intergovernmental collaboration effective, it is important to consider the underlying drivers that motivate it. Notably, intragovernmental collaboration is crucial in an increasingly digital economy because regulatory authorities—and teams within these authorities—have varied and complementary areas of competence. Bringing these experts and their collective experience together to address both existing and anticipated challenges and developments can result in not only better solutions for government, businesses, and consumers, but also improve the likelihood that the regulatory agencies are working toward common goals.

The need for intragovernmental collaboration is driven by rapid evolution in the ICT sector itself as well as how ICTs are used across the economy. Previously discrete services or regulatory frameworks are increasingly overlapping or affecting each other, creating novel questions of policy, regulation, and enforcement. This ICT sector evolution continues to drive organizational restructuring within regulatory agencies, which itself drives a need for collaboration as new teams are developed and as regulators determine how best to address narrow questions and larger sectoral governance questions. Further, there are periodic intersections of vertical (i.e., sector-specific) and horizontal (i.e., economy-wide) regulations. Matters related to competition within the ICT sector are a frequent example of this intersection.

Approaches to intragovernmental collaboration

Regulators frequently use both formal and informal methods to establish, support, and maintain intragovernmental collaborations. Intragovernmental Collaboration introduces these approaches following a statement of ITU core design principles for collaborative regulation that are relevant to both cases.

• Formal intragovernmental collaborations are established through written agreements, such as a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or memorandum of agreement (MOA), which generally include common components. These establish the problem to be addressed or the goals of the collaboration, identify the participants and their responsibilities, set a duration for the arrangement, and reference any relevant legal frameworks. Critically, such agreements also set out the processes or mechanisms by which the participating agencies will collaborate.
• Informal collaborations are established outside of typical bureaucratic structures and can instead take the form of communities of practice, working groups, training sessions, or other less-formal arrangements to create opportunities for collaboration on issues of shared importance. However, these models can also be limited by a lack of resources and clear decision-making authority.
• Hybrid collaboration models combine elements of both formal and informal approaches, allowing agencies to benefit from the structure and accountability of formal agreements while leveraging the flexibility and responsiveness of informal mechanisms. In practice, this often means operating under a formal framework while relying on regular informal interactions—such as working groups or joint task forces—to coordinate activities, share knowledge, and adapt to emerging needs.

The section is supplemented by two thematic deep dives. Common elements of collaboration agreements between agencies incorporates a more-focused review of common elements of intragovernmental collaboration agreements, presenting real-world examples of language employed to achieve particular goals. These include introduction and background information, objectives, and information on the relevant issue or challenge, as well as common general provisions. Collaboration between competition and ICT authorities examines a common collaborative relationship found in numerous countries. In particular, it discusses the need for collaboration between ICT sector regulators with competition-related obligations or powers and horizontal competition authorities to maximize clarity with regard to competition regulation.

External collaboration

Subsequent sections complement the discussion of intragovernmental collaboration by presenting discussions of external collaborative regulation approaches, namely cross-border collaboration and public/private collaboration.

Cross-border collaboration

The Cross-Border Collaboration section begins by considering different approaches to cross-border collaboration – bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements, and engagement with international bodies. This section provides brief overviews of each approach, including key characteristics and examples. These are followed by a discussion of treaties, MOUs, and multilateral organizations – key mechanisms for implementing cross-border collaborative regulatory efforts.

This section continues with a discussion of methods for establishing cross-border collaboration. Taking an approach similar to the discussion in Intragovernmental Collaboration, this section addresses key steps in establishing a collaborative regulatory arrangement, including identification of objectives, enumerating responsibilities and commitments, obtaining appropriate approval for the collaborative activity, and supporting the collaborative activities.

The discussion of cross-border collaboration concludes with consideration of success factors as well as strengths and challenges of cross-border collaborative efforts.

International organization collaboration

The International Organization Collaboration section focuses on collaboration involving international organizations. In particular, it addresses the role of international multilateral organizations, the United Nations system, and donor agencies such as the World Bank Group and regional development banks, highlighting the collaborative opportunities and resources provided. This section also highlights the roles of standards bodies, private sector associations, and non-governmental organizations.

Public/private collaboration

The Stakeholder Engagement section focuses on regulatory collaborations between the public and private sectors, which can provide benefits to stakeholders in both sectors. Public/private collaborations can help to encourage innovation, facilitate deployment of emerging technologies, incentivize investment, and increase buy-in among private-sector stakeholders.

The discussion of stakeholder engagement and public/private collaboration begins with descriptions of key collaborative approaches, including de-regulation, self-regulation, and co-regulation. Each of these has benefits and drawbacks and is marked by differing levels of engagement and enforceability by the regulator. The section also discusses mechanisms for implementing collaboration between regulators and the private sector. These include:

• industry codes of practice,
• public consultations,
• regulatory sandboxes, and
• partnerships with other institutions.

Practical Implementation Steps and Indicators of Success

The final section focuses on practical steps for implementing collaborative governance as well as considerations for evaluating the success of collaborative activities and engagements. The intent of this section is to provide concrete recommendations and topics for consideration as policymakers and regulators consider and design collaborative governance approaches.

The article explores these themes through four main pillars of collaboration:

1. Intragovernmental Collaboration: This section focuses on the foundational need for cooperation within a country’s government. It examines the drivers for collaboration, such as technological convergence and the overlapping mandates of sector-specific and economy-wide regulators (e.g., ICT and competition authorities). It details the formal and informal mechanisms, such as Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and joint task forces, that enable agencies to work together effectively, avoid regulatory gaps, and create coherent national digital policies.
2. Cross-Border and International Collaboration: Recognizing that digital markets are global, this section expands the focus to cooperation between countries. It analyzes the role of bilateral and multilateral agreements, regional regulatory associations, and international organizations in harmonizing policies, sharing best practices, and addressing trans-national challenges like cross-border data flows and cybersecurity.
3. Stakeholder Engagement: This section delves into the critical partnership between the public and private sectors. It outlines the spectrum of collaborative approaches, from co-regulation and self-regulation (e.g., industry codes of practice) to more hands-off models. It also examines the tools regulators can use to foster innovation and gather evidence, such as public consultations and regulatory sandboxes.
4. Practical Implementation and Success Indicators: The final section provides an actionable roadmap for regulators. It outlines practical steps for establishing and managing collaborative initiatives and provides a framework for measuring their success. The focus is on tangible outcomes, such as policy impact, robust stakeholder engagement, and the production of valuable public resources.

By exploring these pillars, this article offers a comprehensive guide for regulators seeking to transition to a G5 model of governance, equipping them with the principles, tools, and best practices needed to build a sustainable and inclusive digital future.

Introduction

In an increasingly complex digital ecosystem, governments must collaborate internally to effectively deliver progress on key policy goals. This is true both within the information and communication technologies (ICT) sector and in the various sectors it enables and affects across the economy. Intragovernmental collaboration—or the coordinated effort between various agencies, departments, offices, and regulators to carry out national policy objectives—is an important avenue by which governments implement collaborative governance principles.

Such collaboration should result in regulations that are evidence-driven, outcome-based, and developed to avoid regulatory blind spots. Collaborative regulatory efforts should include building consensus for implementation, ensuring political buy-in, and developing policy coherence across sectors.

Importance and drivers of intragovernmental collaboration

Intragovernmental collaboration encompasses efforts to coordinate between different regulatory entities (e.g., the ICT regulator and the financial services regulator) as well as collaboration within individual regulatory agencies. As the ICT sector continues to evolve – and as an increasing number of sectors rely on ICT networks and services to provide products and services – regulatory staff with different areas of focus and expertise will increasingly benefit from cross-collaboration and coordinated regulatory approaches.

Importance

Inter-agency and internal collaboration are both particularly important for the efficient and effective regulation of services that enable the digital economy and digital platforms. As the range of services and products that are offered online across economies continues to expand, multiple regulatory authorities may have relevant mandates. For example, telehealth services may be subject to regulatory oversight by regulators responsible for ICT, healthcare, and data protection. Similarly, as services that appear similar to end users are delivered by different networks, such as voice communications over broadband connections versus traditional copper wire, different teams within regulatory authorities may address similar issues. In both cases, there is a need for collaboration and coordination to reduce uncertainty and ensure widespread understanding of regulatory roles and positions.

Some regulators have explicitly identified internal collaboration as a central value or principle. For example, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) notes that collaboration is one of the five core values around which all regulatory activities are centered. ICASA’s description of collaboration in its 2023-2024 performance plan centers on internal collaboration, noting that the regulator:

• eradicates silos by developing a mindset that aligns its work with its organizational vision and strategy, and
• creates internal synergies to fast-track organizational performance (ICASA 2023).

Diverse areas of competence

The mandate and powers of a regulatory agency, regardless of sector, are defined by the law or similar instrument by which it is established. For example, the Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission’s (MCMC) powers, as defined in legislation, include advising the minister on national policy objectives related to communications and multimedia activities, implementing and enforcing provisions of the communications and multimedia law as well as considering and suggesting reforms to the law, regulating all communications and multimedia activities not included in the law, and supervising and monitoring communications and multimedia activities, among others (Malaysia Government 1998).

Regulatory authorities in different sectors should have defined responsibilities and powers and should be able to provide guidance to each other and to policymakers and other stakeholders within their designated areas of competence. As new technologies, services, policies, and regulatory questions arise, there should be a clear understanding of the regulatory expertise that is relevant and the roles of the different agencies in designing and enforcing policies and regulations.

Regulatory authorities each have an internal structure and governance mechanism designed to meet their needs. Many regulators also have an executive board providing strategic direction and operational oversight. Regulators are typically comprised of departments and staff with a wide range of expertise to provide informed oversight and guidance of a complex and dynamic sector. In the case of an ICT sector regulator, these may include, for example, experts focused on the technical characteristics of different types of services and technologies (including fixed, wireless, and satellite communications), broadcasting, spectrum management, international engagement, licensing, and competition, reflecting the mandate of the authority (as illustrated in Figure 1, for example). New areas of expertise have been added to traditional mandates, ranging from online platforms to emerging technologies applications to cybersecurity.

Figure 2. Organizational structure, Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority

Source: TCRA 2022

Regulation of the ICT sector necessarily requires participation by multiple types of expert staff. For example, implementing a policy decision to award new spectrum for use by terrestrial mobile services could involve inputs and actions from experts on wireless technologies, spectrum management, licensing, quality of service, and competition, at a minimum. Regulatory bodies benefit from clear mechanisms by which different departments and experts can coordinate activities to accomplish goals established by policymakers, legal frameworks, or the regulatory agency’s leadership.

In addition, collaboration between diverse expert groups – and frameworks that enable such collaboration – better position the regulator to address novel challenges posed by an evolving sector. As indicated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in 2021, an agency framework that enables the agile formation of multidisciplinary teams improves collaboration and the agency’s readiness to respond and pivot to both internal and external changes (ACMA 2021). Such multidisciplinary teams were incorporated into two priorities for ACMA, with the organization also noting that streamlining the use of multidisciplinary teams can grow employee capabilities at all levels.

Improved communication and internal decision support

The adoption of collaboration approaches, such as cross-functional teams, can be valuable tools for organizations – including regulators – to both maximize collective progress toward organizational goals and to improve internal communication. Cross-functional teams are those that include representatives of a variety of departments, areas of expertise, and functions within an organization or across multiple organizations, working collaboratively to address common goals or challenges. In the case of an ICT regulator, as noted above, there may be a need for multiple experts or divisions to participate in the process of awarding new spectrum for a service. However, the same situation applies to multiple areas of regulatory responsibility.

While the composition and operation of cross-functional teams are too varied to result in universal characteristics, there are potential benefits that accrue from collaborative activities across departments or areas of expertise. For example, building lines of communication between different regulators, departments, or teams can reduce the potential for siloing of knowledge and decision-making. Further, regulatory activities or decisions that incorporate inputs from participants across multiple departments or functions reduces the potential for decision-making that results in unexpected or unintended consequences. Similarly, such cross-pollination of information and ideas increases opportunities for multiple constituencies within an organization to ensure that their expertise is incorporated into plans and decisions, thereby increasing buy-in or support for organizational decisions among team members.

Drivers

Multiple factors can lead to regulators adopting, revising, and strengthening collaboration mechanisms. These include ongoing technological developments and convergence as well as more pragmatic organizational factors, such as the merger of multiple entities into a multisector or converged regulator.

Some of the main drivers of internal collaboration are:

• Technological convergence
• Organizational restructuring
• The choice of regulatory approaches (horizontal vs vertical)

Technological convergence

As ICTs have evolved, an increasing number of services are delivered over competing broadband network technologies. Voice communications are now available through broadband-enabled technologies. Content once delivered by terrestrial and satellite television is similarly available through a wide array of providers in both linear and nonlinear formats. This evolution is reflected in the transition from single-sector regulatory authorities to multisector and converged authorities that can simplify administration, licensing, and oversight processes in the ICT sector while also keeping pace with technological advances (ACMA 2021).

Such advances in technology and services have resulted in a growing number of regulators developing competencies in matters that are particularly relevant to online services. These may include cybersecurity, privacy and data protection, artificial intelligence (AI), and online safety. The ability of ICT regulators to develop such frameworks and competencies depends on the relevant legal frameworks, including the laws that establish the regulators themselves. As regulators develop new areas of competence and begin exercising new enforcement powers, additional cross-functional collaborations may be beneficial or necessary.

Given the blurring of distinctions between previously discrete services, it is beneficial for regulatory staff to collaborate and share knowledge regarding technological, market, and regulatory developments that are relevant to multiple agencies or departments. This could be accomplished through the development of cross-functional or specialist teams that address key issues across the organizational structure of the regulator. For example, in preparation for being charged with responsibility for online safety, the United Kingdom’s Ofcom noted that it had developed a program across the organization to ensure readiness for its new responsibilities (Ofcom 2022).

Organizational restructuring

As noted in the ITU/World Bank Digital Regulation Platform module addressing regulator structure and mandate, by 2025 more than 70 per cent of ICT regulators had evolved from sector-specific regulators to converged regulators (ITU 2020). Such restructuring decisions – for example, the merger of South Africa’s telecommunications and broadcasting regulators into ICASA in 2000 or the integration of Saudi Arabia’s telecommunications and space regulators into the Communications, Space, and Technology Commission (CST) in 2022 – may both be driven by and require new collaborative approaches between previously separate regulators.

The roles of technological convergence and organizational restructuring in driving internal collaboration are closely related. As noted by CST, the transfer of responsibility for space regulation to the former telecommunications regulator was a recognition of the importance of the integration of communications, space, and technology matters (CST 2023).

However, the integration of two or more regulators into a converged entity necessitates new organizational structures. To more effectively govern a converging and rapidly changing ICT sector, the converged regulator’s structure should incorporate collaborative mechanisms that leverage the skills of different groups of experts. Thus, a merger or reorganization of the ICT sector regulator provides an important opportunity to reconsider internal structures and organization and to implement new or revised collaborative approaches such as new divisions, cross-functional teams, or committees.

Such reorganizations are not limited only to cases of regulatory mergers. The 2022 changes to the structure of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reorganize the International Bureau into a new Space Bureau and a standalone Office of International Affairs were undertaken in response to a changing communications sector and an interest in ensuring agency-wide access to international affairs experience (FCC 2022). In announcing the planned change, FCC highlighted that the separation was intended to allow relevant staff to focus on international communications regulation and licensing and to make their expertise available to any of the seven FCC bureaus that have an international affairs dimension. In parallel, the establishment of the new Space Bureau was a response to technological change, seeking to elevate the significance of satellite programs and policy within the agency to a level that “reflects the importance of the emerging space economy” and to acknowledge the role of satellite communications in meeting domestic communication policy goals. The FCC restructuring thus enabled an enhanced collaboration ability for the agency’s international affairs experts and reflected a changed ICT sector.

