Defining

Indicators of Internet Development

UNESCO Background Paper [DRAFT]

March 2014 Andrew Puddephatt, with Carolina Rossini & Rebecca Zausmer

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2

The purpose of this background paper 3

Normative basis for internet indicators 5

The ROAM framework 7

2. Methodology 9

Observations on indicator methodologies 13

Observations on selected existing indices 13

Conclusions on existing indices 20

3. Draft Indicators and recommended categories 24

4. Internet Development Indicators Timeline 37

5. Conclusion 39

2

1. Introduction The internet is rapidly emerging as one of the main channels for global communication. It offers unprecedented possibilities to communicate, to share information and ideas, to collaborate, organise and generate content. UNESCO is the United Nations agency with a specific mandate to promote ‘the free flow of ideas by word and image’, and works to foster free, independent and pluralistic media in print, broadcast and online. In recent years UNESCO has been examining the impact of the internet on its mandate and has sponsored several initiatives to explore the field. In 2006 UNESCO’s IPDC Intergovernmental Council launched a two-year consultation to identify a set of indicators aimed at covering all aspects of media development. The resulting indicators were endorsed by the Council at its subsequent session in 2008 as an ‘important diagnostic tool for all stakeholders to assess media development in a given country and to thereby determine the areas in which assistance is most needed’. The Council adopted a Decision inviting the IPDC Bureau and other stakeholders working in the area of media development to take the Media Development Indicators into account when determining, in tandem with national authorities, communication development strategies within the overall context of national development. Since 2008, the MDIs have been used in over 30 countries and have been recognised by major actors in the media development field, including UNDP, the World Bank, the Council of Europe (see Resolution 1636, 2008) and the International Federation of Journalists. Given the importance of the internet to communication UNESCO in Latin America, in collaboration with the Brazilian Network Information Centre (NIC.br) and the Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC) have commissioned a study to identify suitable categories of indicators for internet development that could form the basis of a new phase of consultation, prior to them being presented for adoption to UNESCO itself. Following the approach in the first study, this involves analysing existing indicators to understand the current methodologies employed before identifying areas of consensus on which draft indicators can be based. One important proviso needs to be made. Whereas the development of the media indicators came on the back of more than a decade and a half of international debate about the appropriate media environment that could guarantee democracy, human rights and development, the internet is still an emerging field of study. The rapid pace of technical development, the fast changing commercial environment and the uneven response by governments around the world means that there is no obvious consensus on which to base a

3

set of indicators. The physical environment itself, the applications that rest upon it and the social interactions which take place, all change so rapidly that any structure of indicators needs to be able to stand up to careful scrutiny and development. Nevertheless there is great value in defining a set of indicators that can assess internet development. The pace of change means that many public policy makers struggle to keep up with latest developments in the field. Internet policy has been a relatively specialised area dominated by technical experts so that the wider social dimension remains comparatively little understood. In the absence of agreement at the global level, different countries are evolving very different systems of national internet regulation without necessarily understanding the implications for a global system of communications. For all of these reasons, a set of indicators that can provide a clear roadmap for governments seeking to develop a comprehensive policy framework will be of immense value to UNESCO member states. They can provide a structured approach to a comprehensive range of internet policy issues from the technical to the social, ensuring that the approach adopted is consistent with accepted international standards. Lack of consensus also means that the consultation phase about the indicators will need to be a genuine exercise in collaborative redrafting to find agreement of areas that are subject to internet debates and conflicts between governments, businesses and civil society. One immediate problem is the normative principles on which internet indicators could be based. The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression has argued that human rights online are the same as those offline – a position endorsed by the United Nation’s Human Rights Council in 20121. But how to apply human rights to an environment where the physical infrastructure can be as influential on the protection of rights as what happens at the level of content generation and exchange is not straightforward and much of the literature that deals with this is inevitably at an early stage2. The internet is often conceived of as being organised in different layers – infrastructure, applications, content and the social layer (covering those aspects of the internet which reflect social interactions such as peer-to-peer organisation and mobilisation). It should be emphasised that these are purely conceptual categories designed to make analysis simple.

The purpose of this background paper Within this context, this background paper has been prepared in order to support the launch of a broad consultation – as portrayed in the timeline defined later in this document – to define

1 Human Rights Council Resolution, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, A/HRC/20/L.13,29 June 2012. 2 Ben Wagner paper for European parliament.

