UNESCO is an intergovernmental body, and at the same time it is also one that enjoys strong ties with non-state actors. This flows from the mandate of the organisation in covering education, science, culture and communication, which necessitates deep engagements and partnerships with diverse civil society groups and, where possible, with private sector actors as well.

This insight is key to understanding how it came about that UNESCO, as a multilateral institution, nevertheless adopted a position on the Internet in 2015 after an explicitly multistakeholder process.

That process was a consultative study, launched in November 2013 at the initiative of UNESCO Member States. The initiative responded to the call from some states for the Organisation to adopt an instrument on safeguarding privacy, in the wake of the Snowden revelations. A two-year research process, canvassing a very wide range of actors around the world and with 200 formal submissions, culminated in the multistakeholder “CONNECTing-the-dots” conference in 2015.^[1]

The outcome statement of the conference chartered a path between the idea of a UNESCO instrument on privacy and no action at all. It offered a midway option in the form of a powerful concept titled “Internet Universality”. Endorsed unanimously some months later by 195 states at the UNESCO General Conference, the concept has significant normative value in signalling a single Internet as well as an Internet for everyone. Such universality is seen as the combined effect of four key principles which are summarised under the memorable acronym of ROAM.^[2] These are: human Rights, Openness, Accessibility to all, and Multi-stakeholder participation

ROAM designates distinct but interdependent ideals that guide us as to how the Internet should be shaped, and it also serves as a prism for assessing change. The holistic thinking here is that having respect for Rights online, but lacking universal Access, is a recipe for exclusivity, rather than for inclusivity and universality. Conversely, Accessibility to an Internet that falls short in regard to rights, is not normatively desirable.

This kind of interdependence is to be further understood in terms of the uniqueness of the Internet in that this communications facility has come about through Openness – of technology, standards and markets. Hence, this principle is critical to sustaining the digital whole.

Lastly, the integrated package of Rights, Openness and Accessibility can, in the Internet Universality perspective, only be assured through participative governance – the M of ROAM. The foundation of the Internet in multistakeholder practice serves to draw in different interests and insights, at the same time as also fending off capture by any single dominant actor or single stakeholder sector.

The ROAM perspective is not exhaustive for the Internet. Indeed UNESCO’s 2018 indicators to assess ROAM at country-level, expand the notion into ROAM-X in order to reference several cross-cutting issues, such as economic issues and network security, which are also obviously important for shaping the Internet.^[3] Nevertheless, it can be affirmed that the UNESCO focus puts a finger on four key dimensions which no one should ignore. Indeed, ROAM is recognised in the report of the UN Secretary-General’s panel High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation^[4].

Further, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution (A/HRC/38/L.10/Rev.1 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, which references UNESCO’s process of developing Internet Universality indicators as a means to contribute to advancing online human rights and achieving Sustainable Development Goals.

With its background, ROAM now stands as an approach with substantial legitimacy. As such, it opens doors for dialogue between different, even opposing, entities. Further, as a framework with indicators for measurement, the world now has a handy instrument that carries the stamp of the UN. In this way, ROAM is a meaningful contribution to norms for shaping the Internet going ahead – including for the evolution of technologies like Artificial Intelligence which have grown within the interconnected global ecosystem.

The achievement represented in “ROAM” and its potential can be additionally unpacked in terms of the classic conceptualisation of Internet Governance which recognises the patchwork of “shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”.^[5]

Through its UNESCO status, the package of ROAM principles is directly relevant to elaborating the norms to underpin rules and decision-making. For example, the package points stakeholders to keep in mind human Rights implications in regard to digital developments, as well as to avoid treating these in isolation of Openness and Accessibility – and vice versa.

Internet governance includes the classic nuance that provides for involvement by “Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles”.^[6] There are indeed different roles for different stakeholders, but what the Multistakeholder insistence in ROAM highlights is the principle of shared interest in consultation about formulating of rules, procedures and programmes, as well as in implementation or evaluation processes at the operational level.

The M in ROAM reminds us that involvement by different interest groups produces well-informed decisions in a field that is characterised by enormous complexity, interdependence and unforeseen effects, as well as a reality where there is decision-making under uncertainty and ignorance.^[7] What this means, is that all stakeholders – and just state entities (eg. parliaments, regulators) – are seen to do well to practice multi-stakeholder governance. This principle applies also to companies in the formulation of their codes of conduct, academics in regard to their research ethics, technologists in their experiments, etc… .

How does Internet Universality thus become meaningful and have real impact? At global level, UNESCO is promoting the concept and its indicators widely, including in their relevance to the subject of ethics and artificial intelligence.

At country level, actors in 11 countries in 2019 are already applying the ROAM-X indicators in order to diagnose the health of the Internet as experienced in their national space. Research based on these indicators, guided by a Multistakeholder Advisory Board, will culminate in recommendations for improvement and related dialogues. The resulting momentum is expected to improve the Internet for everyone in the country.

In such a way, this type of digital co-operation at national level could in some cases even lead to institutionalised or constitutionalised governance modalities. And the national engagement with ROAM can in turn feed into enriching the character of various distributed global processes that are grappling with digital problems and opportunities.

If indeed, the Internet is to help amplify progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, UNESCO Internet Universality offering merits increased attention going forward.

This chapter is written as part of the author’s work as Director for Freedom of Expression and Media Development, UNESCO. However, the ideas and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.

^[1] See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/internetstudy

^[2] See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/crosscutting-priorities/unesco-internet-study/internet-universality/

^[3] See https://en.unesco.org/themes/internet-universality-indicators

^[4] See https://www.un.org/en/digital-cooperation-panel/

^[5] See https://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf

^[6] See https://publicadministration.un.org/en/internetgovernance

^[7] See Van der Spuy, A. 2018: What if we all governed the Internet? Paris, UNESCO.