Horizontal vs. vertical regulatory approaches

National policy and legislative frameworks frequently include a combination of vertical (or sector-specific) and horizontal (or economy-wide) regulatory agencies. Inter-agency collaboration between vertical and horizontal regulators, such as between an ICT regulator and a consumer protection authority, becomes necessary when a sector-specific regulator has some level of oversight over the same matter addressed by a horizontal regulator.

For example, if an ICT sector regulator has competition-related obligations or powers and a horizontal competition authority is also in place, both authorities will benefit from clarity regarding each regulator’s responsibilities and whether and how they will address competition matters in the ICT sector. This case is discussed further in Deep dive: Collaboration between competition and ICT authorities.

Such collaboration between vertical and horizontal regulators can arise across several issue areas, including privacy, consumer protection, cybersecurity, and safety, among others.

Intragovernmental collaboration mechanisms

Citing the need to address the risks presented by emerging technologies, many government regulators initiate collaboration as a means to deal with novel challenges and coordinate regulatory roles and minimize overlap between agencies. Collaborative efforts among and within regulators have focused on building frameworks around emerging technologies, addressing specific issues (e.g., misinformation, online safety, cybercrime), and modernizing government infrastructure and best practices.

While individual regulators maintain the statutory power to impact regulation and directly enforce their recommendations, collaborative bodies formed by intragovernmental partnerships often lack this decision-making authority. However, they can provide valuable input that influences members’ regulatory actions, as well as offer concrete guidance through working papers, responses to consultations, research conducted in joint sessions, or resources accessible to the public.

Intragovernmental collaboration mechanisms can broadly be classified into two categories:

• formal collaborations among government agencies, and
• informal and project-based collaborations.

Although there are no ”one-size-fits-all” approaches to collaboration, regulators frequently use both formal and informal methods to establish, support, and maintain intragovernmental collaborations. As discussed below in Strengths and Challenges, these approaches offer unique strengths and limitations that should be considered when evaluating opportunities for collaborative governance.

Formal collaborations among government agencies

Formal intragovernmental collaborations are established through written instruments that outline roles, responsibilities, resource allocations, and goals. These instruments can be presented in varying formats and with different levels of specificity, including:

• memoranda of understanding,
• policies or strategies, and
• executive orders or decrees.

Typically, formal intragovernmental collaboration agreements take the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which is used by agencies around the world to enumerate interagency collaborative endeavors. Common elements of collaboration agreements between agencies provides more detailed examples of common components of inter-agency collaboration agreements such as MOUs.

A critical component of MOUs and similar agreements is a clear description of how the participating agencies will work together to effectively oversee and regulate relevant sectors and activities. Even in cases where legislation clearly delineates the roles of, for example, a communications regulator and a competition authority concerning competition in the ICT sector, a formal agreement may describe the processes by which the regulators will consult each other about investigations, merger reviews, market definition, and other matters of common interest. Such arrangements are found, for example, in the memorandum of agreement between ICASA and South Africa’s Competition Commission (Competition Commission of South Africa 2019).

Box 1. Inter-agency ICT collaborative regulation agreements

Formal collaborations can also be established through legislative texts and executive orders that define agency roles, responsibilities, and jurisdictions for ongoing collaboration. These can include, for example:

• Policies and strategies, intended to establish national or sectoral priorities and areas of focus. One such example is Pakistan’s Cyber Security Strategy for the Telecom Sector, which notes a need to standardize cybersecurity regulations and frameworks across agencies to avoid duplication and contradiction. The strategy aims to “achieve a unified and standardized cyber security framework across all the sectors” (PTA 2023).
• Executive orders or decrees, such as the U.S. executive order on safe AI development, which tasks the FCC with coordinating with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to create opportunities for sharing spectrum between government and non-government spectrum operations (The White House 2023).^[1]

No matter the origin, these collaborations create clear governance and communication protocols that improve coordination and foster transparency. However, the formal structure can also introduce bureaucratic hurdles that limit flexibility and adaptability in rapidly changing regulatory environments.

In addition to collaboration agreements such as MOUs, government ministries and agencies may engage in more limited formal collaborations intended to achieve particular policy or sector goals (see Table 1 for additional examples).

Table 1. Additional formal collaboration examples

Informal and project-based collaborations

Informal collaborations are established outside of typical bureaucratic structures and leverage already-existing networks within government to drive impact. They can be fostered through approaches such as communities of practice, working groups, training sessions, and co-located offices to create opportunities for collaboration on issues of shared importance (GAO 2023). Since they are not enshrined in formal agreements, these types of collaborations can also be limited by a lack of resources and decision-making authority, and may be more easily affected by a change in management of the regulator or staff turnover. More specific examples are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Informal collaboration examples

While these collaborations are not necessarily the result of official cooperative agreements, thorough planning and assessment processes remain critical inputs. Like more formal arrangements, informal collaborations should consider whether it would be practical for regulators to work together or if such arrangements would create undue administrative burdens or workloads. Additionally, when assessing possible collaborations, participants can examine the distribution of available resources between potential collaborators to determine if and how much additional support would be needed. (New York Division of Local Government Services 2008).

Communities of practice

One type of less-formal collaborative mechanism is the community of practice, which can be defined as “A gathering of individuals motivated by the desire to cross organizational boundaries, to relate to one another, and to build a body of actionable knowledge through coordination and collaboration” (World Bank Group 2021). Participants in a community of practice collaborate regularly to exchange information, learn together, develop their skills, and advance general knowledge on the particular topic or issue. Communities of practice are employed in numerous contexts and issue areas, including but not limited to the ICT sector.

As noted in Table 2, Singapore’s Community of Practice for Competition and Economic Regulations (COPCOMER) has included participation by authorities responsible for aviation, energy, communications, transportation, banking, trade, and law enforcement, among others (CCCS 2020). COPCOMER facilitates regular activities, including an annual Regulators’ Tea to discuss competition and regulatory issues, bi-annual half-day seminars, regular newsletters, and training sessions.

Small committees or working groups

Perhaps the most traditional form of informal intragovernmental collaboration is the development of small committees or working groups to address particular matters. These may be established either within a single regulatory authority or between multiple regulatory bodies. In both cases, the underlying objective is to leverage the unique expertise or skills of the participating departments or agencies to address one or more issues relevant to all participants.

In France, Le pôle numérique Arcep-Arcom (the Arcep-Arcom Digital Hub) was established by the regulators responsible for electronic communications (Arcep) and audiovisual and digital communications (Arcom) to conduct technical and economic analysis of the digital markets within each regulator’s remit (Arcep 2023).^[2] The Digital Hub is also responsible for convening a monthly committee to protect minors from pornography. In the case of the Arcep-Arcom collaboration, the two agencies signed a formal agreement that governs their cooperation, although this is not always the case (Arcep 2020). Table 3 presents further examples of small committees and working groups.

Table 3. Additional examples of small committees or working groups

Larger committees or working groups

In some cases, governments or regulators opt to form multi-agency or multi-department committees or working groups that seek to leverage the expertise of a wider range of regulators or policymakers.

One such approach is to convene a committee or working group intended to focus on one or more specific issues. Such collaborative activities, particularly when established among multiple regulatory authorities, have a public role that includes key outputs and advocacy. The various issues relevant to digital platforms have led to the creation of new issue-focused groups in recent years.

Often explicitly outlined when collaborations are formed, particularly in the case of formal collaborative agreements, the objectives of some groups can include more narrowly tailored areas of focus than others. France’s Digital Hub, as noted, is responsible for convening a broader monthly committee meeting focused on protecting minors from pornography online alongside its cross-agency initiatives. These can be contrasted with Australia’s Digital Platform Regulators Forum (DP-REG), which has a broad scope addressing matters including competition, consumer protection, privacy, and online safety. Outputs such as interagency working papers and submissions to consultations are common among small committees as well as larger collaborative bodies.

As these groups continue to engage in collaborative regulatory activities, the individual regulators will likely build greater familiarity with the various aspects of regulation that affect a particular sector – particularly those traditionally addressed by counterpart regulators – through shared access to information, infrastructure, and staffing. These shared resources enable the participating regulators to gain greater clarity over issues facing their jurisdictions, resulting in more efficient regulatory responses and alignment with other agencies’ actions, when appropriate.

Collaboration can also focus on ensuring the availability of key inputs to enable appropriate sector regulation and development. For example, ICT sector regulators rely upon statistics gathered from multiple stakeholders to develop an accurate view of the sector. Such efforts can include this type of issue-focused cooperation between ICT regulators and national statistical offices, as is the case with Trinidad and Tobago’s National Digital Inclusion Survey, undertaken by the Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (TATT) and the Central Statistical Office (CSO) in 2021 to measure the state of the country’s digital divide and inform universal service projects and other initiatives (Government of Trinidad and Tobago 2021). Similarly, regulatory agencies may collaborate in monitoring and data collection to ensure safe operation of ICT infrastructure, as in the case of a longstanding memorandum of understanding between the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) and the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission to work together on electromagnetic radiation issues (TCRA 2023).

Training sessions

Workshops and training sessions represent another type of informal collaborative mechanism that can be valuable to regulatory authorities, providing opportunities to learn from each other as well as external experts. Training sessions can be conducted in a wide range of formats on nearly any topic, providing participants with opportunities to learn, exchange information, and engage in exercises and simulations, as well as network with counterparts in other departments or regulatory agencies.

For example, Saudi Arabia’s CST has organized multiple training sessions that bring together a range of stakeholders to learn and exchange information on digital regulatory matters. In 2023, the Advanced Digital Regulatory Program, conducted with ITU, involved the participation of more than 50 specialists representing regulatory authorities as well as service providers (CST 2023). The program was intended to leverage international best practices and experiences, develop national cadres, and enhance the efficiency of the Saudi regulatory environment.

Similarly, in 2021 the World Bank and the Government of Nigeria organized a training session for Nigerian government and regulatory stakeholders on Innovative Business Models for Closing the Internet Access Gap (Voice of Nigeria 2021). The training, based on a World Bank-published report, included several international experts providing information and leading discussions on topics including new technology trends and the different components of the broadband value chain.

Training sessions, particularly those organized by international organizations, can also be structured to include participants from multiple countries across a region or worldwide, further expanding opportunities to learn from regulatory counterparts and to share lessons learned.

Approaches to intragovernmental collaboration

Intragovernmental collaboration can take multiple forms (as summarized in Table 4), each of which will be addressed below.

Table 4. Types of intragovernmental collaboration

Bilateral or multilateral interagency collaboration

National regulators frequently collaborate on issues in which all participants have a level of responsibility or there is actual or potential overlap. In the case of ICT regulators, collaborative arrangements may exist with authorities responsible for topics including competition, financial services, privacy, and consumer protection, among others. ICT regulators and competition authorities, in particular, frequently enter into collaborative arrangements to clarify responsibilities for addressing competition concerns in the ICT sector. Collaboration between these two types of regulatory authorities is the subject of Deep dive: Collaboration between competition and ICT authorities.

When developing or reviewing collaborative regulatory approaches, it is useful to keep in mind key rationales and principles for such collaboration. These create the appropriate conditions for resource-pooling, avoiding blind spots, consensus-building and buy-in, and policy coherence (Box 2).

Box 2. Collaborative regulation design principles

National regulatory or policymaker networks

In addition to issue-focused collaborative activities, governments may choose to establish more general, collaborative mechanisms that encompass a larger universe of regulatory authorities. One such example is found in Saudi Arabia, where the National Committee for Digital Transformation established the National Regulatory Committee (NRC). This committee was initially comprised of the regulators responsible for communications, audiovisual media, water and electricity, capital markets and banking, data and AI, public transportation, and competition (CITC 2021).

India’s Joint Committee of Regulators (JCoR) is a collaborative initiative led by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and described as “a collaborative initiative by TRAI to study regulatory implications in the digital world and to collaboratively work on regulations” (TRAI 2024). The JCoR is comprised of representatives from TRAI, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, with representatives of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Home Affairs as special invitees. To date, JCoR has focused on issues related to unsolicited commercial communication (UCC).

In the Netherlands, the Digital Regulation Cooperation Platform (SDT) was established in 2021 by four regulators that each deal with digital services: the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM), the Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP), and the Dutch Media Authority (CvdM) (ACM 2024). Member regulators seek to respond to developments in a manner that ensures alignment on topics that can include AI, algorithms and data processing, online design, personalization, manipulation, and deception. The SDT’s objectives are to:

• understand and discuss digital society opportunities and risks, taking advantage of opportunities and addressing risks;
• keep in mind various public interests;
• invest collectively in knowledge and expertise; and
• ensure efficient and effective enforcement of compliance with rules and regulations, including both Dutch and European frameworks.

Notable outcomes within two years of establishing the SDT were the publication of basic principles for effective transparency in online information (ACM 2023a) and basic principles for online marketing to children (ACM 2023b).

Similarly, the UK Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) was established in 2020 to streamline collaboration on digital matters between the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and Ofcom (DRCF 2024a). As described by DRCF, the forum “supports cooperation and coordination between members and enables coherent, informed and responsive regulation of the UK digital economy.” DRCF activities are governed by terms of reference that set out several characteristics and guiding elements, including its purpose, goals and objectives, membership, budget, and roles and responsibilities (DRCF 2022). Recent DRCF publications have addressed topics including generative AI, immersive technologies, age assurance technologies, harmful design, and quantum technologies. In addition, DRCF publishes transparency and accountability documents, including annual reports and workplans. In June 2023, DRCF established an international regulatory network, the International Network for Digital Regulation Cooperation (INDRC) to foster discussion between regulators across digital regimes and to gather insights into how overseas jurisdictions are approaching domestic regulatory coherence and cohesion.

Documents enabling transparency and accountability, such as those published by the UK DRCF, provide valuable information that allows stakeholders and other interested parties to evaluate the benefits provided by its activities. Additional examples of regulatory networks are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Additional examples of regulatory or policymaker networks

Many groups mentioned here share similar overarching goals. Common themes include a focus on streamlining regulatory approaches, promoting collaboration between different regulators, and improving the sharing of information and best practices. While groups tend to share fundamental principles, differences between these groups center on their attention to specific issues and the types of outputs produced.

Collaboration between regulators and ministries

Recognizing the importance of establishing policy and implementing legal and regulatory frameworks, ministries and regulators both play key roles in the development, evolution, and operation of the ICT sector and other aspects of a country’s economy. While the policymaker and regulator are frequently distinct entities and have complementary roles, it is not uncommon for the two to collaborate. In fact, such interactions may be mandated by law and is not only desirable but essential to ensure alignment of policy vision and its effective implementation.

Regulators may be explicitly tasked with providing advice and counsel to a ministry or government, such as in the case of TRAI India. The legislation establishing TRAI lists the regulator’s functions, beginning with making recommendations to the licensor (currently the Department of Telecommunications, DoT) on a wide range of matters, including licensing, competition, equipment, and spectrum management (TRAI 1997). India’s legal and regulatory framework is characterized by frequent communications between DoT and TRAI, with TRAI consultations incorporating the text of DoT requests and indicating any relevant past communications between the two bodies. As noted above, Malaysia’s MCMC is also charged with advising the minister on national policy objectives, among other duties (Malaysia Government 1998).