4

indicators of internet development that reflect the realities of the internet and its various layers, which comply with the Human Rights Council Resolution dealing with rights online and which is consistent with the norms recently established by UNESCO. (These are set out in a new paper elaborating the concept of Internet Universality which is explored in detail at the end of this section). The paper maps the main existing indicator systems and their methodologies. It reviews them for relevance to the priorities set out by the Human Rights Council and by UNESCO. It focuses on those initiatives which are concerned with measurable indicators, whether qualitative or quantitative. Alongside specific initiatives designed to develop indicators it includes indicators extracted from frameworks developed in the context of the mandates of the OECD (specifically around access) and reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and reports of the OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression both of whom seek to promote and protect freedom of opinion and expression online. Based on this mapping exercise, the paper proposes an outline and further development of internet indicators based on the different layers of the internet. For each of these layers a set of high level indicators are proposed each of which is sub-divided in principal indicators. In due course, during the process of consultation, it is expected that these will be refined and developed and broken down into detailed indicators each of which will have a means of verification and suggested data sources. As with the media indicators the paper proposes that there are generic considerations in selecting internet development indicators. These include: using quantitative or independently verifiable measurements whenever possible

(particularly important when it comes to assessing the extent of internet penetration and accessibility);

choosing indicators where measurement data is sufficiently reliable in quality to permit confident decision-making;

being able to disaggregate indicators by gender, income, level of education and other population characteristics whenever possible;

ensuring that indicators are adequately separated out so as to address one issue at a time, permitting proper assessment and analysis;

bearing in mind practical implications of cost and time for collecting data for measurement purposes, bearing in mind constraints imposed by a fast changing field.

5

Again, as with the Media Development Indicators3, this paper proposes that indicators are based on a toolkit approach4 rather than seek to make longitudinal or comparative judgements which means that in due course, this approach can: offer a wide and comprehensive range of indicators and a methodological framework from

which selections can be made according to the requirements of a particular programme, policy or intervention;

if necessary offer guidance as to how the selection can be made; recognise that indicators and methodologies applied must be sensitive to national contexts

and be capable of being applied by local expertise. Finally, this background paper sets the timeline for the second phase of the project which will be focused on stakeholder consultation and further development of the indicators.

Normative basis for internet indicators The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and promotion of human rights. It is a transformative communication technology that enables peer-to-peer generation and exchange of content, and an enhanced degree of social organisation. It has been used to great effect by human rights activists around the world but it has also exposed many to a greater degree of surveillance and control. It is striking that until 2011, the international human rights movement was almost silent on how human rights should apply online. There is now a broad consensus that the human rights system that applies offline should apply online. However, to really understand and shape the human rights environment online it is necessary to go beyond looking at the content it carries and the controls which are applied to that content – we need to understand the technical design of the internet and how it is shaped by commercial forces. The notion of human rights based infrastructure should also lie at the heart of any proposed changes to internet governance – it should be the goal around which the realisation of a constitutional moment for the internet should be formulated. 3 Available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/publications-and-communication-materials/publications/full-list/media-development-indicators-a-framework-for-assessing-media-development/. 4 A further description in the background paper available at http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/ipdc51_bureau_media_development_indicators_background_paper.pdf.

6

In recent years, many efforts to draft human rights-based principles for the internet have emerged, including, but not limited to, the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition Charter, the Council of Europe Internet Governance Declaration, the OECD Internet Policymaking Principles and the Association of Progressive Communications Internet Rights Charter. These efforts have provided a significant contribution to normative thinking about the internet. However, some have been criticised for lack of detail and clarity on how human rights principles apply to the internet in practice, and the kind of technical infrastructure that would be desirable from the human rights perspective. UNESCO has emphasised the fundamental importance of safeguarding the openness of the internet as its historical characteristic and strength. For UNESCO the internet is a major opportunity to improve free flow of information and ideas throughout the world. Internet governance mechanisms, policies and regulations should be based on the principle of ‘openness’, encompassing interoperability, freedom of expression and measures to resist any attempt to censor content or block access. There should be a free flow of information and ideas. The internet should be accessible to citizens with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. In considering developing indicators, the internet should be understood as more than its physical and protocol layers: it is a sphere of creativity, social relationships, commerce, with policies and norms developing around its infrastructure. The internet is a global environment and decisions made on a sovereign basis in one region may affect users elsewhere throughout the world’s internet ecosystem5. The actions of international bodies and governments have begun to take digital networks into consideration as central drivers of change, and to embed policies that shape the evolution of the internet into areas like trade, human rights, and the functions of democracy. Increasingly, governments are seeking to extend national sovereignty over the internet and the impact of major market players is becoming more marked. Currently, debates about the values that should shape the development of the internet are fiercely debated – the revelations about the extent of state surveillance, increasing attempts by governments to ‘nationalise’ the internet. Arguments about which forum, if any, should have authority over the internet, are increasing in intensity. All this means that there is no international consensus on the normative framework within which indicators could be developed. With this challenge in mind, UNESCO launched the concept of ‘Internet Universality’

5 Bertrand de La Chapelle, Multistakeholder Governance - Principles and Challenges of an Innovative Political Paradigm, in MIND #2: INTERNET POLICY MAKING, Wolfgang Kleinwächter (ed.), Berlin 2011, available at http://www.collaboratory.de/w/MIND_2_-_Internet_Policy_Making.

