“Throughout the 1990s the terms new media and digital culture were commonly used phrases to describe several technological, social, and political developments during the period. A major consumer change during this decade was the growth in technologies available to individual consumers, the personal computer being the most influential and common of them all. The popularity of the personal computer as a consumer item in households was partly a result of the growth of the Internet beginning in the early 1990s.

While the Internet was praised as a technological revolution at the end of the millennium, its origins can be dated back to the Cold War era. As tensions escalated between the United States and the former USSR after World War II, the U.S. Department of Defense put a great deal of effort into creating a communications network that would outlive a possible nuclear war. In the 1960s this research became known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency. Over the next several years the developing network of linked computers became useful for educational institutions but maintained its strong connection to military explorations. Yet the growing technology did not serve the commercial function that would define it by the 1990s. Continued technological developments and the growth of the computer workstation in the 1980s provided an environment for the Internet to become more sophisticated and influential. Many date the Internet revolution, as it became known to the general public, to 1994.

Part of the impact of the Internet is its reliance on innovations in digital technology. Digital technology is different from previous analog technology in how information is processed, stored, and displayed. Digital technology processes information as binary code, that is, zeros and ones. The information can be recalled at any point and reproduced in identical replicas. With analog technology, information is carried through varying frequency to carrier waves. Reproductions through analog technology degrade with each generation of copying. This is why a second- generation videotape is of lower quality than a first-generation tape. Thus, the digital technology's breakthrough is in recording, reproducing, and disseminating identical information to limitless numbers of people.

By the late 1990s the promises of the Internet and digital technology had reached a global scale. In fact, the world was often referred to as a global village where human communication between people in the remotest parts of the planet could happen with ease. Advertisements from technology companies, such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Compaq, and Microsoft, showed a multiracial, harmonious world brought together by advances in technology. This period is known as the digital boom. A large number of what were known as start-up high technologies developed in a short period of time. Many employees involved in these companies became extremely rich during the late 1990s, but a large percentage lost their wealth when the digital economy collapsed at the turn of the millennium. For the most part blacks and Latinos did not benefit financially from this economic trend, as their numbers were extremely low on the payroll of high-technology companies.” (New Media and Digital Culture, 2021)2

Additional information on subject, as well as a timeline of digitization, can be retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress3

2 "New Media and Digital Culture." Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History. Encyclopedia.com. (accessed January 17, 2023). https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs- transcripts-and-maps/new-media-and-digital-culture

3 Gil Press, “A Very Short History of Digitization,” Forbes (Forbes Magazine, January 11, 2016). https://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2015/12/27/a-very-short-history-of-digitization/?sh=41c7d05749ac

Cyberspace encompasses technological, social, cultural, economic, and legal facets. The existing regulatory framework is composed of different national laws, manifold self-regulatory guidelines and a number of multilateral treaties that have relevance in varying degrees. In this fluid and distributed arena, the evolution of applicable overall principles can play a valuable role.

Discussions on this subject are variously described under the broad label of ‘Internet Governance’, applied as an inclusive reference for the ongoing set of disputes and deliberations over how the Internet is used, coordinated, managed and shaped4.

From the World Summit on the Information Society, the following definition emerged: ‘...Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet’5.

The concept of Is concept summarizes the significance of relevant principles that have been agreed in various decisions by the UNESCO Member States. In particular, ‘Internet Universality’ is constituted by four key principles: Rights, Openness, Accessibility, and Multistakeholder Participation (summarized in the acronym R.O.A.M)6. How these articulate to the numerous relevant statements by other actors is analysed throughout the pages that follow.

The roots of the research presented in this current publication lie in UNESCO’s fulfillment of Resolution 52 of its 37th General Conference in November 2013, as agreed by the Organization’s 195 Member States. This resolution called for a comprehensive and consultative multistakeholder study, within the mandate of UNESCO, on Internet-related issues of access to information and knowledge, freedom of expression, privacy, and the ethical dimensions of the Information Society.

The methodology of such a wide-ranging study included consultative meetings with Member States and other actors, where it was motivated that UNESCO’s research should be located within an analysis of the wider picture of existing statements about the Internet, so as to avoid duplication or mission-creep. As a result this publication was commissioned as a feeder document for the wider study, and it also stands alone as a review of more than 50 statements that are pertinent to many of the issues within Internet Governance.