Coordination between ministries and regulators can also focus on specific issues. For example, in early 2024, Singapore’s Ministry of Communications and Information (now known as the Ministry of Digital Development and Information) announced that both the ministry and the regulator, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) have been taking steps to improve online safety for citizens, particularly Singaporean youths. While the ministry worked with technology companies to launch an online safety toolkit, IMDA was preparing to introduce new materials to support parents in guiding children’s online activities (Ministry of Communications and Information 2024).

An important consideration when considering collaboration between an independent ICT sector regulator and a ministry or policymaker, however, is that collaboration or coordination must be carried out in line with the legal framework and should not endanger the independence of the regulator.

Collaboration between national and local authorities

In addition to collaboration between entities at the national level, such as sector regulators or government ministries, the continued development and operation of the ICT sector depends upon coordination between the national regulator and local regulatory authorities. For example, national regulatory authorities may establish regulations that govern the operation of wireless communications towers, while a sub-national authority has authority over the placement, size, or appearance of such infrastructure. Similarly, a ministry may develop and fund a national program to expand fiber-optic cable infrastructure, while permission to undertake road construction or erect overhead lines must be granted by a city council. Coordination and collaboration between entities at the national and local levels is thus an important consideration for the continued development of not only ICT infrastructure, but also for the numerous services and sectors that rely upon connectivity.

In Rwanda, the approval process for new base station infrastructure includes direct coordination between a national regulator – the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Agency (RURA) – and local authorities. RURA, Rwanda’s independent regulator for utilities including telecommunications, is responsible for ensuring that telecommunication infrastructures do not create adverse impacts on nearby people or environments. In carrying out this responsibility, RURA published guidelines establishing procedures to be followed by operators and service providers in the rollout of base stations, towers, and masts (RURA 2011). The guidelines include notes on the steps for obtaining permits for site building and installation of wireless communication infrastructure. As part of the process, RURA requests zoning clearance and site authorization from the relevant local authority, sharing documents already received from the applicant as well as RURA’s own confirmation that the proposed facility meets RURA’s requirements. Rwanda’s base station permitting process thus explicitly includes a step in which the national regulator coordinates with local authorities to advance the permitting process.

Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED) has incorporated coordination with local authorities into its requirements applicable to entities that plan to install or modify an antenna system (ISED 2022). The relevant ISED client procedures circular instructs interested parties to contact the local land-use authority to determine local requirements and to follow local authority public consultation processes, if applicable. In the event that the local authority does not have a public consultation process, ISED outlines a default process to be followed.

GSMA, an organization comprised of mobile operators and other mobile sector stakeholders worldwide, has advocated for the development of standardized infrastructure deployment regulations to reduce barriers to meeting coverage needs (GSMA 2018). While GSMA’s recommendations do not explicitly call for collaboration between national and local authorities, the organization suggests responsibilities to be divided between authorities at each level. At a high level, GSMA suggests that the national authority define and provide standardized national procedures for permitting, site modification, notification and consultation, health and safety requirements, and also take steps to maximize access to sites and infrastructure for mobile network infrastructure deployment, while local authorities are encouraged to implement efficient permitting processes, defer to national agencies on policy and technical matters, and follow national health and safety requirements. While stakeholders may differ on the appropriate role for authorities at each level, GSMA’s suggestions demonstrate the range of topics to be addressed in a potential collaborative arrangement between national and local entities.

A level of coordination or collaboration between national and local authorities, such as the arrangements present in Rwanda and Canada, is an important consideration in the ongoing development of broadband infrastructure and the expansion of coverage to reach unserved and underserved populations. A lack of coordination or the presence of unclear or conflicting national and local requirements can inhibit broadband access improvements.

Strengths and Challenges

Collaboration between regulators has become increasingly necessary, especially as the ICT sector has emerged as a key enabler of sectors and activities across entire national economies. Emerging technologies continuously present new issues for regulators to tackle, often blurring jurisdictional lines in the process. Through careful consideration of the type of collaboration desired, intragovernmental collaborations can yield vital contributions to domestic and global ICT regulations.

Intragovernmental collaboration activities present both strengths and challenges for regulators and stakeholders. The characteristics in Figure 3 represent examples of potential benefits and obstacles to be considered as regulators and policymakers consider the implementation of collaborative arrangements.

Figure 3. Strengths and challenges of intragovernmental collaboration

Both formal and informal collaborations can provide advantages for regulatory authorities and sector stakeholders. Formal collaborations, based on explicit agreements with support from all participants or a legislative mandate, are characterized by accountability, communication, and clarity. The inclusion of clear objectives can ensure that participating authorities work toward the same goals. Informal arrangements, on the other hand, offer more flexibility to reach solutions and to adjust the parameters of the collaboration as appropriate and as agreed by participants. Such flexibility – as compared to more formal arrangements – may reduce bureaucratic delays and allow more nimble responses to new sector developments, an important consideration for evolving technologies, services, and market conditions.

However, in order to secure the benefits of collaborative regulatory activities, stakeholders must take steps to avoid or mitigate certain challenges. Perhaps foremost among the potential obstacles to collaborative regulation is that stakeholders must reach an initial agreement on the parameters of the collaboration. These are likely to include, for example, establishing the stakeholders’ common goals or objectives, identifying and addressing areas of jurisdictional overlap or concurrent regulation, and deciding upon the roles and responsibilities of each participant. Inherent in reaching such an agreement is the need to satisfy each stakeholder’s priorities. For example, competition regulators may focus on different aspects of an issue than a regulator focused more on expanding public access to a service, while both have an interest in ensuring a clear regulatory framework to address anti-competitive behaviors. In some cases, the institutional cultures present in participating entities may influence how effectively they work with one another. Thus, building trust between regulatory entities should be a priority for collaborative activities involving disparate organizational cultures or areas of focus (Waardenburg 2019). Additional issues may arise from funding or resource-related shortcomings on the part of one or more participating entities. Individual regulators or agencies may not have adequate capacity to engage in collaborative efforts, a concern that may be exacerbated in the case of informal collaborative arrangements without dedicated funding.

By considering potential challenges in the earliest stages of planning a collaborative regulatory engagement, regulators and policymakers can maximize the chances that all affected stakeholders will benefit. Ideally, such efforts will result in regulatory frameworks that minimize regulatory blind spots.

Cross-border inter-agency collaboration

In our interconnected world, cross-border collaboration on ICT-related issues is increasingly important to ensure the successful development and implementation of emerging technologies. Considering issues such as spectrum management, cross-border data flows, and artificial intelligence, regulatory agencies often need or seek to work with neighboring countries to foster efficient policy outcomes. This section covers a wide range of approaches to and mechanisms for cross-border collaboration and includes a series of examples to highlight best practices from regulators around the world.

Bilateral regulatory agreements

As discussed in Intragovernmental Collaboration, MOUs are often used by regulators to align agencies on the roles, responsibilities, resource allocations, and goals needed to accomplish a specific policy objective. However, MOUs can also be established between regulators in two or more countries seeking to coordinate on one or more issues of shared importance. The structure of bilateral MOUs is similar to the structure of intragovernmental agreements – they should clearly enumerate how participating governments or agencies will work together to effectively oversee, regulate, and share information on relevant sectors and activities. However, unlike intragovernmental MOUs, these bilateral agreements can focus on higher-level commitments related to knowledge sharing and future coordination in regulation and policymaking.

For example, in 2002, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and the Lesotho Telecommunications Authority (LTA) signed an MOU to resolve disagreements related to frequency interference, interconnection, and cross-border connectivity (ICASA 2002). The MOU provided a series of cooperative mechanisms to address unique challenges faced by the two regulators with respect to “no-man’s land services” and radio transmission spillover along the border. It also created a forum to bring together regulatory authorities and operators to (a) resolve on-going spillover coverage and frequency interference concerns and (b) create rules and procedures to preemptively avoid these situations moving forward. While this MOU is unique due to the geographic proximity of the two countries, it serves as an example of the ICT-focused challenges that can be addressed through cooperative mechanisms like a bilateral MOU.

In 2021, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) signed an MOU to develop a “global approach” to addressing robocalls, robotexts, and inaccurate spoofing of caller ID (FCC 2021). The document provides a list of objectives, information regarding each agency’s responsibilities and obligations, and procedures related to mutual assistance throughout the duration of the agreement. Both agencies agreed to share complaints and investigatory resources and committed to exchanging knowledge and expertise related to the scope of the MOU.

A more recent example of this type of MOU was signed by Latvia and Ukraine in October 2023. Latvia’s Ministry of Transportation signed a 10-point agreement with Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation to assist with the immediate restoration of broadband internet, support Ukrainian development of ICT infrastructure, and help integrate Ukraine’s ICT sector into European Union infrastructure (Labs of Latvia 2023). The MOU includes commitments to develop an action plan and joint roadmap to carry out the MOU, a timeline for joint events and working meetings of various ICT experts, and a series of procedures for information sharing about best practices.

Bilateral MOUs are a common tool employed by governments or counterpart regulatory agencies (e.g., ICT sector regulators in multiple countries) to address ICT-sector issues. Additional examples are provided in Table 6.

Table 6. Examples of bilateral MOUs in the ICT sector

As illustrated through the above examples, MOUs can be a useful tool for regulatory agencies seeking to formalize collaborative actions or shared positions with a counterpart in another country on issues of mutual importance.

Multilateral regulatory agreements

Multilateral agreements are formal agreements established between regulatory agencies in three or more countries. These agreements can be broader in scope and can take longer – sometimes years – to negotiate. They emphasize collective action, shared objectives, and close cooperation on issues of global importance. These arrangements can take multiple forms, including regional regulatory associations, digital regulation networks, or regional economic communities.

Once agreed upon, multilateral agreements can take on many different forms. They can result in the creation of a new organization or body, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) or BRICS, or can manifest through a specific agreement or partnership, such as the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) between Singapore, Chile, and New Zealand. Multilateral organizations such as APEC tend to focus on a broad range of policy priorities relevant to member countries, while multilateral partnerships are often limited in scope and prioritize in-depth discussions related to a pressing public policy issue.

Regional regulatory associations

While multilateral agreements can be negotiated at the global level, they can also take on a more regional focus. Countries frequently collaborate via associations of regulators to advance progress on ICT-related policy issues of regional importance (Table 7). These collaborations can be especially useful for issues such as spectrum management, where regional coordination is essential to ensure efficient outcomes.

Table 7. Examples of regional regulatory associations

Outlined below is the full list of active Regional Regulatory Associations by region:

• ​Africa: Assemblée des régulateurs des télécommunications de l’Afrique Centrale (ARTAC), the Communication Regulators’ Association of Southern Africa (CRASA), and the West African Telecommunication Regulators Assembly (WATRA).
• Arab States: Arab Regulators Network of Telecommunications and Information Technologies (AREGNET) and the Euro-Mediterranean Telecom Regulators (EMERG).
• Asia and Pacific: South Asian Telecommunication Regulators’ Council (SATRC).
• Europe and CIS: Association of Communications and Telecommunications Regulators of the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (ARCTEL-CPLP), the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), the Eastern Partnership Electronic Communications Regulators Network (EaPeReg), the Réseau Francophone de la Régulation des Télécommunications (FRATEL), the Independent Regulators Group (IRG), and the Regional Commonwealth in the Field of Communications (RCC).
• The Americas: Telecommunications Regional Technical Commission, Central America (COMTELCA), the Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority (ECTEL), the Organisation of Caribbean Utility Regulators (OOCUR), and the Latin American Forum of Telecom Regulators (REGULATEL).

In general, regional regulatory associations can serve as important fora for the harmonization of ICT regulatory regimes across member countries. They can also support capacity-building, information-sharing, and strategic planning for future technological developments.

Digital Regulation Network

In 2023, the ITU launched the Digital Regulation Network (DRN) to accelerate global digital transformation. Composed of representatives from various regional regulatory associations, DRN is a new forum for ICT regulators to collaborate on digital policy, regulation, and governance across sectors and borders. DRN initiatives are focused on three primary areas:

• Thought leadership: Serves as a forum for discussions on key regulatory challenges and a venue for strategizing on emerging issues.
• Capacity development: Creates knowledge transfer programs between regional associations and supports institutional capacity-building efforts within regional associations.
• Regulatory experimentation and innovation: Co-designs regulatory and policy frameworks for emerging technologies and promotes cross-sectoral approaches to regulation.

Regulators can engage through their respective regulatory associations by attending meetings, workshops, and training sessions, as well as by participating in visits and knowledge exchange forums to collaborate with other regulatory associations on pressing digital issues.

Regional Economic Communities (RECs)

Regional Economic Communities (RECs) are regional groups that work to foster collaboration between peer countries. RECs in Africa are considered the “pillars” of the African Union (AU) and are designed to facilitate regional economic integration throughout the continent.

Table 8. Sample REC and regional regulatory association ICT programmes

Other regional body examples

APEC’s Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) system is another example of the convening power of a multilateral organization. APEC—a regional economic forum focused on broadly facilitating cross-border trade—adopted a set of rules in 2011 that balance the flow of data across borders while protecting personal information, as summarized in Figure 4.

Figure 4. CBPR requirements for certified companies and participating countries

Source: ITU 2020.

As shown in the figure above, the CBPR system includes a wide range of obligations for participating countries, including requiring independent third-party certification of participating countries’ privacy policies. The system is voluntary, so APEC members are not required to join; however, nine jurisdictions have signed on, including Australia, Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore, and the United States.

In some parts of the world, there are regional telecommunications unions that provide regulators with opportunities to engage directly with their neighbors on local issues such as harmonization, roaming fees, frequency interference, and interconnection. Examples of these bodies include the African Telecommunications Union (ATU), the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU), the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL), and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). These bodies are comprised of representatives from relevant ICT regulatory agencies and ministries and have a designated Secretariat responsible for administrative and coordinative duties.

Regional telecommunications unions allow member states to engage on many ICT-related issues. For example, CTU’s “ICT for Persons with Disabilities” initiative facilitates discussions between government representatives, developers, operators, experts, and other key stakeholders to promote innovation to improve the accessibility of technology for persons with disabilities in the Caribbean (CTU 2024). This illustrates how regional telecommunications unions can support the policy and regulatory efforts of member states and align regions around a similar set of practices, standards, and goals.

Agreements between governments

In addition to agreements between regulators, there are many ways to promote collaborative governance principles through government-to-government agreements and treaties. These mechanisms are developed by national governments and can bring a “whole-of-government” approach to key challenges. This section explores various types of these agreements and details their impact as a form of collaborative governance.

Bilateral agreements

Bilateral agreements are formal agreements made between two countries to address specific policy, regulatory, or technical challenges of mutual concern. Bilateral agreements can provide countries with a designated, focused, flexible, and highly tailored framework for shared action. They also include mechanisms that promote direct dialogue and information sharing, ensuring close alignment on areas of critical importance.

There are many documented examples of bilateral agreements in the ICT sector. For example, in 2021, the United States and Canada entered into a general coordination agreement on the use of radio frequency spectrum by terrestrial radiocommunications stations and earth stations (ISED 2021). The agreement recognizes the importance of coordinated action, enumerates responsibilities and expectations for collaboration, and creates a flexible framework for the two countries to rapidly deploy new communication services while avoiding harmful interference. Additional examples are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Examples of bilateral agreements

Treaties

Treaties can also serve as instruments to advance shared ICT-related goals across the world. They help harmonize laws and regulations, facilitate the exchange of information, and align like-minded countries around a shared vision for policymaking and regulation on critical issues in the sector. Because treaties are legally binding, they often require that signatory countries implement a wide range of requirements and obligations (Box 3). These can range from legal obligations—such as mandating reporting and monitoring requirements or creating procedures for dispute resolution—to resource commitments and domestic policy and legal changes.