7

as part of the efforts around the WSIS+10 review6, in recognition of the potential for digital communications to contribute to peace, sustainable development, and the eradication of poverty. For UNESCO, the notion of ‘Internet Universality’ seeks to explore the growing importance of the internet in human affairs. ‘Universality’, by this thinking requires an internet with the following four characteristics:

(i) a ‘rights based’ or ‘free’ internet, (ii) an ‘open’ internet, (iii) an internet that is ‘accessible to all’, and (iv) policy making that allows ‘multistakeholder’ participation.

These criteria are set out in framework, summarised as ROAM which is examined in more detail below. UNESCO argues that the case for Internet Universality is as follows:

‘In terms of global debates, the concept of ‘Internet Universality’ can be explored as a neutral, consolidated and comprehensive framework which on one hand highlights the freedom and human rights principles as shared by those existing notions such as ‘Internet freedom’, and on the other hand, also provides an umbrella to holistically address the intertwined issues between access and use, technical and economic openness. In addition, the concept also encompasses multi-stakeholder engagement as an integral component. In this way, the ‘Internet Universality’ concept can also be a unifying, bridging and foresighted framework for dialogue between North and South and among different stakeholders. As such, it could make a unique contribution to shaping global Internet governance discourse and the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda.’ (UNESCO, 2013)7

The ROAM framework The ROAM8 framework seeks to define a set of values that potentially apply across aspects of the internet – all the social and technical internet layers. A rights based internet implies an

6 For more details on the WSIS+10 review see: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/flagship-project-activities/unesco-and-wsis/wsis-10-review-meeting/ and http://www.wsis-ommunity.org/pg/groups/15325/wsis10-review-towards-knowledge-societies-for-peace-and-sustainable-development/. 7 Available at http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/news/internet_universality_02.pdf, accessed in February, 2014. 8 http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/news/internet_universality_02.pdf, p.7-10.

8

internet that is engineered to promote human rights protection, where the commercial environment supports human rights, and where the content has the same human rights protections as rights offline. An open internet implies an internet that is easy to join, with an adaptive policy framework that supports what Vint Cerf called ‘permissionless innovation’. It also implies technical standards that are open to review and development, and where interoperability and open application interfaces are common. It assumes there is ease of entry of actors into the internet market without exclusionary licensing regimes or protectionist limitation on the provision of services that artificially favour monopolies or archaic technological platforms. Openness also implies the importance of opening up information sources through open data government transparency and innovation, and open educational resources. An accessible internet implies some requirements for levels of internet penetration, accessibility and usability, though in the current dynamic state of development it is difficult to define global norms. It will mean addressing issues such as the digital divide and ICT skills, whether based upon income, urban-rural and regional inequalities, gender, minority status or disability. It will mean highlighting the importance of norms of universal access to minimum levels of connectivity infrastructure and capacity of devices. Accessibility also implies the need to address social exclusion from the internet (for example on grounds of literacy, language, gender, or disability). An accessible internet will also be one where users have adequate competencies and skills. From a business point of view, sustainable business models must exist capable of financing universal access and be able to sustain a diverse range of content and services. Multistakeholder engagement should facilitate new forms of participatory democracy to include voices additional to these who are traditionally powerful (so as to represent different sectors and different social and economic groups). Multistakeholder processes should provide guidance for decision-making processes around core values, related policies, and laws. The ROAM concept is one that sits across all the layers of the internet and applies in different ways to each of the layers.

9

2. Methodology In order to arrive at a set of indicators it is necessary to map the main existing initiatives that address, in various contrasting ways, indicators of internet development. An analysis of such initiatives, summarised in an annex attached to this paper, shows that there a wider range of approaches being adopted, most of them measuring different aspects of internet development, making exact comparisons complex. The indicators have a variety of purposes, shaped by different institutional motivations, geared to purposes such as lobbying, policy guidance and accreditation. Understandably, given the field, they rely heavily on qualitative assessments. They prioritise different issues or sectors, some focusing on government regulation, some on business, some on censorship and some a composite of different characteristics. In total the analysis looks at 16 indicator sets which can be categorised as follows. There are indicators which are publicly available and free to use – which mainly provide quantitative data – such as: ITU indicators9 OECD indicators10 CGI.Br CETIC.Br census indicators11

Indexes and rankings on digital rights and other internet governance quantitative and qualitative criteria of countries include: The Web Index by the World Wide Web Foundation12 Freedom on the Net 2013 by Freedom House13 Affordability Report 2013 of the Alliance for an Affordable Internet14 Open Net Initiative by Harvard15 The World Press Freedom Index 2013 by Reporters Without Borders16

9 Available at http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/default.aspx. 10 Available at http://www.oecd.org/internet/broadband/oecdkeyictindicators.htmand http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/49258588.pdf. 11 Available at http://www.cetic.br/english/. 12 Available at http://thewebindex.org/about/methodology/and http://thewebindex.org/about/legacy/v2012/structure/. 13 Available at http://freedomhouse.org/report/2013-methodology-and-checklist-questions#.Uv5hKHkQ7wI. 14 Available at http://a4ai.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Affordability-Report-2013_Final-2.pdf. 15 Available at https://opennet.net/oni-faq. 16 Available at http://rsf.org/index2014/data/2014_wpfi_methodology.pdf.

10

The Global Surveillance Monitor a project by Privacy International17 Corruption perception 2013 by Transparency international18

Corporate indicators using a range of quantitative and qualitative criteria include: Ranking Digital Rights which is still under development by a team of researchers lead by

Rebecca MacKinnon, Allon Bar and Richard Danbury, and based in New America Foundation19

The Who has your back report by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)20 We have also scrutinised companies’ transparency reports21, with special attention to Google’s transparency report – the oldest and most complete running22 – to understand what type of company level raw data is available. Companies’ transparency reports shed light on how laws and policies affect internet users and the flow of information online, by reporting government and rights-holders requests for data and content take down, and, in some cases, if such request are with warrant or warrantless. The reports also set good practices regarding transparency and accountability related to user rights, adequate (or not) due process and companies’ policies implementation. In addition, a series of criteria were abstracted from the following documents that depict working frameworks:

UN Special Rapporteur's Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression23

UNESCO’s ROAM Finally, two reports assessing government open data policies were considered as open data is

17 Available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/surveillance-monitor-2011-assessment-of-surveillance-across-europe. 18 Available at http://www.transparency.org/files/content/press andhttp://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/in_detail/#myAnchor1release/2013_CPISourceDescription_EN.pdf. 19 Available at http://rankingdigitalrights.org/project-documents/draft-criteria/. 20 Available at https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013#specific-criteria-and-changes. 21 Companies that so far produce and publish some kind of report are: Apple, AT&T, Credo Mobile, Dropbox, Facebook, Leaseweb, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Sonic.net, SpiderOak, Tumblr, Twitter, Verizon, Yahoo! http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/. 22 For instance, different from other companies and in regard to user data and communication information, Google transparency report on US brings granular information on all categories of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act including search warrants, wiretaps orders, pen registers orders, D orders, and emergency requests. 23 Available at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/132/01/PDF/G1113201.pdf?OpenElement.

11

likely to have a significant impact upon accountability, transparency and the exercise of human rights. It depends upon a flourishing internet environment and requires skills and capacities relevant to the development of indices. The two reports are: The Open Data Barometer 2013 by the World Wide Web Foundation24 The Open Data Index 2013 by the Open Knowledge Foundation25

We have also surveyed indexes regarding transparency and corruption – such as the Corruption Perception Index 2013 by Transparency International26, which are tangential to this exercise. However, the Corruption Perception Index 2013 is built upon a variety of regional indices some of which deal with internet related issues, such as penetration rates or access to government information, including e-government. Consequently, a sample of those internet related indicators from the relevant sub-indices of the Corruption Perception are built upon onto the comparison chart. In addition, we took careful account of the recent report of Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression for the Organisation of American States which examined freedom of expression and the internet and produced a comprehensive analysis of relevant issues which are included within the indicators27. The survey of the initiatives listed above are summarised in a separate document which has a tree of indicators and a detailed analysis and comparison of different approaches. This report allows a comparison of indicators and survey questions and benchmarks the initiatives to date – while helping establish a common core of indicators. Trying to analyse such a broad and different range of indicators proved to be a formidable challenge. The indicators were grouped into five major categories which mirrored the analysis of the internet as comprising four conceptual layers:

(a) the infrastructure layer, meaning a set of cables, hardware, software, data-links and protocols – which comprises all the layers that supports the application layer of the internet depicted in the various networking models28 – and requiring indicators that can assess internet penetration, speed, cost etc. and all factors affecting infrastructure

24 The Open Data Barometer was conceived of as a companion study to the 2013 Web Index. The Web Index is a multidimensional measure of the Web’s use, utility and impact. 25 See https://index.okfn.org/. 26 Available at http://www.transparency.org/files/content/press and http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/in_detail/#myAnchor1release/2013_CPISourceDescription_EN.pdf 27 Cite report of OAS Special Rapporteur. 28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_model#Layer_names_and_number_of_layers_in_the_literature.