This research is referenced within the wider study, providing context which informs the particular niche and value-add for UNESCO’s possible future options on Internet-related issues within its mandate7.

Against this backdrop, some observations can be made about the overall field of Internet Governance within which numerous positions have been expressed. Five major features of global Internet Governance have been identified by scholars, all of which are potentially impacted upon by overarching principles:

1. Arrangements of technical architecture as arrangements of power: Internet protocols and standards are also political in both their design and effects; therefore, Internet Governance decisions involve both scientific reasoning and social considerations of power and authority, including policies about how the technical architectures are used to regulate and control content. This architecture relates to the principle of “Openness” in the “Internet Universality” concept and is particularly relevant to issues such as open standards, open access/architecture, open knowledge resources, and open innovation, as well as relevant to issues around entry barriers (whether state imposed or privately enforced).

2. Internet infrastructure as proxy for content control: Internet policies such as deep packet inspection are being used for content mediation functions for which they were not originally designed. Such applications of political and economic power raise questions of democratic mandate and oversight. Furthermore, the same technologies that improve citizen information diffusion are applied by many actors to filter and censor information as well as creating systems of surveillance. These approaches impact on the exercise of human rights (such as the freedom of expression and privacy) as well as the net neutrality principle as part of “Openness” which are substantive pillars of UNESCO’s “Universality Concept”.

3. Public-private issues in Internet Governance: Important Internet Governance mechanisms such as the domain name system are mainly governed and shaped by private sector and technical actors (also called “privatization”). The assumption of functions for the public good by these actors has in the past contributed to the success of new technological networks. At the same time, there are debates about the appropriate role of other actors (eg. states, interstate organisations, civil society, academia, etc). The fourth pillar of UNESCO’s “Universality Concept” refers to multistakeholder participation, which entails a wide spread of participatory decision-making while allowing that different formulae may be appropriate for different issues.

4. Internet control points as sites of global conflict over competing values: Control points on the Internet include amongst others Critical Internet Resources (like Internet addresses), protocols and interconnection regimes. Besides how these issues implicate human rights, there is also the question as to users’ ability to participate in issues of values and ethics on the Internet. In turn, this depends on Internet access as a social dimension. These elements are foreseen in the third pillar of the “Internet Universality” concept, which highlights universal access, multilingualism, quality of content, user empowerment and ethical considerations.

5. Regional geopolitics versus collective action problems of Internet globalization: Notwithstanding the internationalization of many activities, it cannot be overlooked that global Internet stability is also dependent on local Internet conditions since local oversight and local infrastructure bottlenecks can serve as “obligatory passage points” for international traffic. National and regional initiatives addressing geopolitical strategies need to be balanced against global collective actions in regard to the impact on the transnational Internet. These political influences are not directly addressed in the “Universality Concept” but are partly reflected in the issue of “Rights”, for example in cultural diversity (which also accords with “Openness” in the sense of diverse interpretations that nevertheless remain consistent with the broad framework of human rights)8.

For UNESCO’s activities that impact on Internet policies, and vice versa, additional research on Internet Governance principles (declarations, normative frameworks and accountability measures) is of relevance; therefore, this comprehensive study attempts to achieve the following objectives9:

• to provide a comprehensive review of the core principles in key initiatives on Internet Governance principles which have been developed and adopted by various stakeholders, identifying areas of similarities, overlaps, consensus, differences and disagreements, thereby using comparative indicators; these initiatives should be of relevance to the four fields of UNESCO’s Internet Study (UNESCO 2015), i.e. (i) access to information and knowledge, (ii) freedom of expression, (iii) privacy and (iv) ethical dimensions of the information society; they should also be of relevance to UNESCO priorities and themes, and to UNESCO's five programme areas;

• to put these texts into the historical, political, economic and social context, and to analyze the extent to which various declarations have been used as normative instruments, with reference to related accountability mechanisms and indicators;

• to analyze the compatibility and completeness of existing documents with respect to UNESCO's mandate and positions, as encompassed by the draft concept of "Internet Universality" (IU) and the R.O.A.M. framework (meaning four principles of IU: Human Rights based, Openness, Accessible for all and Multistakeholder participation), and to identify any gaps;

• to provide elements for a user-friendly online resource web page to Member States, civil society, the private sector, technical community and individuals with open access to the documents and data visualization;

• to clarify elements that are relevant to UNESCO actions, for consideration by Member States, based on a thorough understanding of existing declarations, frameworks and accountability mechanisms.

In pursuit of these objectives and in concretizing the general foundation of the research work, the key questions of the following study can be phrased as follows:

• What has been developed and adopted by stakeholders as regards international and regional declarations, guidelines, frameworks, and accountability mechanisms related to one or more fields of the UNESCO study?

• What were the historical, political, economic, and social contexts that led to the documents’ creation and have the documents been used as normative instruments by the stakeholders?

• In particular, what specific options concerning Internet principles might UNESCO Member States consider, including their relevance for the Organization's Global Priorities of Africa and Gender Equality, shaping the post-2015 development agenda, supporting the goals of Small Island Developing States and taking forward the Decade for the Rapprochement of Cultures?

• Is there a gap that needs to be filled to cover the areas under UNESCO's mandate?

• How does UNESCO's draft concept of “Internet Universality” compare with the existing declarations and frameworks? How could the concept be measured and applied?

In terms of limitations, the following study did not collect all available Internet Governance principles documents but focused on those with an acceptable degree of finalization and with a view to assessing substantive gaps rather than mapping each and every statement. The main focus throughout is to put attention on foundational Internet Governance principles even if more extensive wording or even documents would be available. For example, the study analyzes the 10 principles of the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition (IRPC) not the full Charter even if some of its 21 Articles are relevant for this survey. At the same time, the online resource that accompanies this study does provide a more extensive mapping, which is a knowledge resource that can complement the sample of materials analyzed here. Further, it is acknowledged that not all documents that mention a given concept apply exactly the same meaning to it. However, as an indicative process, the review in this study is still able to generate insight into the patterns of convergences, divergences and gaps. The study analyzes its selection of documents with a methodology of specific indicators designed in relation to the “Internet Universality” concept. The applied research encompasses a quantitative and a qualitative assessment: On the one hand, the existing declarations, guidelines, and frameworks are listed, and the contents are quantitatively linked to the relevant UNESCO objectives; on the other hand, the issues contained in these documents are qualitatively analyzed.

This study is much more than a rough comparison of the sampled documents, but it is also not as deep as being based on a discourse analysis of the underlying semantics of each document. The treatment, however, is intended to be fit for the purpose of identifying trends at a broader level.” (Principles for governing the internet, 2015)10

4 “The Digital Deciders,” New America, accessed January 16, 2023, https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity- initiative/reports/digital-deciders/internet-governance-and-todays-context/.

5 Weber, Rolf H. “Principles for governing the Internet: a comparative analysis.” (2015).

6 “Roam-X Indicators,” UNESCO, September 1, 2021, https://en.unesco.org/internet-universality-indicators/roamx- indicators.

7 Weber 2015.

8 Weber, Rolf H. “Principles for governing the Internet: a comparative analysis.” (2015).

9 Weber, Rolf H. “Principles for governing the Internet: a comparative analysis.” (2015).

10 Weber, Rolf H. “Principles for governing the Internet: a comparative analysis.” (2015).

“Digital technologies are electronic tools, systems, devices and resources that generate, store or process data. Well known examples include social media, online games, multimedia and mobile phones. Digital learning is any type of learning that uses technology.” (Teach with digital technologies , 2019)11

“According to César Coll, it is necessary to redefine the concept of innovative school – which to date was based around promoting the learning of technology (of ICTs) with the aim of training children in the use of tools and strategies for the processing and transmission of information – in such a way that the focus is on the use of technologies for learning with technology. Therefore, it is a case of converting ICTs into Learning and Knowledge Technologies (LKTs), which can be understood as a view of ICTs from the school. In other words, putting technologies at the service of an improvement in teaching-learning processes, of evaluation and organization as well as of upgrading within a context of constant change.” (Coromina, 2018)12

11 “Teach with Digital Technologies,” Department of Education and Training Victoria, accessed January 16, 2023, https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/digital/Pages/teach.aspx

12 Júlia Coromina, “Learning and Teaching with Digital Technologies,” CCCB LAB (CCCB Lab, February 7, 2019), https://lab.cccb.org/en/learning-and-teaching-with-digital-technologies/