Box 3. Treaty example: Convention 108+

Source: Council of Europe 2018.

Another example of an international treaty is the UN Cybercrime Treaty. This new convention—which is structured to be legally binding—is intended to counter the growing threats of global cybercrime while balancing security concerns with human rights considerations. The treaty was coordinated by a UN-established ad hoc intergovernmental committee” to “Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purpose.” The ad hoc committee was comprised of representatives of UN Regional Groups that considered existing international instruments and on-going national, regional, and international efforts and met to deliberate on the specifics of the convention. Global and regional intergovernmental organizations, non-profits, and other relevant stakeholders were also invited to participate in a consultative role to the committee.

As further discussed in International Organization Collaboration, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995 to serve as an international forum for trade agreements, negotiations, disputes, and cooperation. Its global membership consists of 164 countries that work together to finalize forge agreements related to goods, services, and intellectual property. One of its key ICT sector efforts were the WTO Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications, which resulted in 69 participating governments making a series of commitments related to fostering free market access, implementing transparent regulatory environments, and defining clear interconnection rules (WTO 1997). Although not an official multilateral treaty, the collection of commitments were annexed into the Fourth Protocol of the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services and serve as the bedrock of liberalized trade in the ICT sector.

Further, the WTO’s Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on e-commerce – which is later detailed in International Organization Collaboration, – is an on-going process to create a binding agreement on rules to govern cross-border digital trade. The JSI is led by a group of co-facilitators who host formal negotiation sessions between signatory countries to expand rules for emerging issues in trade-related aspects of electronic commerce (WTO 2017).

Table 10. Other key ICT sector conventions, treaties, and dialogues

As showcased above, treaties can take numerous forms, making it essential for countries to consider the specific requirements, commitments, and political considerations required before negotiating and signing a formal agreement.

Multi-lateral agreements

Similarly, multilateral agreements can be formed among several governments to facilitate cooperation on shared goals or issues. These take on many different forms. They can result in the creation of a new organization or body, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) or BRICS, or can manifest through a specific agreement or partnership, such as the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) between Singapore, Chile, and New Zealand. Multilateral organizations such as APEC tend to focus on a broad range of policy priorities relevant to member countries, while multilateral partnerships are often limited in scope and prioritize in-depth discussions related to a pressing public policy issue.

Process to establish cross-border collaboration

Before participating in a cross-border agreement, regulators should consider the collaborative formats, styles, and frameworks described above. This section details the steps that regulators can take to establish and maintain both (a) regulator-to-regulator collaborations and (b) government-level cross border collaborations. The 2018 MOU between the governments of South Africa and Lesotho on ICT-sector cooperation and the U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement are showcased as examples of agreements that include each of the identified components.

Identifying objectives

Before agreeing to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, countries should ensure that the agreement has a clearly defined focus. The text should explicitly state the problem and the shared objective of the collaboration. It should also provide a list of measurable objectives—with qualitative and quantitative targets—and measures to assess and track progress.

The U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement clearly identifies the purpose of the collaboration throughout (United States Trade Representative 2019). For example, in the section on online consumer protection, the agreement states that “the Parties recognize the importance of adopting and maintaining transparent and effective measures to protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive commercial activities when they engage in digital trade.” The agreement should clearly state the actions and roles of each party in the agreement, including resource allocation and technical cooperation, if applicable. It should also include measures to resolve disputes that may occur throughout the collaboration. Lastly, the agreement should clearly establish timelines and milestones for success in the project to foster accountability and transparency.

Approving the collaboration through required channels

Subject to the dynamics of individual countries, cross-border collaborations will likely need to be approved through designated legal and/or regulatory mechanisms. Regulators should ensure that the agreement is compliant with domestic law, government policy, and international conventions before commencing their respective domestic approval processes, if applicable.

As the collaboration progresses, countries should ensure that they are adhering to all agreed-upon commitments and responsibilities. Cross-border agreements should include monitoring mechanisms to identify new challenges and/or opportunities, support the implementation of initiatives, and track progress. Further, agreements should establish reporting mechanisms to ensure that the collaboration is successfully driving progress on key goals.

Funding is another important element of supporting cross-border collaborations. The South Africa/Lesotho MOU—in addition to its sections that enumerate monitoring mechanisms and activities—specifies how mutual activities under the MOU will be paid for.

Mini case study: The 2023 AI Safety Summit and Bletchley Declaration

A recent example of cross-border collaboration was led by the United Kingdom in November 2023. After identifying AI as a key policy priority of his administration, then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that the United Kingdom would convene global leaders at a summit focused on AI safety. The summit—the first global summit focused on AI—led to the signing of a new cross-border agreement focused on future collaboration in the space (Government of the United Kingdom 2023). The agreement was signed by 28 countries and established a shared understanding of the risks and benefits associated with new developments in AI.

Notably, the agreement acknowledges multiple mechanisms for future research, collaboration, and harmonization between the signatory countries. These efforts include:

• cooperating on approaches to develop common AI principles and codes of conduct;
• leveraging existing international fora to broaden the number of collaborating countries;
• building AI technical capacity in developing countries; and
• hosting future AI Safety Summits.

Altogether, this agreement—titled the Bletchley Declaration—serves as a prime example of how to establish a cross-border collaborative effort. It addresses a global challenge, enumerates responsibilities of signatory parties, expresses goals, and provides mechanisms for sustainable, responsible, and effective collaboration.

It is also notable that the 2023 AI Safety Summit have been followed by additional summits – in 2024 in Seoul and 2025 in Paris – intended in part to continue and expand the collaborative work begun in 2023.

Strengths and challenges

Cross-border collaboration—like other forms of collaboration—brings its own share of unique strengths and challenges. Some benefits of cross-border collaboration in the ICT sector can include:

• dedicated forums for the sharing of best practices and technical expertise;
• harmonization or compliance of standards and regulations;
• increased access to global talent and expertise;
• improved trust among regional and international partners;
• more efficient use of monetary and time-based resources;
• alignment with and exposure to the international community; and
• better preparedness for future technology change.

Potential challenges associated with cross-border collaboration can include:

• cultural barriers and norms;
• positions and policies changing with new political leadership;
• misaligned goals and ideal outcomes;
• poor articulation of roles and responsibilities;
• lack of operational mechanisms to implement the agreement’s goals;
• lack of mechanisms for feedback and improvement of processes;
• maintaining relevant collaborative approaches as technologies and services evolve;
• inefficient allocation of resources; and
• misalignment with other global standards and norms.

However, many of these potential challenges can be avoided or mitigated with proper planning, execution, and evaluation of cross-border collaborations.

International organization collaboration

Collaboration with international organizations is a cornerstone of effective collaborative governance. These organizations can provide regulators with transformational expertise, networks, and resources to better address complex challenges related to the ICT sector. In addition, they may offer financial support, technical assistance, and access to cutting-edge research to help regulators make better decisions about pressing sector-specific issues.

This section offers information on how and why regulators should leverage international organizations – including multilateral organizations, United Nations (UN) agencies, donor agencies, standard-setting bodies, and private-sector associations – to collaborate and participate in forums that allow for the sharing of best practices and provide valuable resources for domestic initiatives.

International Multilateral Organizations and the UN System

Multilateral organizations facilitate cross-border collaboration by serving as convening platforms for countries to discuss challenges and pursue common goals. These organizations develop international agreements, frameworks, and norms that guide cross-border activities across sectors. They also serve as mediums for dialogue, information-sharing, and capacity building, bringing countries together at designated forums for collaboration.

As discussed in Cross-border collaboration, many multilateral fora are situated at the regional level. While these organizations provide regulators with opportunities to engage with their geographic peers, they can sometimes experience capacity and financial constraints relative to their international counterparts. This section explores several multilateral organizations that engage with the ICT sector on a global level.

United Nations

UN is one of the most notable and impactful global vehicles for collaborative governance, providing a mechanism for nations to cooperate on a wide array of issues that require international alignment. It establishes global norms, standards, and frameworks, provides financial and technical support to developing nations, and helps to create global consensus on issues related to emerging technologies and how they should be regulated.

More broadly, the UN System consists of numerous specialized agencies, funds, and programmes that help address sector-specific challenges. These entities each have separate workstreams, leadership structures, and budgets, ensuring that work is independent and targeted towards identified topics of global importance.

Figure 5. The United Nations System

Source: UN

As illustrated in Figure 5, there are dozens of different UN agencies, programmes, funds, and workstreams that are dedicated to addressing issues of global importance. Many of these – such as the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the World Bank Group, and more – are either exclusively focused or have workstreams centered around telecommunications sector-related issues.

ITU

The ITU is the UN’s specialized agency for the ICT sector and focuses on global spectrum allocation, technical standards, and technological development in unserved and underserved areas around the world. Consisting of 194 member states and hundreds of sector members, the ITU is the world’s primary forum for international telecommunications agreements, capacity building initiatives, and standard setting.

The ITU executes its work through three main sectors: ITU-D (Development), ITU-R (Radiocommunication), and ITU-T (Telecommunication Standardization). ITU-D supports national regulators and policymakers through technical assistance and capacity-building initiatives to help alleviate the global digital divide. ITU-R’s primary focus is to coordinate the global use of spectrum and communications satellites to ensure optimal, interference-free use of telecommunications technologies such as 5G and broadcasting. Lastly, ITU-T serves as a forum to develop technological standards that enable the seamless and secure use of devices and services across borders and networks.

Through ITU-D, the ITU hosts a variety of events, symposiums, and working groups to address key ICT policy issues on both a regional and global level. For example, the annual Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) convenes heads of national ICT regulatory bodies to share information, expertise, and challenges related to emerging regulatory considerations in an effort to adopt a set of regulatory best practices. Similarly, the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Alliance for Digital Development unites government ministries and agencies, private sector actors, academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other key stakeholders to help strengthen local capabilities in innovation and entrepreneurship and build human capital and organizational capacity. Finally, ITU-D’s Regional Initiatives provide actionable targets to accelerate digital transformation efforts in specific regions. Combined, these efforts position the ITU as a key body for international collaboration on a wide range of issues in the ICT sector

UNDP

UNDP serves as the UN’s lead agency on international development matters and is dedicated to eradicating poverty and reducing inequality. Currently working in 170 countries, it helps nations develop policies, institutional capabilities, partnerships, and leadership skills to help achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the ICT sector, UNDP works with regulators to use technology as a catalyst for ending poverty and building inclusive institutions. It primarily uses financing mechanisms and technical assistance to achieve these goals and collaborates directly with regulators to ensure the success of initiatives.

There are several recent examples of the UNDP’s work to advance ICT priorities across the globe:

• Ethiopia: UNDP’s Accelerator Lab is working with the Ethiopian Ministry of Innovation and Technology (MInT) to explore opportunities for technology transfer to local communities throughout the country (UNDP 2024a). The collaboration is initially focusing on technology related to agriculture and renewable energy and hopes to implement sustainable, scalable, and affordable technologies through training local stakeholders and instituting support systems in local communities.
• Solomon Islands: UNDP’s Markets for Change Project (M4C) – which also works in Fiji, Samoa, and Vanuatu – ensures that marketplaces are inclusive, safe, and non-discriminatory. The project partnered with Solomon Islands Telekom Services and its Mselen mobile money service to improve financial inclusion and ensure that citizens are equipped to use their mobile phones for transactions. UNDP’s team provided technical assistance and training to help Mselen staff educate users in remote areas and drive progress towards enhanced financial literacy and credit access in the Solomon Islands (UNDP 2024b).

Through collaborations like these, UNDP works with both regulators and private sector entities to advance ICT-related priorities to reduce inequality and end poverty. Its expertise in capacity building, vast network of experts and partners, and mission-driven mandate in service of achieving the SDGs make it a valuable strategic partner for regulators around the world.

UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

UNCTAD works with developing countries to help all nations reap the benefits of the globalized economy. It primarily serves nations by offering analysis, technical assistance, and consensus building tools to use technology, trade, investment, and finance to promote sustainable development.

UNCTAD’s efforts in the ICT sector are primarily focused on ensuring that developing countries can harness the digital economy for inclusive development (UNCTAD 2024a). Its work is centered around four key pillars:

As part of its research and analysis efforts, UNCTAD also publishes an annual Digital Economy Report that provides assessments on the impact of digitalization efforts on inclusive development. The reports focus on the opportunities and issues associated with rapid technological change and provide evidence-based recommendations for policymakers, international organizations, and other key stakeholders. Regulators can use the UNCTAD Digital Economy Report to inform domestic policy debates about key issues and help align policymaking and rulemaking with international consensus on important challenges in the digital economy.

Source: UNCTAD

World Trade Organization (WTO)

WTO was established in 1995 to serve as an international forum for trade agreements, negotiations, disputes, and cooperation. Its global membership consists of 164 countries that work together to forge agreements related to goods, services, and intellectual property. The WTO also works closely with developing countries to build trade capacity, implement technical standards, and develop infrastructure through technical cooperation missions and training sessions.

Telecommunications regulators can benefit from engaging with the WTO in several ways. First, many WTO proceedings – such as the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce and the Information Technology Agreement – create a level playing field for member countries engaging on electronic- and ICT-related trade issues. Regulators can work with their governments to ensure that their interests are supported during negotiations for new agreements.

Example: WTO Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce

The WTO’s Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on e-commerce is an organized effort to establish a global set of rules to govern cross-border digital trade. Released in December 2017, the first joint statement detailed the 71 signatory members’ intent to “initiate exploratory work together toward future WTO negotiations on trade-related aspects of electronic commerce” (WTO 2017). Once signed, WTO representatives from each country met on a near-monthly basis to discuss various proposals that would be featured in any future binding agreement.

After a year of dialogue, 76 members announced a second joint statement to begin formal WTO negotiations on trade-related aspects of electronic commerce. The JSI is led by a group of co-facilitators—Australia, Japan, and Singapore—who plan, lead, and follow up on formal negotiation sessions between the signatory countries. Each negotiating session is focused on a particular section of the overall agreement, and all participating members are empowered to suggest ideas, provide feedback, and reject proposals from other representatives.

WTO’s JSI on e-commerce—and initiatives like it—showcase the role that multilateral organizations can have in collaborative governance. By bringing like-minded countries together, these organizations serve as a forum for international cooperation and can help address global policy challenges that require coordinated, unified solutions.

Another of WTO’s core responsibilities is to resolve trade disputes among members. If a regulator is struggling with a dispute related to trade in telecommunications, they can work with their governments to go through the formal dispute resolution process as established by WTO. For example, in 2005, the United States filed a formal dispute resolution against Mexico for concerns related to market access, interconnection, and anti-competitive practices (WTO 2005). After a lengthy panel review process, the panel found that Mexico had violated several commitments related to WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services. Mexico and the United States then agreed to a series of actions to ensure compliance with the agreement moving forward, and later that year, Mexico announced that they had fully complied with WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body’s recommendation. This example showcases the ability of the WTO and other multilateral organizations and forums to serve as a formal channel for trade disputes between countries in the ICT sector.

Lastly, WTO serves as an important resource for developing countries looking to build trade capacity (WTO 2024). Its efforts are largely focused on instructing country representatives on how to (1) understand complex WTO rules, and (2) implement WTO agreements to bolster trade and effectively negotiate with partners. While not specifically focused on ICT matters, WTO provides access to important resources related to trade that can include the ICT sector. Country representatives can specifically look to the WTO for technical assistance on the following trade-related capabilities:

• Human capacity, including trade lawyers, economists, negotiators, and other individuals who help governments assess matters related to WTO rules and agreements;
• Institutional capacity, including national institutions that deal with customs, national standards, and WTO delegation selection; and
• Infrastructure, including the physical and digital infrastructure that facilitates trade.

Donor Agencies

Telecommunications regulators can also explore partnerships with donor agencies – such as the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), and the Digital Cooperation Organization (DCO) – to advance interests in the ICT sector. These types of donor agencies have extensive networks of human capital expertise and financial resources and support various initiatives related to the digital divide, infrastructure development, and digital literacy. These organizations also provide resources for capacity building and technical assistance for policymaking and are useful forums for collaborative governance.

World Bank Group

Development programmes such as the World Bank’s Digital Development Partnership (DDP) provide a forum for regulators to collaborate on pressing matters in the sector. DDP supports digital transformation efforts in developing countries by bringing global public and private sector stakeholders together to implement digital development strategies, support universal internet access, mainstream digital platforms, and build digital economies and services. DDP also produces publications, including analyses of national ICT and digital sectors. For example, in 2022, DDP released a Digital Economy Diagnostic for Guinea-Bissau, which provides a comprehensive analysis of the country’s digital infrastructure, public platforms, financial services, digital businesses, and digital skills and recommends a series of policy interventions to encourage digital economic development (World Bank Group 2022).

Regional Development Banks

Other development banks – such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and ADB – have similar mechanisms for collaboration relevant to the ICT sector:

• In Azerbaijan, the ADB invested USD 500,000 in an incubation, acceleration, and research center to foster the development of local technology startups (ADB 2020a). The programme works with local universities to improve the enabling environment for startups and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across the country.
• In Brazil, IDB launched a credit expansion program for investments in telecommunications networks (IDB 2024a). The USD 100 million investment is intended to improve digital connectivity by expanding fixed broadband coverage in cities and municipalities with less than 30,000 inhabitants.
• In El Salvador, the IDB granted USD 60 million to further develop the country’s digital infrastructure (IDB 2024b). The program is designed to support the expansion of digital infrastructure while also improving the population’s digital skills to ensure that digital services are used.
• In Papua New Guinea, the ADB provided a USD 25 million equity investment to support the establishment of a new telecommunications operator in the country (ADB 2020b). The investment was intended to provide enhanced mobile, broadband, and internet services for Papua New Guinea’s underserved population.

Other Donor Agencies

In addition to development banks, other international organizations provide financial support for regulators and governments to advance domestic priorities. Donor agencies such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and DCO may provide financial resources and technical assistance and support various initiatives related to policy development, the sharing of best practices, and capacity building. DCO – which consists of 16 member states including Bangladesh, Djibouti, Ghana, and Qatar, among others – is specifically focused on issues related to the digital economy and overall digital transformation efforts. It works through various initiatives and programs to advance digital prosperity, narrow the digital divide, enable women and youth, and standardize regulations and establish frameworks for the digital economy. One of these initiatives is the recently launched Generative AI (GenAI) Center of Excellence, which serves as a multilateral forum for collaboration between member states, public sector bodies, the private sector, and academia. The Center of Excellence specifically aims to build local capacity, foster the creation of intellectual property, and drive innovation for GenAI technologies and applications (DCO 2024).

International Standard-Setting Bodies

Regulators can also engage with standard-setting bodies to ensure that national technical regulations are aligned with internationally harmonized approaches, as well as to provide input into the development of international agreements. Bodies such as ITU-T and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) convene representatives from countries around the world to promote knowledge-sharing, collaborate on technical challenges, and develop solutions to support global ICT sector development. By participating in these forums, regulators can ensure that their perspectives are incorporated in global standards. In addition, adherence to such standards ensures that services and equipment are compatible on a regional and global basis and allow stakeholders to take advantage of economies of scale.

Private Sector Associations

Private sector associations are another venue for collaborations in the telecommunications sector. These organizations, such as GSMA and the SAMENA Telecommunications Council, represent groups of operators, industry representatives, and sector-adjacent members who help develop policies and standards that advance the interests of the ICT sector. They also serve as conveners, hosting conferences, meetings, working groups, and other opportunities for members of the sector to collaborate with their peers. As a regulator, there are many opportunities to engage with association members and collaborate on key issues. GSMA hosts events such as the Asia Pacific Policy Leaders Forum and Mobile World Congress, where key government representatives, telecommunications regulators, intragovernmental groups, and private-sector organizations meet to discuss the industry’s most pressing and pertinent challenges (GSMA 2024). Similarly, SAMENA hosts the annual SAMENA Telecommunications Council Leaders’ Summit, which brings together key public and private sectors from regions including South Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and Europe (SAMENA 2024).

NGOs

Non-profit conveners can also foster cross-border collaboration – global organizations such as the Internet Society (ISOC) and the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) have a range of diverse initiatives and programs to improve global internet infrastructure and close the digital divide. ISOC helps organize the annual African Peering and Interconnection Forum (AfPIF), which brings together local service providers, regulators, policy makers, and other key stakeholders to collaborate on interconnection dynamics, content distribution, and data transit obstacles that exist across local borders (AfPIF 2024). Additionally, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) team supports regional programming initiatives for ICANN stakeholders. The GSE program holds training events, fosters dialogues, builds capacity, and raises awareness about ICANN’s work in several communities, including through activities such as a “broadband bootcamp” for tribal communities in North America (ICANN 2023). Overall, engagement with these types of organizations can give countries a forum in which to engage with a diverse pool of cross-border collaborators.

Strengths and Weaknesses

As illustrated throughout this module, there are many opportunities for telecommunications regulators to engage with international organizations. These organizations may have more substantial networks of experts and financial resources, which can provide regulators and their countries with enhanced capacity and resources to address pressing challenges. They also benefit from global reach and influence, ensuring that best practices are followed and standards, regulations, and projects are aligned with global consensus.

However, the collaborative process brought about by multilateral organizations is not without flaws. Reaching international consensus can be a long, complicated process that requires patience and a willingness to compromise. Additionally, this push for consensus can cause negotiated agreements to be high-level, as controversial proposals and amendments are often left out to ensure that enough signatories are included. In addition, broader multilateral initiatives can sometimes fail to reflect the views of developing countries, making it crucial to promote inclusivity in their design. Further, opportunities to engage can be limited, as international organizations deal with a wide array of issues in numerous countries across the world.

Stakeholder engagement

Regulatory collaborations between the public and private sectors can provide regulators with a more-inclusive means of navigating ICT policy by working directly with the innovators, service providers, and vendors that are affected by regulatory frameworks. Although these collaborations require increased trust in and by private stakeholders, they may prove more flexible—and better informed about sector developments–than approaches to regulation involving only the public sector. Public-private collaborations can help encourage innovation, facilitate deployment of emerging technologies, incentivize investment, and instill an increased sense of responsibility in private-sector companies.

Illustrated through several examples, this section identifies three key approaches to public-private collaboration in addition to several mechanisms through which government entities can pursue such collaborative approaches. These are followed by a sample process for establishing public-private collaborative arrangements, possible indicators of success, and a summary of the potential strengths and challenges.

Level of government involvement

Due to the need to tailor regulatory approaches and digital transformation initiatives to specific market conditions and policy issues, public-private collaboration approaches should be identified and implemented on a case-by-case basis. Approaches to fostering public-private collaborations primarily differ in the level of involvement by public entities and private sector companies, ranging from close cooperation to minimal public sector involvement.

Figure 13. Different approaches to public/private collaborations

Source: ITU, based on ACMA.

Direct engagement with private sector (co-regulation)

Involving a significant level of collaboration between the public and private sectors, co-regulatory approaches consist of public entities assisting private-sector companies with the development and enforcement of regulations. Codes of practice or standards developed in collaboration between the public and private sectors are often given legal backing for enforcement through legislation. Although legislation typically does not go as far as codifying individual regulatory practices or standards, it does give regulators the means to enforce such practices (ACMA 2011). Legislative efforts in co-regulatory approaches may include:

• delegation of oversight responsibility to industry actors (e.g., social media content moderation by platform operators);
• enforcement of policy to ensure compliance with code(s);
• classifying code(s) as a regulation that only applies to those who have voluntarily agreed to it;
• enshrining reserve powers to make code(s) mandatory;
• requiring code(s) to be adopted; and
• classifying code(s) as a mandatory regulation.

Examples of co-regulatory collaborative regulation agreements are presented in Box 4.

Box 4. Co-regulatory ICT collaborative regulation agreements

Delegation of regulatory functions (self-regulation/voluntary agreement)

Self-regulation allows authorities to engage in a more “light touch” form of regulation that aims to promote an inclusive approach by relying on relevant, private ICT actors to develop regulatory standards (ITU 2020). Typically, self-regulation consists of a voluntary agreement between public entities and private industry actors through which private companies develop, administer, and enforce their own regulatory solutions. This approach to regulation typically excludes official oversight from regulators and lacks legal means of enforcement. Common mechanisms employed in this approach consist of voluntary codes of practice, something that is further discussed in the section on industry codes of practice.

Self-regulatory agreements can also be dynamic processes, with public entities free to engage more directly as regulatory concerns arise. For example, the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) established under India’s Information Technology Rules 2021 was created in response to a significant number of internet-related grievances that were unaddressed by private-sector actors (MeitY 2022). Operating fully online through a public digital platform, the GAC serves as a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure an open and safe internet (MeitY 2023). As an executive committee composed of members appointed by government, the GAC is tasked with adjudicating complaints and may submit timebound requests for removal of information or communication links to social media or other online intermediaries.

Proponents of self-regulation point to several benefits related to efficiency and compliance (Journal of Emerging Technologies 2022), including:

• greater expertise by private-sector actors (often this is expertise unavailable in public sectors);
• greater flexibility related to rule making and modifying;
• higher willingness to comply from industry member peers;
• lower costs for government; and
• avoidance of legal uncertainty.

The potential shortcomings of self-regulatory regimes include:

• inadequate enforcement;
• little insight into the decision-making processes of companies;
• appearance of excessive regulation if government steps in;
• industry actors serving their own priorities; and
• antitrust-related issues.

Due to the multinational nature of large tech firms, self-regulation may also manifest through global agreements among companies. An example is the Global Network Initiative, an international partnership formed in 2008 involving some of the world’s most prominent technology companies to protect individual rights online (Global Network Initiative 2024). The organization bases its work on international human rights law including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Historically, purely self-regulatory regimes have been rare in the ICT sector, as governments or relevant regulators tend to seek at least a minimal level of regulatory involvement. Governments may also help facilitate these commitments among industry leaders, as seen in the 2023 voluntary commitment made between seven AI companies and the U.S. government to develop AI safely (White House 2023). In some cases, regulators may reserve the right to implement mandatory regulations if self-regulation fails to achieve intended goals.

Box 5. International self-regulatory ICT collaborative regulation agreements

Box 6. National self-regulatory ICT collaborative regulation agreements

Little to no involvement (de-regulation)

Informed through a holistic evaluation of existing policy and regulatory efforts, de-regulation involves reducing or discarding regulations seen as disproportionate, excessive, or unnecessary. In terms of government involvement, this approach stands to be the least collaborative approach, but does require vigilant oversight by regulators. By removing regulatory barriers, de-regulation aims to spur innovation and encourage market competition. However, this approach should be adopted only through extensive consideration and enduring monitoring efforts, particularly with respect to impacts on consumers or users.

In Kenya, the Digital Economy Blueprint encourages regulators to “take a fresh look at legacy rules and discard those that are no longer relevant (ITU 2023a). Kenya’s Ministry of Information, Communications, and the Digital Economy (MICDE, formerly the Ministry of ICT) cited growing competition in the ICT sector as a signal to roll back regulatory efforts in order to avoid stifling innovation. Notably, authorities also stressed the need to apply consistent standards, closely monitor market developments, and ensure that regulations are updated accordingly.

Examples of matters that have been the target of deregulation include wholesale price regulation and certain types of spectrum authorization. In regard to the former, the European Commission (EC) Recommendation on Relevant Markets establishes a harmonized approach to determining which markets require ex-ante regulatory interventions (European Commission 2021). First introduced in 2002, the recommendation was updated in 2020, removing ex-ante regulations on wholesale central access and fixed mobile voice call termination markets.

Considering spectrum authorization, the UK Wireless Telegraphy Act (UK National Archives 1949) mandates that all radio stations and related apparatus be authorized by a license. However, several deregulatory provisions (such as class licenses, general licenses, and exemptions) have been employed to streamline spectrum licensing procedures. Regulators in the United States, Brazil, and several European nations have benefited from administrative cost-savings and increased efficiency by implementing blanket-licensing regimes for satellite user terminals, eliminating detailed and time-consuming individual licensing requirements for large networks of terminals.

Mechanisms for public/private collaboration

Regulators can initiate public/private collaborations through several different mechanisms, each offering unique outputs and regulatory implications. Such mechanisms are employed to enable public/private collaboration at each of the levels described above, with some mechanisms applicable to multiple levels of government involvement. These mechanisms include:

• industry codes of practice that aim to establish basic standards and best practices where typical means of enforcement may face jurisdictional or statutory uncertainty, particularly when regulations may be too burdensome to enforce. Industry codes of practice are explored in Deep dive: Industry codes of practice;
• public consultations that serve as a way for regulators to elicit feedback or input from relevant industry actors;
• regulatory sandboxes that function primarily as mechanisms to encourage safe and ethical innovation and to inform potential future regulatory approaches; and
• partnerships with other institutions (e.g., academic, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)) that attempt to leverage existing resources, expertise, and knowledge in pursuit of shared regulatory goals.

Some of the mechanisms mentioned above may favor more or less government involvement and thus a different regulatory approach (e.g. self-regulatory, co-regulatory, or de-regulatory). For example, public consultations are often facilitated by public authorities and require greater initiative from public sector actors. It is important to note that each of these mechanisms can be employed in different fashions. In all cases, regulators should strive to incorporate fundamental principles of good regulatory processes in collaborative arrangements. Several useful resources can help regulators identify important principles to incorporate into their co-regulatory approaches. The ACMA Office of Best Practice Regulation Handbook, the United Kingdom Better Regulation Framework, and the OECD’s Recommendations and Guidelines on Regulatory Policy all serve as useful foundational materials. Notably, the OECD’s recommendations and best practices cover a wide range of regulatory applications including cooperation on global challenges, agile governance, quality and performance, impact assessments, inspection toolkits, and more.

Table 11. Resources and relevant principles of regulation

Incentive-based tools

Either used in tandem with or independent from these mechanisms, incentive-based regulatory tools can help achieve market-related and regulatory goals. More specifically, incentive-based tools can help encourage investment and innovation, helping regulators achieve market-related benchmarks. They can also help achieve regulatory goals by streamlining or bolstering current regulatory frameworks (Table 12).

Table 12. Examples of incentive-based tools

Source: ITU 2022.

Patterns of engagement

Patterns of public engagement refer to how often regulators and governments invite private sector actors to provide feedback. The frequency can vary regulator to regulator, with some reaching out only during enquiries, while others seek input annually or at a more regular cadence. The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) is currently open to “spontaneous” contact from the private sector when needs arise. Other regulators may hold stakeholder forums once a year, as is the case with the Communications Authority of Kenya, which hosts an annual National Public Key Infrastructure (NPKI) Stakeholders’ Engagement Forum, for example (CA 2020). Supported by MICDE, the NPKI forum serves as a convener for industry professionals to discuss digital issues with government regulators. In any case, it is usually up to the discretion of the regulator to establish processes related to outreach and solicitation.

Public consultations

A common mechanism employed by regulators for engagement with private entities is a request for input into public consultations. By leveraging the knowledge and expertise of industry actors, regulators can make better-informed decisions. Best practices for consultations include making them open to the public, allowing stakeholders at least 30 days to respond, and adhering to consultation procedures enshrined in relevant law or regulations. Regulators should also be required to make evidence-based decisions following the period of consultation using tools such as RIAs.

Public/private collaborative practices in Moldova offer an example of a consultative framework supported by law. The Law on Transparency in the Decision-Making Process requires that all legislative and regulatory acts that have social, economic, or environmental implications be subject to a public consultation period (Ministry of Finance 2008). However, the presence of a legal framework for consultations is not a guarantee of private-sector participation. Despite legal backing in Moldova, public consultations fail to fully involve private-sector entities, especially during the initial drafting phases of legislation (ITU 2021). Input from private stakeholders is usually only considered when finished draft legislation is presented. Thus, the consultative system in Moldova serves as an important case illustrating the need for an inclusive process, regardless of strong legal backing. Additional examples of public consultations in the ICT sector are presented in 7.

Box 7. Public consultations as a public/private collaborative approach

Regulatory sandboxes

A means to pursue innovation in a safe and contained manner, a regulatory sandbox as defined by ITU as “a controlled regulatory environment for conducting live tests of innovative products, solutions and services with the potential to deepen and develop certain markets” (ITU 2023b). They are often employed in the fintech industry, with applications in AI also becoming increasingly widespread. While the objectives of these regulatory tools vary from case to case, some common goals include:

• digital inclusion,
• fast-tracking digitalization,
• stimulating and supporting innovation,
• market development and consumer benefit,
• enhancing competition and protecting consumers, and
• economic growth.

Through the collaborative development of innovative ICT technologies, regulatory sandboxes can offer a wide range of benefits for regulators, private-sector actors, and consumers (OECD 2023a). For regulators, they can help inform long-term policymaking, express commitment to innovation, enhance communication with industry actors, and signal the need to update restrictive regulations. For firms, they can reduce the time required to introduce and test new products or services through streamlined authorization processes, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and remove barriers of entry for smaller companies. For consumers, regulatory sandboxes can make new products safer and more accessible by the time they are widely available.

Figure 2. Rationale for a regulatory sandbox

Source: ITU Digital Regulation Platform – A case for ICT Regulatory Sandbox

The type of regulatory approach employed during sandbox projects depends on the level of oversight applied throughout the process. Governments may choose to determine the exact criteria, objectives, and conditions for the creation of regulatory sandboxes. When applying lessons learned from sandbox experiments to the broader industry ecosystem, governments may allow industry to incorporate them as they see fit (i.e., self-regulatory) or adopt a more involved approach in directing them (i.e., co-regulatory).

While regulatory sandboxes can spur innovation and provide benefits for a variety of stakeholders, they can also be characterized by challenges related to effective implementation and market impact. Challenges include employing ineffective and risky sandbox models, underdeveloped testing processes, scalability issues, and regulatory fragmentation (OECD 2023a).

In the Maldives, the digital currency sandbox provides an example of a regulatory sandbox intended to innovate and facilitate uptake of emerging fintech technologies (ITU 2023b). The digital currency sandbox, launched as part of the government’s digital economic development initiatives, aimed to provide a cost-effective alternative to the traditional finance system and support the unbanked population. Nationally, the Maldives used the effort as the impetus to push for a cashless digital economy by making online transactions easier and safer. Additional examples of ICT sector regulatory sandboxes are presented in Box 8.

Box 8. Regulatory sandboxes as a collaborative mechanism

For a more in-depth discussion on regulatory sandboxing, read the dedicated article.

Public platforms

Public platforms are permanent mechanisms allowing access to key information for stakeholders, as well as for industry feedback, either on topics defined by regulators or those that may be more general or unsolicited. In Brazil, Anatel allows stakeholder participation on the Participa Anatel platform, where the regulator lists ongoing consultations and allows interested parties to search for reports by theme (Anatel 2024). Egypt’s National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NTRA) established its e-Services Portal to better facilitate access to its services and help achieve national goals related to digital transformation (NTRA 2020). Services offered via the portal include radio frequency spectrum licensing services, importer and equipment-related services, customs clearance services, and other network services.

Other forms of public platforms may be introduced through new agencies or bodies responsible for fielding complaints and responding to inquiries. In January 2024, the Thai Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) launched the Personal Data Protection Act Center (PDPA Center) to serve as an advisory and question-answering service center for inquiries regarding compliance with PDPA laws and regulations. The center also serves as a coordination center for personal data protection officers (DPOs) and drives cooperation on personal data protection.

As alluded to above, public platforms can serve a variety of functions including as information-gathering tools or forums for public authorities to receive and subsequently respond to complaints or inquiries. Platforms can inform regulatory decisions to pursue more self-regulatory approaches, such as by allowing the use of a voluntary industry code of conduct after receiving input. Alternatively, the regulator could elect for more of a co-regulatory or de-regulatory approach by altering current regulations or actively pursuing steps to remedy an issue.

Other partnerships

In addition to private industry, academic institutions and NGOs remain a vital source of knowledge and expertise on which regulators can rely to inform their approaches. Partnerships of this kind usually align when the parties involved share the same regulatory goals, or if the academic institution or NGO specializes in skills required by ICT regulators. Governments may choose to allow partner organizations the freedom to pursue regulatory objectives in the manner they see fit (i.e., self-regulatory) by assuming a more supportive role through means such as funding or oversight. More direct engagement with partner organizations would allow government to have more say in the regulatory objectives of partnership agreements (i.e., co-regulatory).

Academia

In France, the collaboration between the National Institute for research in Digital Science and Technology (INRIA), the Expertise Centre for Digital Regulation (PEReN), and the Directorate General for Enterprise (DGE) serves as an example of regulatory needs aligning between public and academic entities (INRIA 2021). Through a signed scientific partnership agreement, INRIA launched a pilot project to aggregate algorithms and software related to digital regulation. French ICT regulators have expressed appreciation for the unique insights provided by academic collaboration, including the ability to increase exposure to developing research initiatives and improve access to previously restricted areas of research.

NGOs

Though focused more on health-related initiatives, looking to the Togo Ministry of Health’s collaboration with Integrate Health, a community health-focused NGO, illustrates important lessons for how governments and regulators can navigate collaborative arrangements with NGOs in the ICT sector. Through the Integrated Primary Care Program, the government of Togo worked with Integrate Health to stand up health centers and health training programs throughout the region. Throughout the process, both the regulator and NGO recognized the importance of centering the public sector’s voice in efforts, leveraging existing government delivery and data systems, cultivating relationships with government partners at all levels, and transferring ownership to government leaders (SSIR 2020).

Consumer associations

Led largely by private sector businesses, consumer associations are membership-based, non-governmental, non-profit bodies that allow for a multi-stakeholder approach to engaging on ICT-related issues. Intended to promote the interests of consumers, these associations encourage professionals within the ICT sector to connect and promote business partnerships, including across regions. Consumer associations can form to address concerns related to the need for an independent party, to better represent views of an under-represented community, or to allow citizens of disadvantaged or vulnerable communities to better exercise their civil rights. The ways in which consumer associations can engage with the ICT sector include:

• educating consumers to influence societal perspectives on issues;
• providing consumers with timely information regarding products;
• monitoring and investigating misleading claims;
• conducting campaigns to enhance image, presence, and influence;
• advocating for consumer interests at the local, national, regional, and international levels; and
• collaborating with other NGOs on consumer issues.

Notable ICT consumer associations across Africa include the South Africa Information and Communication Technology Association (SAICTA) and the ICT Chamber in Rwanda, though several other countries, including Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, also have ICT-related consumer associations. In the Asia-Pacific region, the Asian-Oceanian Computing Industry Organization (ASOCIO) consists of representations from IT associations in 24 economies, including Australia, Bangladesh, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and several others. In Europe, the European Commission (EC) works closely with four separate consumer associations representing a wide range of issues and communities. The four associations include the European Association for the Coordination of Consumer Representation (ANEC), the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), COFACE Families Europe, and Euro Coop, while the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) acts as a convener for EU and U.S. consumer association collaboration (EC 2024).

Additional examples of partnerships for collaboration are presented in Box 9.

Box 9. Other partnerships for ICT sector collaboration

Strengths and Challenges

Leveraging private sector expertise and knowledge can provide regulators with the increased operational capacity needed to effectively perform their duties for the benefit of the sector or consumers. However, challenges related to accountability, market imbalances, and increased costs can arise in public/private arrangements.

Strengths

Advantages of a self- or co-regulatory approach between public and private sector entities can include (ACMA 2011):

• increased flexibility and adaptability;
• reduced compliance and administrative costs;
• ability to tap into existing industry knowledge and expertise; and
• more efficient complaint-handling and dispute resolution mechanisms.

Though not identical to public/private regulatory agreements, public-private partnerships (PPPs) can also be informative when identifying the strengths of self- or co-regulatory models. Adapted from existing research done on PPPs, strengths that translate into public/private regulatory collaborations can include (World Bank Group 2022):

• increased operational capacity spread across multiple stakeholders;
• incentive structure to improve services; and
• correcting asymmetries of information between private companies and the government.

Challenges

Public/private collaborations can also present challenges regardless of the mechanism employed. Potential challenges of a self- or co-regulatory approach between public and private sector entities can include (ACMA 2011):

• risk of creating monopolies through standards that restrict smaller industry actors;
• regulatory capture, or the potential for regulators to become subservient to industry actors;
• increased regulatory compliance and enforcement costs; and
• greater time commitments dedicated to collaboration.

Again, regulators can look to PPPs as a potential source of information when it comes to determining the challenges present in self- or co-regulatory models. Challenges that apply to both PPPs and public/private collaborations include (OECD 2012):

• determining the value of collaboration and whether collaboration is necessary;
• transferring the risk associated with creating insufficient or overbearing regulation from regulators to private industry actors (and vice-versa);
• balancing the input of all stakeholders; and
• dealing with uncertainty over future operational capacity and budget leading to uncertainty over how to sustain compliance with regulations.

Despite these challenges, the importance of ICT technologies to multiple sectors requires efficient collaboration between regulators and private industry. As outlined in ITU’s Digital Regulation Handbook, regulators should, whenever possible, encourage the private sector to develop their own guidelines and codes of practice before pursuing more official enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, policymakers should consistently reassess existing laws and regulations and update them accordingly to facilitate innovation and the inclusive deployment of emerging technologies. However, regulators should also understand that certain responsibilities and tools will inevitably remain within their scope, including facilitating connectivity, developing infrastructure, and fostering competition.

The ITU’s Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) Best Practice Guidelines on Collaboration, expanded upon below in Table 13, include several helpful principles to adhere to when engaging in public/private collaboration. Key concepts to emphasize include ensuring legal capacity between both private and public entities, enabling cross-country collaboration and learning, and striving for harmonization across different ICT sectors.

Table 13. ITU Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) Best Practice Guidelines on Collaboration

Practical Steps and Indicators of Success

Taking into account key collaborative governance scenarios – including intragovernmental collaboration, cross-border collaboration, and international organization collaboration – it is also important consider how to practically implement collaborative approaches as well as how to determine whether such activities are successful. The following sections provide practical steps for establishing intragovernmental collaboration as well as indicators of success. Both sections are structured to consider intragovernmental collaboration, however many of the observations are applicable in cross-border and international organization scenarios.

Practical steps in establishing intragovernmental collaborations

Regulators seeking to establish intragovernmental collaborations should use a multi-step process that clearly identifies relevant objectives, stakeholders, methods, and implementation goals. The process below borrows principles from regulatory impact assessment (RIA) frameworks such as OECD’s Regulatory Impact Assessment Guide and serves as an evidence-based, comprehensive framework for ICT regulators to deploy across the globe (OECD 2020).

Problem identification

Before conducting any form of policy intervention, regulators should be able to clearly articulate the public policy problem at hand—this is especially true when establishing an intragovernmental collaboration approach or mechanism. When identifying a problem or issue that warrants intervention by multiple agencies, it is important to ensure that the central issue is one that is best addressed by multiple stakeholders working collaboratively. In short, problems addressed through intragovernmental collaboration should be those that can be resolved more easily, more efficiently, or more effectively with the participation of multiple agencies. Similarly, it is useful to avoid devoting resources to collaborative endeavors that are unlikely to be more productive than action by a single regulator or agency.

Identification of policy or regulatory problems can incorporate approaches from tools such as those presented in Table 14.

Table 14. Examples of regulatory problem identification approaches

As part of the problem identification process, regulators should also assess the current market and industry conditions to ensure that collaborative regulation would be effective. Particularly with respect to collaboration between the public and private sectors, these environmental factors may indicate whether industry can self-regulate or identify relevant incentives. These conditions can include (ACMA 2011):

• the number of major industry actors;
• the proportion of the market major industry actors control;
• the level of competition in the market is (i.e., barriers to entry);
• the level of similarity or substitutability of products or services in the industry;
• whether there is a collective will to reach a regulatory solution;
• what the incentives exist for industry actors to comply;
• how consumers view the need to regulate; and
• how quickly the industry is changing.

In addition to interventions in response to a specific event or problem, regulators may choose to collaborate on more strategic matters. This may be viewed as a more proactive approach – seeking to introduce changes for the sake of enabling a new service or technology, for example – as opposed to a reactive stance intended to correct an observed problem or regulatory failure. Both problem-focused and strategic approaches are valuable options for engaging in collaborative regulation and should be considered by regulators and government agencies.

There are numerous challenges or strategic goals in the ICT sector that may benefit from collaborative regulatory approaches involving other regulatory entities (Table 15). The exact areas of potential collaboration will depend on several factors, including current legal and regulatory frameworks, market structures and trends, and regional and international developments, as well as national policies and priorities.

Table 15. Potential collaboration with ICT regulator

Once relevant authorities have holistically considered the issue at stake through existing regulations and/or policies, data, and governance structures (including pre-existing intragovernmental collaborations), they should consider the potential benefits of using collaborative governance to solve it (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Sample problem identification steps

Stakeholder mapping

As noted, ICT-related policy goals and activities can impact a wide range of sectors and regulatory mandates including competition, education, finance, data protection, and cybersecurity. Thus, following the identification of the problem(s) to be addressed, the next key step is to map the regulatory agencies and other government entities that may affect or be affected by the regulatory framework in question. With regard to the ICT sector, this commonly includes the competition regulator (as discussed in Intragovernmental Collaboration and Deep Dive: Collaboration Between Competition and ICT Authorities), other commerce or trade authorities, financial authorities, the education ministry, the energy regulator, and the consumer protection authority, among others (Figure 7).

Figure 7. The three knots of collaborative regulation

Source: ITU Global ICT Regulatory Outlook 2018

The collaboration initiator—the person, agency, or body that seeks to establish a formal or informal intragovernmental collaboration—is responsible for conducting this exercise. In considering the map of relevant stakeholders, it is important to consider the existing or potential areas of overlap with regard to the remit of each regulatory agency. It is also important to note that a collaborative undertaking may be developed in response to a government directive.

For example, the Counter-Ransomware Task Force convened in January 2022 by Singapore’s government was chaired by the Commissioner of Cybersecurity and Chief Executive of the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and was comprised of representatives from several agencies and ministries that had responsibilities or potential interests in the issue of ransomware. This included senior representatives from CSA, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Singapore Police Force, the Ministry of Communications and Information, the Infocomm and Media Development Authority, the Ministry of Defence, and the Government Technology Agency (GovTech), with supporting representatives from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) (Singapore Government 2022).

It is also important to note that stakeholder mapping is not a one-time exercise. As regulatory frameworks and priorities, sector structures, technologies, regulatory capabilities, and government priorities evolve, stakeholder mapping exercises can and should be repeated to best identify the key stakeholders to include in collaborative regulatory or governance activities and with whom to continue to deepen existing collaborations. Thus, even after participants have developed governance models and collaborative planning approaches and even implemented solutions, it is important to revisit the stakeholder mapping step.

Sample steps for identifying key stakeholders are illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Sample stakeholder mapping steps

Governance model

Following the identification of the problem and stakeholder mapping, it is important for the collaborating agencies to identify a governance model for the planned collaborative regulatory activity. For example, an internal collaborative effort may be most efficient as a cross-functional working group without the need for a formal terms of reference document. By comparison, efforts involving two or more regulators with responsibilities and powers delineated by law may be best served by a formal MOU or MOA that establishes exactly what the collaboration is intended to accomplish, the activities to be undertaken by each entity, and any obligations imposed on the participants, such as information-sharing or consultation requirements.

The collaborating departments or agencies must decide upon the format that will enable them to reach their objectives, ideally balancing a need for structure or direction with an interest in minimizing unnecessary friction or administrative burdens. The governance model should also include a clear indication of the group leadership and decision-making hierarchy. Other considerations that may affect the governance model include needs for transparency and accountability, legislative requirements related to open records or freedom of information, or a need for operational funding (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Sample governance model determination steps

The needs of the participants’ departments or agencies, relevant legal requirements, and the goals of the collaboration will all factor into governance model decisions such as the group leadership, the number and type of outputs, the timeline, and the frequency of meetings.

Collaborative planning

After identifying a list of intragovernmental stakeholders and determining the appropriate governance model, the collaboration initiator should convene a joint meeting of relevant administrators, offices, and agencies. The meeting should address the challenge at hand, the benefits of collaboration, the potential pitfalls of collaboration, and the mechanisms and frameworks needed to establish effective collaboration. As established above, these mechanisms can take the form of formal agreements or can leverage informal mechanisms such as working groups or seminars.

The objectives, desired outcomes and timeline of the planned collaboration should also be considered when considering the group’s working methods and timeline. A project to implement a new digital financial services regulatory framework over the course of a year will likely require a different level of engagement and rigor than a more general effort to share relevant information and conduct regularly scheduled seminars on a permanent basis (e.g., Singapore’s COPCOMER).

In either case, collaborating agencies should identify expectations, shared goals, and responsibilities to ensure alignment around a vision and plan of action, and specific desirable outcomes as well as a monitoring and evaluation framework with key performance indicators (KPIs). Each of these provides a key point of reference against which collaborative activities can be measured and changes implemented if objectives or milestones are not met (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Sample collaborative planning steps

Solution development and implementation

Once a method and/or framework is established and agreed upon, collaborators may begin working on areas within their assigned roles and responsibilities. Regulators should utilize evidence-based approaches that leverage both data and cost-benefit analyses and should keep collaborating institutions abreast of their progress.

The exact work processes and deliverables will vary widely, depending on the departments or regulators involved, the expected outcome, and the timeline of the collaboration, among other factors. Once a final solution is agreed upon through the channels prescribed in the formal or informal collaboration process, regulators should transition into the implementation phase. This stage of the process requires clear communication and coordination concerning goals, deadlines, and performance indicators.

As an example, the MOA between ICASA and the National Consumer Commission in South Africa, which is intended to improve the process for handling of consumer complaints with regard to ICT services as well as to foster cooperation on other common areas of interest, sets out guidance on multiple activities:

• requesting advice from the partner entity (in writing, and at no cost to either entity),
• development of common frameworks within three months for the referral of complaints between the entities and classification of complaints,
• the exchange of any information necessary to give effect to the MOA, and
• the preferred procedure for the exchange of information between the entities (ICASA 2015).

Sample steps for developing and implementing solutions are illustrated in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Sample solution development and implementation steps

Transparency, accountability, and evaluation

In addition to the regulatory objectives central to a collaborative approach, it is also important that the participants include mechanisms for self-evaluation and to maximize transparency and accountability. This serves multiple purposes, including:

• holding the participants accountable to themselves and each other,
• enabling all affected stakeholders (e.g., the regulated entities as well as the general public) to understand the work underway or completed,
• ensuring efficient use of limited regulatory or government resources, and
• providing reference materials for future collaborative efforts that may draw upon the work carried out.

A collaborative endeavor should be evaluated during its course and after it concludes, if applicable, particularly taking into account the initial decisions and objectives established at the start of the collaboration. While it may be difficult to assess the impact or effectiveness of regulatory efforts without sufficient hindsight, evaluative models can help regulators determine the success of public/private collaborations as the initiatives progress. When determining evaluative standards, it can be helpful to look to the model employed in ITU’s Digital Regulation Handbook for assessing the effectiveness of universal access (UA) policies as an example (ITU 2020). ITU’s model for UA policies employs two approaches to monitoring and evaluating progress, one focused on evaluating overall policy and the other on evaluating individual projects. Many of the principles and recommendations in both can be applied to public/private collaborations.

Depending on the duration of the collaborative regulatory activity, the participants may choose to include one or more periodic reviews that ensure alignment between the original problem identified, the agreed objective(s), the group’s processes, and the work or outputs completed to date. The goal of such a checkpoint is to ensure that there is an opportunity for course corrections or other modifications as needed to account for new circumstances or information obtained.

Concrete regulatory projects or initiatives (e.g., public consultations, regulatory sandboxes) should similarly be accompanied by clear goals and criteria to measure progress against. This can include participation metrics for public consultations, the level of industry participation in regulatory sandboxes, or how effective industry incentives have been. Reporting and progress assessments are important tools for ensuring consistent progress. Additionally, any unforeseen circumstances or deviations from the initial regulatory approach should be noted and taken into account. These monitoring initiatives should be made transparent to all stakeholders, allowing for effective and collaborative approaches to course correction.

Following the conclusion of the initiative, working group, MOU, or other project, regulators should evaluate their work to inform future collaborations. This evaluation should identify outcomes of the collaboration, lessons learned, and areas for improvement. These findings can then be used to inform and improve future intragovernmental collaborations. Participating collaborators should remain cognizant of the merits and outcomes of any arrangement, with an understanding that it may take time to reach applicable conclusions about effectiveness (Donahue 2004). Regulators should avoid a rush to classify a collaborative activity as successful by default, prematurely casting a collaboration as ineffective, or continuing with a collaboration that may need to be reformed.

Sample transparency, accountability, and evaluation steps are illustrated in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Sample transparency, accountability, and evaluation tools

Indicators of success

Determining the success of intragovernmental collaborations, especially those related to a sector as dynamic as ICT, can prove challenging. However, several assessment mechanisms at different stages throughout the process can help regulators and relevant stakeholders better understand the effective components of a collaborative arrangement (GAO 2023). Collaborators should continuously monitor and attempt to build evidence related to the performance of individual and collective priorities. Types of evidence can include:

• progress toward individual or collective objectives or specific outcomes,
• statistics related to established benchmark goals,
• staff-related performance information, and
• information concerning changes in capacity and bandwidth.

In addition, several conditions relating to the particular regulatory approach itself can help predict success. These factors include:

• how clearly objectives are defined;
• the regulator’s ability to address technical challenges;
• whether actionable transparency and accountability mechanisms exist;
• how much stakeholder input was incorporated into the regulatory approach; and
• to what extent the regulatory approach is communicated to consumers.

In cases where internal evidence may not be sufficient, regulators and authorities could also consider sourcing evidence from third-party organizations (e.g., contractors, nonprofits, foreign governments). After a sufficient repository of evidence has been collected, assessors should carry out regular evaluations that attempt to extract lessons and subsequently apply them to future initiatives. This information should be effectively communicated to all members to better ensure accountability and an accurate representation of the group’s progress. This is an approach employed by France’s Digital Hub, which regularly publishes a repository of information and best practices intended for public review, something not explicitly outlined in the responsibility of other collaborative regulatory groups (Arcep 2020).

Regulatory and policy impact

Arguably the most definitive metric for success, a group’s regulatory or policy impact within the domestic or international ICT sphere can indicate its overall efficacy. Direct influence on legislation or enforcement of the group’s recommendations by statutory bodies would amount to tangible progress toward the collaboration’s goals.

Through initiatives in collaboration with Brazil’s public safety entities, the National Telecommunications Agency’s (Anatel) efforts heavily influenced the passage of Resolution 738 in December 2020, an amendment to the Telecommunication Services Regulation (ITU 2023a). The amendment provides for increased fraud prevention efforts, enhanced telecommunications secrecy, and additional support for public safety officials.

Table 16. Additional examples of collaborative regulation impacts

Sector engagement

Alongside regulatory and policy impact, engagement with sector stakeholders is an important aspect to consider when evaluating whether a collaborative regulatory activity or approach is effective. Distinct from outputs, engagement can consist of meetings with legislators or relevant authorities, public consultations, partnerships with third-party organizations, and information-sharing commitments. A similar situation that may indicate successful collaboration is the development or maintenance of a culture of openness and transparency wherein collaborators are comfortable sharing best practices, challenges, and technical expertise. Such engagement, as well as broader consideration of collaboration between regulators and other stakeholders (e.g., the private sector, academia, and non-governmental organizations) is addressed in further detail in Stakeholder engagement.

Anatel again serves as an example of a regulator with high levels of sector engagement. In 2021, the regulator participated in more than 744 industry-related events, contributed to 14 public hearings, issued an open letter to Brazilian municipal authorities regarding telecom infrastructure, and engaged in five cooperative agreements with public agencies on spectrum-related matters. In Europe, the European Commission (EC) has ongoing relationships with consumer associations representing a wide range of issues and communities (EC 2024).

Output productivity

Collaborative bodies can produce a wide range of outputs intended to address challenges or gaps in regulatory frameworks. These can include working papers, independent research, submissions to consultations, and public resources. Additional outputs may include joint training, technical assessments, and nationwide projects. The number of outputs produced by collaborative bodies may serve as an indicator of the group’s overall success.

In Egypt, a 2021 meeting between the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research focused on the implementation of several joint projects (MCIT 2021). MCIT reported that the two ministries were engaged in 11 joint projects with a budget of nearly USD 300 million and that the ministries were in the process of expanding a digital universities program to include additional universities.

Singapore’s COPCOMER has been active for 10 years and has carried out several categories of regular activities over that period. These include an annual Regulators’ Tea to discuss recent and emerging competition or regulatory issues, half-day seminars for government agencies to share relevant experiences, and specialized training sessions to improve technical knowledge and skills (CCCS 2020).

Brazil’s ANATEL, through partnerships with various regulatory agencies, has demonstrated a high level of output productivity in recent years. As of 2021, ANATEL had collaborated on monitoring 1,803 legislative proposals, conducted various technical assessments with the Brazilian Agency for Industrial Development (ABDI), and promoted seminars jointly with the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) in addition to other initiatives.

While the quantity of outputs is one factor to consider when evaluating the success of collaborative regulatory efforts and should not be evaluated in isolation, it provides another angle from which to consider the success of collaborative governance approaches and activities.

Conclusion

The steps presented as examples for establishing intragovernmental collaboration, as well as high-level approaches to evaluating the success of such activities, are important tools for implementing collaborative and cooperative governance and regulatory approaches. While each country, regulatory framework, and combination of participants is unique, underlying principles such as ensuring regulatory clarity, supporting national development goals, and engaging with stakeholders are important considerations in all collaborative governance scenarios.

References

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). September 2011. Optimal conditions for effective self- and co-regulatory arrangements at https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Optimal%20conditions%20for%20self-%20and%20co-regulation%20Sep%202011%20pdf.pdf

ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority). 2011. Optimal conditions for effective self- and co-regulatory arrangements. https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Optimal%20conditions%20for%20self-%20and%20co-regulation%20Sep%202011%20pdf.pdf.

Anatel (Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações). Accessed August 2024. Participa Anatel. https://apps.anatel.gov.br/ParticipaAnatel/.

African Peering and Interconnection Forum (AfPIF). 2024. African Peering and Interconnection Forum (AfPIF) 2024. https://www.afpif.org/afpif2024/.

African Union. 2000. African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection. https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/29560-treaty-0048_-_african_union_convention_on_cyber_security_and_personal_data_protection_e.pdf

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2020a. Azerbaijan: Fostering Development of Local Tech Startups. https://www.adb.org/projects/53416-001/main.

ADB. 2020b. Pacific Telecommunications Modernization Project: Report and Recommendation of the President. https://www.adb.org/projects/documents/png-54204-001-rrp.

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). 2021. People Strategy 2021-2024 at https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/People%20strategy%202021-24.pdf.

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). 2021b. Memorandum of Understanding between the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Australian Space Agency at https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2021-07/plan/memorandum-understanding-australian-space-agency-and-acma.

Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). July 2023b. Basic principles for marketing directed at children online at https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/basic-principles-marketing-directed-children-online.

Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). Accessed June 2024. The Digital Regulation Cooperation Platform (SDT) at https://www.acm.nl/en/about-acm/cooperation/national-cooperation/digital-regulation-cooperation-platform-sdt.

Caribbean Community (CARICOM). 2020. Rules to provide for the protection of privacy and personal information to the satisfaction of the individual and or entity. https://caricom.org/wp-content/uploads/CCS-Data-Protection-and-Privacy-Rules-GC.pdf. Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU). ICT for Persons with Disabilities. Accessed June 2024. https://ctu.int/ict4wpd/.

Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC). 2021. The National Regulatory Committee holds its second meeting at https://www.citc.gov.sa/ar/mediacenter/pressreleases/Pages/2021040803.aspx.

Communications, Space, and Technology Commission (CST). Accessed December 2023. Background at https://www.cst.gov.sa/en/AboutUs/Pages/History.aspx.

Competition and Consumer Commission Singapore (CCCS). 2020. Community of Practice for Competition and Economic Regulations at https://www.cccs.gov.sg/approach-cccs/for-government-agencies/community-of-practice.

Communications Authority of Kenya (CA). 2020. National PKI at https://ke-cirt.go.ke/npki/.

CA (Communications Authority of Kenya). 2020. National PKI. https://ke-cirt.go.ke/npki/.

Competition Commission of South Africa. 2019. Memorandum of Agreement, the Competition Commission of South Africa and The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa at https://www.compcom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MOA-between-the-Competition-Commission-and-ICASA-signed-on-29-August-2019.pdf.

Council of Europe. 2018. Convention 108+. https://rm.coe.int/convention-108-convention-for-the-protection-of-individuals-with-regar/16808b36f1.

Council of Europe. 2001. Convention on Cybercrime. https://rm.coe.int/1680081561.

Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF). 2022. DRCF Terms of Reference (ToR) at https://www.drcf.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/258573/DRCF-Terms-of-Reference.pdf.

Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF). Accessed June 2024a. About the DRCF at https://www.drcf.org.uk/about-us.

Digital Cooperation Organization (DCO). 2024. Championed by Saudi Arabia, the DCO launches the first global GenAi Center of Excellence. https://dco.org/media/championed-by-saudi-arabia-the-dco-launches-the-first-global-genai-center-of-excellence/.

Donahue, John. 2004. On Collaborative Governance https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/programs/cri/files/workingpaper_2_donahue.pdf.

Electronic Communications, Postal and Print media distribution Regulatory Authority (Arcep). 2020. Convention entre le Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA) et l’Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques, des postes et de la distribution de la presse (ARCEP) https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/Convention-arcep-csa-020320.pdf.

Electronic Communications, Postal and Print media distribution Regulatory Authority (Arcep). 2020. Convention entre le Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA) et l’Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques, des postes et de la distribution de la presse (ARCEP) https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/Convention-arcep-csa-020320.pdf.

Electronic Communications, Postal and Print media distribution Regulatory Authority (Arcep). 2023. Le pôle numérique Arcep – Arcom at https://www.arcep.fr/la-regulation/grands-dossiers-thematiques-transverses/le-pole-numerique-arcep-arcom.html.

European Commission. Accessed in 2024. European and international consumer organizations https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/consumers/consumer-protection-policy/our-partners-consumer-issues/european-and-international-consumer-organisations_en.

European Commission. 2021. Recommendation on Relevant Markets. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/recommendation-relevant-markets.

European Commission. Accessed in 2024. European and international consumer organizations at https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/consumers/consumer-protection-policy/our-partners-consumer-issues/european-and-international-consumer-organisations_en.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2022. Chairwoman Rosenworcel Announces Plan to Modernize The FCC by Establishing a Space Bureau and Office Of International Affairs at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-388826A1.pdf.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2021. Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Federal Communications Commission and the Australian Communications and Media Authority on Mutual Assistance in the Enforcement of Laws on Certain Unlawful Communications. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-and-australia-collaborate-fight-robocalls-and-spoofing.

French Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology (INRIA). 2021. The regulation of digital platforms: French government takes the lead. https://www.inria.fr/en/regulation-digital-platforms-pere-regalia.

Global Network Initiative. Accessed August 2024. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2023. Evidence-Based Policymaking: Practices to Help Manage and Assess the Results of Federal Efforts https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105460.pdf.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2023. Government Performance Management: Leading Practices to Enhance Interagency Collaboration and Address Crosscutting Challenges at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105520.

Government of the Republic of South Africa. 2018. Cooperation in the Field of Information and Communications Technologies, https://treaties.dirco.gov.za/dbtw-wpd/images/20181031LesothoICT.pdf

Government of the United Kingdom. 2023. The Bletchley Declaration by Countries Attending the AI Safety Summit, 1-2 November 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/the-bletchley-declaration-by-countries-attending-the-ai-safety-summit-1-2-november-2023.

Government of Trinidad and Tobago. 2021. National Digital Inclusion Survey 2021. https://www.data.gov.tt/dataset/national-digital-inclusion-survey.

GSMA. 2018. Enabling Rural Coverage: Regulatory and policy recommendations to foster mobile broadband coverage in developing countries. https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/connectivity-for-good/mobile-for-development/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Enabling_Rural_Coverage_English_February_2018.pdf.

GSMA. Accessed August 2024. Government convening. https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/connectivity-for-good/government-convening/.

Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). 2002. Memorandum of Understanding on coordination of Telecommunications and Radiocommunication Services between Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and Lesotho Telecommuncations Authority (LTA). https://www.icasa.org.za/uploads/files/ICASA-and-Lesotho-Telecommunications-Authority-MOU-2002.pdf.

Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). 2015. Memorandum of Agreement Entered Into Between the National Consumer Commission and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa https://www.icasa.org.za/legislation-and-regulations/icasa-and-national-consumer-commission-moa.

Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). 2023. Annual Performance Plan 2023/24 at https://www.icasa.org.za/uploads/files/ICASA-FINAL-ANNUAL-PERFORMANCE-PLAN-2023-2024-FY-17.02.2023_230612_150042.pdf.

Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA). 2015. Memorandum of Agreement Entered Into Between the National Consumer Commission and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa at https://www.icasa.org.za/legislation-and-regulations/icasa-and-national-consumer-commission-moa.

Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED). 2021. General coordination agreement between Canada and the United States of America on the use of the radio frequency spectrum by terrestrial radiocommunication stations and earth stations. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/official-publications/legislation-regulations-and-treaties/terrestrial-radiocom-agreements-and-arrangements-traa/canada-united-states/general-coordination-agreement-between-canada-and-united-states-america-use.

Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada. 2022. CPC-2-0-03 — Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/learn-more/key-documents/procedures/client-procedures-circulars-cpc/cpc-2-0-03-radiocommunication-and-broadcasting-antenna-systems.

ITU. 2020. Digital Regulation Platform: Regulator structure and mandate at https://digitalregulation.org/regulator-structure-and-mandate/.

ITU. 2020. Cross-border collaboration in the digital environment. https://digitalregulation.org/cross-border-collaboration-in-the-digital-environment-2/.

ITU. Accessed 2023a. The five generations of regulation at https://app.gen5.digital/benchmark/concepts.

ITU. Accessed 2023b. Why do we need G5 collaborative regulation? Four fundamentals. at https://gen5.digital/explainers/why-do-we-need-g5-collaborative-regulation-four-fundamentals-2/.

ITU. Accessed 2023c. G5 collaborative regulation – Key to unlocking inclusive digital transformation, https://gen5.digital/explainers/g5-and-the-digital-transformation/.

ITU. 2023d. Global Digital Regulatory Outlook 2023 at https://www.itu.int/pub/D-PREF-BB.REG_OUT01-2023.

ITU. 2020. Digital Regulation Handbook Conference edition https://digitalregulation.org/wp-content/uploads/D-PREF-TRH.1-2-2020-PDF-E.pdf.

ITU. 2023a. Brazil country review: Regulation in the digital transformation https://digitalregulation.org/wp-content/uploads/D-PREF-THEM.31_Brazil-2023-PDF-E.pdf.

ITU. Accessed 2023b. The five generations of regulation https://app.gen5.digital/benchmark/concepts.

ITU. Accessed 2023c. Why do we need G5 collaborative regulation? Four fundamentals. https://gen5.digital/explainers/why-do-we-need-g5-collaborative-regulation-four-fundamentals-2/.

ITU. Accessed 2023d. G5 collaborative regulation – Key to unlocking inclusive digital transformation, https://gen5.digital/explainers/g5-and-the-digital-transformation/.

ITU. 2023e. Global Digital Regulatory Outlook 2023 https://www.itu.int/pub/D-PREF-BB.REG_OUT01-2023.

ITU (International Telecommunication Union). 2020. Collaborative approaches to policy implementation for digital transformation. https://digitalregulation.org/collaborative-approaches-to-policy-implementation-for-digital-transformation/.

ITU (International Telecommunication Union). 2021. Collaborative regulation case study: Republic of Moldova. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/GSR/2021/Documents/Publications/GSR-21_Dicussion-paper_Moldova_case%20study_final.pdf.

ITU (International Telecommunication Union). 2023a. Collaborative regulation for digital transformation in Kenya: A country review. https://digitalregulation.org/wp-content/uploads/D-PREF-THEM.32_Kenya-2023-PDF-E.pdf.

ITU (International Telecommunication Union). 2023b. A case for ICT Regulatory Sandbox. https://digitalregulation.org/a-case-for-ict-regulatory-sandbox/.

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). 2024a. Credit Expansion Program for Investments in Telecommunications Networks. https://www.iadb.org/en/project/BR-L1619.

IDB. 2024b. Program for the Development of El Salvador’s Data Infrastructure. https://www.iadb.org/en/project/ES-L1168.

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). 2023. Over 120 Events: ICANN’s North American Engagement Team Closes 2023 Strong. https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/over-120-events-icanns-north-american-engagement-team-closes-2023-strong-22-11-2023-en

Journal of Emerging Technologies. 2022. Self-regulation by the private industry and its effectiveness in today’s online environment. https://ndlsjet.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Wong_FINAL.pdf.

Labs of Latvia. 2023. Ukraine and Latvia sign Memorandum of Cooperation on digital connectivity at https://labsoflatvia.com/en/news/ukraine-and-latvia-sign-memorandum-of-cooperation-on-digital-connectivity.

Malaysia Government. 1998. Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Act at https://www.mcmc.gov.my/skmmgovmy/media/General/pdf/MCMC-ACT-1998.pdf.

Ministry of Communications and Information. 2024. 2024. MCI’s Survey Suggests Low Awareness among Parents on Child’s Online Gaming Activities. https://www.mddi.gov.sg/media-centre/press-releases/survey-on-childs-online-gaming-activities/.

Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT). 2021. Higher Education, ICT Ministers Follow up on Joint Projects https://mcit.gov.eg/en/Media_Center/Press_Room/Press_Releases/63385.

Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY). 2023. Three Grievance Appellate Committees (GACs) Notified on the recently amended “IT Rules 2021.” https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1894258.

MeitY. 2022. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/IT%20Rules%2C%202021%20with%20proposed%20amended%20texts%20in%20colour.pdf.

Ministry of Finance. 2008. Law No. 239-XVI of November 13, 2008 on transparent decision-making. https://mf.gov.md/en/content/transparent-decision-making.

New York Division of Local Government Services. 2008. Intergovernmental Cooperation at https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/01/intergovernmental-cooperation-with-sample.pdf.

Nkom. 2023. Auksjon av 2,6 GHz- og 3,6 GHz-båndene at https://nkom.no/frekvenser-og-elektronisk-utstyr/frekvensauksjoner/auksjon-av-2-6-ghz-og-3-6-ghz-bandene.

NTRA (National Telecom Regulatory Authority). 2020. Digital Services e-Portal. https://digital.tra.gov.eg/.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2012. Recommendation of the Council on Principles for Public Governance of Public-Private Partnerships. https://www.oecd.org/governance/budgeting/PPP-Recommendation.pdf.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2023a. Regulatory Sandboxes in Artificial Intelligence. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/8f80a0e6-en.pdf?expires=1702997555&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=CE7D099E64ECEFACE2C6CBE1F0CE64B3.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2020. Regulatory Impact Assessment https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-impact-assessment_7a9638cb-en.

Ofcom. 2022. Annual Report and Accounts 2021/22 at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/240727/annual-report-2021-22.pdf.

Ofcom. 2024. Ofcom’s Plan of Work 2024/25 at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/281630/Statement-Plan-of-Work-2024-25.pdf.

Pacific Alliance. 2025. Technical Group Digital Agenda. https://alianzapacifico.net/en/technical-group-digital-agenda/.

Pakistan Telecommunications Authority. 2023. Cyber Security Strategy for Telecom Sector 2023-2028 at https://pta.gov.pk/assets/media/cyber_security_strategy_telecom_sector_2023_2028_13-12-2023_1.pdf.

Royal Thai Embassy, Washington DC. 2023. Thailand unveils incentives for investing in smart cities at https://washingtondc.thaiembassy.org/en/content/thailand-unveils-incentives-for-investing-in-smart.

Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Agency (RURA). 2011. Guidelines for Siting and Sharing of Telecommunication Base Station Infrastructure. https://www.rura.rw/fileadmin/Documents/docs/GUIDELINES_FOR_SITING_AND_SHARING_OF_TELECOM_BTS_INFASTRUCTURE.pdf.

Rwanda Government. 2021. Law N° 006/2021 of 05/02/2021 on Investment Promotion and Facilitation at https://rdb.rw/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Investment-code-2021.pdf.

SAMENA Telecommunications Council (SAMENA). Accessed August 2024. Leaders’ Summit. https://www.samenacouncil.org/meetings?m=leaders-summit.

Singapore Government. 2022. Singapore’s Counter Ransomware Task Force Report https://www.csa.gov.sg/docs/default-source/publications/2022/counter-ransomware-task-force-report.pdf?sfvrsn=4fb257bb_1.

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). 2009. Energy, Transport, Science & Technology. https://www.saarc-sec.org/index.php/areas-of-cooperation/energy-transport-science-technology.

Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA). 2022. Organisation Structure at https://www.tcra.go.tz/uploads/documents/en-1716206463-TCRA%20Organisation%20Structure_English.pdf.

Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA). 2023. A new survey allays fears over communications towers safety. https://www.tcra.go.tz/uploads/documents/sw-1702305339-TCRA%20-%20The%20Regulator%20Magazine%20v7%20FINAL_tprevision.pdf.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). 1997. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/The_TRAI_Act_1997.pdf.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). 2024. Information Note to the Press (Press Release No. 25/2024) at https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PR_No.25of2024.pdf.

The White House. 2023. Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/. Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR). 2020. How NGOs Can Work With Governments to Build Partnerships That Will Scale. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_ngos_can_work_with_governments_to_build_partnerships_that_will_scale#.

The White House. 2023. FACT SHEET: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Secures Voluntary Commitments from Leading Artificial Intelligence Companies to Manage the Risks Posed by AI. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/21/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-secures-voluntary-commitments-from-leading-artificial-intelligence-companies-to-manage-the-risks-posed-by-ai/.

Voice of Nigeria. 2021. Nigeria, World Bank begin training on innovative business models at https://von.gov.ng/nigeria-world-bank-begin-training-on-innovative-business-models/.

UK National Archives. 1949. Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/54/contents/enacted.

United Nations (UN). 2021. Open-ended working group on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security. https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-report-A-AC.290-2021-CRP.2.pdf.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2024a. Using tech to empower communities in Ethiopia. https://www.undp.org/ethiopia/blog/using-tech-empower-communities-ethiopia.

UNDP. 2024b. UNDP and Mselen Partnership: Reaching the Unreached. https://www.undp.org/pacific/stories/undp-and-mselen-partnership-reaching-unreached.

United Nations Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Accessed August 2024a. E-commerce and the digital economy. https://unctad.org/topic/ecommerce-and-digital-economy.

UNCTAD. 2024b. Digital Economy Report 2024. https://unctad.org/publication/digital-economy-report-2024.

UN Economic Commission for Africa. 2019. ECCAS countries to prepare lists for continental trade in services under AfCFTA. https://archive.uneca.org/stories/eccas-countries-prepare-lists-continental-trade-services-under-afcfta.

United States Trade Representative. 2019. Agreement Between the United States of America and Japan Concerning Digital Trade. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/japan/Agreement_between_the_United_States_and_Japan_concerning_Digital_Trade.pdf.

World Bank Group. 2022. Guinea-Bissau – Digital Economy Diagnostic (English). https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099745006262216743/p177016084979202b08dd501a5690c82506.

World Bank Group. 2022. Regulation of Sectors and Regulatory issues Impacting PPPs. https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/regulation-sectors-and-regulatory-issues-impacting-ppps.

World Bank Group. 2021. Definition of Community of Practice at https://collaboration.worldbank.org/content/sites/collaboration-for-development/en/groups/communities4Dev/blogs.entry.html/2021/03/24/definition_of_communityofpractice-zmku.html.

World Trade Organization (WTO). 2005. Mexico — Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds204_e.htm.

WTO 2017. Joint Statement Initiative on E-commerce. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/joint_statement_e.htm.

WTO. 2024. Building trade capacity. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/build_tr_capa_e.htm.

World Trade Organization (WTO). 1997. The WTO Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres97_e/summary.htm

WTO 2017. Joint Statement Initiative on E-commerce. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/joint_statement_e.htm.

1. In the United States, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration manages spectrum used by federal government entities, while the FCC manages spectrum used by other entities. ↑
2. The Digital Hub was originally established between Arcep and an Arcom predecessor agency, the Superior Audiovisual Council (CSA). ↑