Internet Universality Indicators: UNESCO’s Daunting Challenge

How can one establish indicators for the Internet and make them universal when governments can’t agree on how much freedom and access their citizens should have online, and, whether doing so is a human right.

A daunting task UNESCO has been undertaking in a bid to produce a document member states will approve after which comes the equally formidable mission of implementing what’s been agreed upon.

I was privileged to pitch in after receiving the second of two drafts that came up for discussion at an invitation-only roundtable, and open follow-up session, at the annual International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Italy this month.

Defining Internet Universality Indicators (Abu-Fadil)

Here’s part of what I got before embarking on this challenge:

UNESCO, the UN agency with primary responsibility for media freedom and journalists’ safety, is consulting worldwide on what’s worth counting when assessing the Internet. The final ‘indicators’ will form an international standard for mapping national experiences – and for identifying where there are shortfalls. But where do journalism and the news media fit in within UNESCO’s paradigm called “Internet Universality”? UNESCO uses the acronym ROAM to identify the key principles of Internet Universality. R for Rights, O for Openness, A for accessibility and M for Multistakeholder participation in Internet governance. In terms of R(ights), how should assessments consider press freedom, journalists’ digital safety, and confidentiality of journalists’ sources and investigations? What indicators relevant to journalism come under O(penness) – encompassing open and transparent standards, markets and content? In regard to A(ccessibility), to what extent can news literacy and access to the Internet for researching and publishing journalism be included as issues worthy of attention? And, for (M)ultistakeholder participation in Internet governance issues, how significant is it to assess processes as to whether journalists are actively involved? 

As with any UN agency, UNESCO has to deal with members whose interests and priorities often diverge.

The 38-page second draft followed the first consultation phase from March to October 2017. The initial phase included 24 consultation meetings in 21 countries with 165 online contributions.

The second phase kicked in from December 2017 to March 2018, with a final report to be submitted to UNESCO at the end of this month for consideration in September.

Julie Posetti, senior research fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) at Oxford University, led the roundtable that grouped Dr. Alexandra Borchardt (RISJ), Prof. Jeff Jarvis from City University in New York, and Prof. Chris Anderson of Leeds University as the other three speakers assigned to provide key input.

Julie Posetti, senior research fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford University (Abu-Fadil)

Sixteen other international experts shared invaluable comments and insights at that gathering.

A suggested tweak of the draft indicators was that they cover whether a country’s laws had “institutional carve-outs” for journalism on matters like data protection and confidentiality of communications.

There were detailed questions that required heavy-duty research as well as requests for additional themes, questions or indicators to include in the framework.

I was tasked with preparing input on the Internet’s accessibility to all.

That meant examining the policy, legal and regulatory framework; connectivity and usage; affordability; equitable access; local content and language; and, capabilities/competencies.

I raised several issues confounding Internet users in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab World for consideration when hammering out that final document ahead of the road-testing phase.

Here’s a summary of my talking points:

On January 4, 2012, Vinton G. Cerf, considered the father of the Internet, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Internet Access is Not a Human Right.”

FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously.

It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters… But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right.

Cerf concluded:

Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right.

Fast forward to 2018.

In countries experiencing conflicts or with crackdowns on press freedom, access to the Internet can be a matter of life or death. Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon to a certain extent, are prime examples.

A Jordanian friend who founded and runs a hard-hitting media advocacy group told me his government had shut down his organization claiming it didn’t have the proper license – which isn’t true.

He registered a monitoring branch of his NGO in the Netherlands, while operating in Amman, to guarantee unfettered access to the Internet.

Lebanon has toyed with requiring “online news organizations” to be licensed, an idea that was summarily shot down given its implications not just on access to and by the public, but on freedom of expression for journalists and other content producers.

A major problem in many countries is that those who seek to curtail access to the Internet in one form or another, are frequently the most clueless about how it functions.

With few exceptions, geriatric Lebanese legislators serving sectarian, political, security and economic interests (sometimes all combined) have been messing around with proposals to hamper Internet use as if it were an easily defined story with a beginning, middle, and an end.

So I asked:

How can UNESCO ensure the implementation of good governance and accessibility to the Internet by governments that may be signatories to treaties and agreements promoting press freedom, human rights and democracy, when they clearly violate those norms and goals?

How can Internet users aspire to Internet freedom and access when countries run by dictators or dysfunctional governments buy hardware and software from so-called democratic states promoting press freedom and democratic values to block access to the Internet and/or monitor citizens’ use of social media, emails, and browsing habits?

There are countless examples of companies, backed by their respective governments, that provide these restrictive snooping services to willing states, and they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

Then I turned to another obstacle based on this indicator from the draft:

“Proportion of population covered by electricity supply. The principal sources proposed for this indicator is the World Bank’s Sustainable Energy for All database.”

This and who controls the Internet in Lebanon, for example, is a key to access, or the lack thereof.

Lebanon suffers from chronic power cuts, with government power supply supplemented by private generators operated by mafias in every neighborhood.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs), for their part, rely on supply from a quasi-governmental organization that is the epitome of corruption and mismanagement.

When government electricity is cut and the generators kick in, the Internet slows to a crawl outside the capital Beirut, which is also affected, but not as badly.

The upshot: Lebanese Internet users pay among the highest rates in the world for very poor and slow service, thereby adversely affecting access, freedom, commerce and banking, to name a few.

So we’ve definitely got our work cut out for us. Stay tuned.