12

capacity and supporting policy for Infrastructure Development29. (b) the application layer30, meaning the layer reserved for communication protocols and methods designed for process-to-process communications across an internet protocol (IP) computer networks. Application layer protocols use the underlying infrastructure of transport layer (the physical layer) protocols to establish process-to-process connections via ports. This layer therefore will require indicators that assess the relevant technology and policy affecting information flows, cybersecurity issues such as DDOS, and new mechanisms of content control done at the code layer such as DRM on HTML5. (c) the content layer, meaning the communications, information and knowledge produced, published, distributed and received by all the stakeholders, such as mass generated content (a news channel) or user generated content (Wikipedia), in the internet and comprising indicators such as freedom of expression. In this layer, the right of freedom of expression and frameworks of control such as copyright are some of the major driving forces. Issues of ISP liability, diversity of publication channels and voices, multilingualism, producers skills, among many others, should also be analysed within this layer. (d) the social layer, meaning the behaviours of actors that shape the interactive dimension of the internet, the policies that impact on such activities, for example, the right to assembly, privacy, issues of surveillance, and sharing practices such as open government, open access, open educational resources, and open data. (e) In addition the dynamic and fast changing nature of the internet meant that the analysis looked at the main drivers of change shaping the environment. These were labelled driving forces meaning those key players whose behaviour can shape the development of the internet, for example government, markets, civil society, user/ consumers, engineers, academics and all those involved in decision making processes. Indicators relevant to these will need to be incorporated within the overarching framework established above so that the impact they may have on shaping technology and policy can be given due weight.

Each of these layers has a set of indicators and each of the indicators are divided into a set of sub-indicators. There is a degree of granularity, with a four-sub-layer hierarchy indicators. From this the tree of indicators was derived.

29 Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_model. 30 Lessig uses the term “Logical Layer” and “Code Layer” to refer to the layer of applications. see The Future of Ideas, chapter 3. 2002 Random House.

13

Observations on indicator methodologies The various systems were not easy to compare as they use different frameworks and were developed for different goals. Taken together the indicators look at four main issues: The ability to provide ready access to the internet, assessing factors including energy

supply, communication infrastructure and the costs of the internet in its different forms (landline, cellular networks, etc.);

The limitations set by the governments and intermediaries on access to and use of web content, on freedom of expression on the internet, on the free flow of information, and on the protection of users’ rights and privacy;

The responsibility of corporations for providing secure tools to the users for the use of the internet, for protecting the users’ privacy and anonymity, and to resist government abuses of their users’ rights and liberties;

The ways in which internet empowers people across society, the economy, and in politics. Attempting to make cross comparisons therefore inevitably involved making a ‘best effort’ to extract the core meaning or goal of the indicator and its common characteristics. Of the indexes analysed, only three exclusively focus on internet issues with others including indicators relevant to internet topics. This reflects a growing trend towards including online platforms in the larger discussion of communications and media development.

Observations on selected existing indices

Although a large number of indices and methodologies were examined as part of the preparation for this exercise, a smaller group have been examined in more detail as they deal substantially with internet issues. These are looked at below. Media Development Indicators UNESCO The approach set out in this paper derives from a previous exercise by UNESCO when it developed a comprehensive set of Media Development Indicators (MDIs) aimed at enabling the assessment of media landscapes at national level. The indicators were designed to be comprehensive and cover all aspects of media development. Using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data sources and means of verification the MDIs set out five major categories of indicators that are used to analyse the state of media

14

development in a country. Each category is broken down into a number of issues each of which contain a series of indicators. Unlike many other approaches, these indicators are a designed as an analytic tool to help policy makers assess the state of the media and measure the impact of media development programmes. They are diagnostic tools, rather than prescriptions, and have the intention of helping shape media development programmes, rather than being used to compare countries or impose conditions. Since their adoption by UNESCO in 2008 they have been applied in various countries worldwide to identify specific needs, to guide policy development and help focus media development initiatives. Among the countries where they have been applied are Croatia, Ecuador, Gabon, Mozambique, Nepal, and Tunisia. Although these case studies do not focus on internet, the most recent MDI assessments such as that of Iraq do look at issues regarding the internet including media censorship online, multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, and issues regarding internet infrastructure. Web Index The Web Index Report is produced by the World Wide Web Foundation, a non-profit organisation seeking to establish the web as a public good and basic right. The Index covers 81 countries and it aims to assess internet issues such as universal access, freedom and openness, relevant content and empowerment. In the latest 2013 edition questions relating to gender, open data, privacy rights and censorship have been included. The Index uses primary and secondary sources, including surveys by experts. This is the most comprehensive of the indices aimed at measuring the internet’s social, developmental, economic and political dimensions. The report only uses indicators that fulfil five core requirements – data providers have to be credible and reliable organisations; the release of data should be regular, (at least every three years); there should be at least two data years for each indicator, so to make credible statistical inferences; data should not be older than three years; the data should cover at least 2/3 of the sample countries in order to reduce possible comparative bias due to a narrow coverage. The methodology was substantially revised and strengthened in 2013. It is a comparative index but cannot be comprehensive as countries that did not have an adequate level of available secondary data were not surveyed. But – in the areas it covers it is a strong comparative index.

15

Ranking Digital Rights Ranking Digital Rights (RDR) is a platform developed by several institutions intended for developing a methodology to rank Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies on respect for free expression and privacy. The ranking will be based on three fundamental criteria: General human rights responsibilities, as outlined in the International Bill of Human Rights; Free expression, as explained in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR)31 and in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Privacy (ICCPR)32, according to the article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR. The aims of the research, having ranked companies on the basis of the above-mentioned criteria is to:

1. Educate a broader audience of internet users, advocacy groups, consumers, investors, policymakers, and companies themselves on baseline standards of corporate policy and practice achievable in the medium-term by existing companies;

2. Identify which companies can be considered industry leaders on free expression and privacy, in what specific ways and which companies can do more to respect customers’ and users’ digital rights;

3. Point the way for all companies to improve their policies and practices through concrete, measurable steps.

Currently in development, a first draft of the rankings will be presented around May 2014. It draws upon both desk research and interviews which are then submitted to a first review by academics, graduate students and researchers working in the fields of freedom of expression, privacy and corporate responsibility. Once this feedback has been processed the first draft will

31 ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (accessed on 11 February 2014). 32 ‘1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals’.

16

be published. A future phase is planned for 2014-2015 which will incorporate the use of ad hoc software, networking equipment and devices. At the moment of writing this paper, no further details are available on this phase. The RDR appears to offer a very well structured, clear and thorough methodology. It is based upon quantitative research, including desk and field research, tailor-made for the countries analysed, using a wide array of questions. It has the advantage of being narrow and specific, applying common methods of investigation by all the researchers and subjects involved, offering a systematic approach. Not many details are clear on the second phase, but it seems that it will cover the more quantitative part of the research, using technical tests. This is likely to make it the most thorough and grounded analysis of corporate responsibility, though it relies on sources and data coming directly from the companies analysed.

Open Net Initiative The Open Net Initiative (ONI) is a project run by an American-Canadian consortium of three partners: the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs of the University of Toronto, the Berkman Centre for Internet & Society at Harvard University, and the SecDev Group based in Ottawa. The aim of this project is to investigate, expose and analyse internet filtering and surveillance. The project uses a multi-disciplinary methodology, which includes: the development and deployment of technical tools to study internet filtering and

surveillance; capacity-building amongst local advocates and researchers; studies on the consequences of current and future trends in filtering and surveillance

practices and their implications for international law and governance. ONI research is carried through the collection of quantitative data collected by technical tests on the internet in several countries. ONI has developed its own software, not available for public use: it has been designed for ONI’s researchers. The software is based on a client/server architecture and it is capable of identifying blocked URLs. Attempts are made to access a pre-defined list of URLs in the country suspected of filtering/block some/all those URLs and in a control country, which in does not filter/block those very same URLs (e.g. Canada). ONI tests two lists of websites for each country under scrutiny. This index’s raw data is therefore based on original technical research using filtering detection technologies. This approach is very thorough and sophisticated. It is the only one that develops

17

in-house software to run technical tests, which allow the collection of data in a way that can be easily applied to a high number of countries and which is therefore very adaptable. The goal of exposing internet filtering and surveillance practices is clearly stated in the methodology and is directly addressed in every report. However, the technology used to detect blocked URLs is not publicly available making it difficult for outside organisations to apply the same methodology or technology to complete further research. In addition, qualitative research is mostly absent from the report. Alongside this data, ONI produces a country profile for each of the tested countries. These reports set the political and legal context for the country. The profiles analyse policies related to media, freedom of speech and expression as well as acts and laws that might restrict expression on the internet; they look at specific internet laws, access to the internet and its infrastructure, the level of economic development; and finally the quality of governance institutions that might implement internet filtering/blocking. The level of development of one country is measured by indicators from the World Bank database. The governance of the internet is assessed through two indexes developed by the World Bank. Firstly, the Rule of Law Index includes indicators such as perceptions on incidence of crime, effectiveness and predictability of the judiciary, enforceability of contracts, etc. and gives an idea of confidence and bond to the rules of society. Secondly, the Voice and Accountability index measures to what extent citizens are able to participate to the selection of governments. World Press Freedom Index The World Press Freedom Index is an index designed by the non-profit organisation,

Reporters Without Borders (RWB), which looks at internet censorship and the new media in over 150 countries. They monitor and denounce attacks on freedom of speech and information and act in cooperation with governments to fight censorship and laws restricting freedom of information. They also provide moral, financial and material assistance to persecuted journalists and war correspondents.

RWB has published the World Press Freedom Index every year since 2002. The index is based upon questionnaires that include quantitative and qualitative questions. RWB uses its network of partner organisations and correspondents to fill in the questionnaires as well as drawing upon journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. RWB does not provide any details though as to how the last group of interviewees is selected.

RWB has a widespread network of correspondents and partner organisations who can offer detailed insights on several countries. Having been published for more than ten years, it can offer the invaluable insight of long-term trends. By using RWB’s network as a source, it

18

avoids relying on government and companies’ data, which may be unreliable or biased. On the other hand there is no indication whether their experts have to justify their answers or whether they can provide simply a personal perspective. It is also not clear how experts are selected, nor whether there is any peer review of findings which might be helpful in avoiding risks of personal bias.

Google Transparency Report The Google Transparency Report monitors five types of data that Google collects through the products and services it offers: the number of requests that Google receives from governments to remove content, requests of information about users received from governments and courts, requests received by copyright owners to remove search results, disruptions of traffic on Google products, unsafe websites. Google produces quantitative, numerical data, without analysis of the data collected. For requests from governments and courts to remove content, the report offers the number of requests, the reasons of the request and whether Google has accepted the request or not. Similarly, Google lists the URLs requested to be removed in specific domains because of alleged copyright ownership violations as well as the number of requests received to access users’ data and the percentage of which Google has complied. The report offers a useful range of data. Google is the most utilised web search engine with a wide range of additional services such as YouTube and Gmail. Interestingly, not all its services are covered by the transparency report. For example, YouTube is not considered when Google calculates the number of requests for content removal due to copyright. Given the range of content uploaded on YouTube which may be subject to copyright restrictions, this seems a large omission and may undermine the accuracy of the data. In addition, there is no contextual, qualitative analysis to give a perspective on the data collected or the background of the country concerned. The Google report has the potential to access a detailed amount of data, on many aspects of the internet, from websites content and censorship, to users and account data, etc. The decision to limit its analysis to a fairly simple and partial collection of some data from some

19

restricted sources only, means that it would need to be combined with other analyses to be useful for the purpose of general internet indicators. Freedom of the Net Freedom House is an independent watchdog organisation seeking to empower citizens to exercise their fundamental rights, to advocate greater political and civil liberties and to support activists for human rights and democracy. Since 2010, Freedom House has published the Freedom of the Net report, covering 60 countries selected to give a representative sample of geographical diversity and economic development, as well as different levels of political and media freedom. Analysis is provided by researchers, almost all of whom are based in the countries analysed who assess digital media laws and practices and test the accessibility of some selected websites. Freedom of the Net takes Article 19 of the UNDHR33, as its basic standard. It looks at the exchange and transmission of politically relevant news and the protection of users’ rights to privacy and freedom. Researchers are asked to assess countries against three criteria:

1. Obstacle to access, including infrastructure and economic barriers, governments blocking applications or technologies, legal and ownership control over internet and mobile phone access providers.

2. Limits on content referring to filtering/blocking, censorship and self-censorship, manipulation, diversity of online news media, usage of digital media for social and political activism.

3. Violations of user rights covering legal protections and restrictions, surveillance and limits on privacy, legal repercussions for online activity or other forms of harassment.

Each country is then assigned a final numerical score, which classifies the country as ‘Free’ with a score between 0 and 30, ‘Partly Free’ from 31 to 60 and ‘Not Free’ from 61 to 100. Researchers’ perceptions are subject to regional review meetings with international experts which can adjust and even change the final score of one country. Freedom House staff conduct a final review of all the scores, in order to ensure their comparative reliability and integrity.

33 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

20

This is a qualitative methodology and it is clear how researchers are selected, and the qualitative research is not complemented and supported by any quantitative research. Who Has Your Back Since 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has published a report ‘Who has your back?’ which assesses how online service providers respond to government requests access to users’ data. The 2013 report evaluated the policies of 18 major internet companies, including: Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Comcast, Dropbox, Facebook, Foursquare, Google, Linkedin, Microsoft, Myspace, Sonic.net, SpiderOak, Twitter, Tumblr, Verizon, Wordpress and Yahoo!. The report assesses whether they support users’ rights when governments seek access to their data. The research takes each company’s terms of service, privacy policy, transparency report and guidelines for law enforcement requests as a starting point. Public courts records are used to see what stance companies take in trials relevant to their users’ privacy. Finally, EFF contacts each company to inform them of their findings and to give them the opportunity to respond. This is a straightforward methodology, especially the first step, which relies on qualitative primary sources given by the companies. The second stage is more uncertain as the report is not clear whether the trial assessments are purely quantitative (measuring the number of times as company has defended users rights) or a more qualitative analysis that takes into account the way in which the company has supported its users’ rights. The final stage, when EFF researchers contact the companies to discuss the findings of the report is hard to assess externally: no details are given regarding the nature of the questions, what subjects they contact, what specific criteria/topics they discuss, etc.

Conclusions on existing indices Taken as a whole, the existing indexes, rankings and indicators, which measure a variety of aspects of internet development, offer an excellent starting point to define indicators in line with UNESCO’s priorities. Those initiatives that have been running for many years also provide a good understanding of what is possible to measure and the best way to do it – by involving and partnering with local experts and organisations, or using technical tests, instead of simply basing conclusion on raw data gathered by ITU or OECD. However, the very diversity of existing initiatives inevitably gives rise to contradictions both concerning methodological approaches and in consequent research findings. In some cases, the same indicators present contradictory results, observations or policy recommendations. If

21

UNESCO wishes to adopt any part of the existing indices, it will first have to find a consensus on a range of underlying values and assumptions which are implicitly woven into the current array of internet development assessment tools. This is the single most important challenge facing any attempt to develop comprehensive indicators. If the ROAM framework is taken as a starting point, with a particular emphasis on the human rights norms and values, then none of those methodologies provide – in a ‘one stop and shop’ – all the indicators needed to support the application of the ROAM framework, though taken together they are a comprehensive list. Almost all of the indexes analysed produced country-specific reports or data in order to make comparisons or rank countries. The indexes reviewed can be classified in three categories: those employing a quantitative methodology only, those employing almost exclusively a qualitative methodology and those employing both. In the first group we find the Open Net Initiative, the Electronic Frontier Foundation Who Has Your Back? report and Google’s Transparency Report. In the second group are Freedom House’s Freedom of the Net and Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index. The new index Ranking Digital Rights, the Web Index and the work of the OECD apply both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Some of the indices’ are more relevant to UNESCO’s priorities than others. For example the OECD reports (at least in the case analysed here) and the Google Transparency Report only peripherally refer to UNESCO priorities. Other indices, entirely or partially, focus on human rights, openness and access which are of more direct relevance to UNESCO and the ROAM framework. The most significant problem that the indices face is that of sources. Many official sources of information provided by government or official agencies are inaccurate, out of date and even, in some cases, misleading (in order to project a better picture than is the case). Corporate data also needs to be treated with caution as profit-seeking companies are unlikely to release data for publication that could potentially damage its business. One solution to these problems was developed by the Open Net Initiative, which used in-house software so that its researchers could conduct independent technical tests on internet facilities and structures. This is an effective way to collect reliable and independent metrics and quantitative data in general and should be consider in relation to the UNESCO indicators. While quantitative data has the merit of providing a clear picture of the state of the internet in a country, it cannot provide background and contextual information about the country in

22

question. A focus purely on quantitative data will inevitably lead to a narrow focus and give only a partial picture of the internet environment. Two indices effectively combine quantitative and qualitative data - Ranking Digital Rights and the Web Index indicator. Ranking Digital Rights employs a thorough methodology, developed with the help of the researchers in the field, tailor-made for each national context. Survey questions can be modified to reflect local circumstances and can be followed up with one-to-one interviews. The Web Index uses a wide range of qualitative data to build up its report, using a varied list of indicators based upon strict requirements which helps overcome the most significant bias in qualitative research, a limited amount of sources and a selection lacking in rigor. The Web Index Report uses a sophisticated construction of three sub-indexes, which combine the qualitative data collected in different ways. UNESCO also needs to take account of the limitations of the different frameworks, for example:

Different value systems Even established democracies do not interpret or attribute values and priorities to human rights – such as freedom of expression and privacy – in the exactly the same way. