Overview of Week 2
During Week 2 I continued analyzing outcome documents from the regional preparatory meetings (RPMs) for the Fifteenth Crime Congress. At the same time, my supervisors asked me to monitor member‑state positions on the new United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, also called the Hanoi Convention. The General Assembly adopted the treaty in December 2024 and scheduled an official signing ceremony in Hanoi for 25–26 October 2025. I compiled speeches and submissions from the Ad Hoc Committee, created a tracking matrix of state preferences and summarized themes for GI‑TOC’s multilateral team.
What went well?
I completed the remaining RPM analyses ahead of schedule and produced an internal brief that highlighted where regional priorities align with GI‑TOC’s goals of strengthening civil‑society participation and addressing organised crime ecosystems. Additionally, The matrix on cybercrime negotiations helped colleagues quickly identify which countries prioritized human‑rights safeguards and which enabled surveillance powers. Producing this tool improved my ability to translate diplomatic texts' analysis into actionable insights.
What could have gone differently?
The volume of information on the cybercrime treaty was initially overwhelming. Countries’ statements were nuanced and sometimes contradictory; for example, while the UN press release celebrated the treaty as a universal framework, human‑rights groups warned that it extends far beyond cybercrime and lacks adequate safeguards for freedom of expression. I occasionally worried about misrepresenting positions so I would spend more time double checking to avoid asking questions. For this, I believe that in the future I will check in with supervisors to confirm that I am capturing the right nuances.
What did I learn about myself when working with others?
During this week, I started being less afraid about asking questions, which strengthened my humility and curiosity. For instance, instead of trying to master the entire treaty at once, I asked colleagues from the Multilateral Engagement team to explain the technical terms and legal mechanisms. Their willingness to guide me would show me that seeking clarification is a strength, not a weakness. By leaning into GI‑TOC’s and Laidlaw's value of being curious and brave, I produced a better product.
What did I learn about leadership?
Effective leadership involves synthesizing complex information and communicating it clearly while mindful of nuances. By practising concise reporting and sharing my matrix with the team, I contributed to informed decision‑making. I also began to see leadership as the ability to bridge perspectives as I understood that some states support the cybercrime convention because they see it as a collective achievement while others fear potential abuses. Recognizing these tensions helped me prepare GI‑TOC’s messaging for future negotiations.
What do I want to develop or focus on next?
Over the next week, I will continue refining the cybercrime matrix, and explore how regional positions intersect with GI‑TOC’s priorities. I am also beginning my collaboration with GI-TOC's Eurasia Observatory with preliminary tasks for the project.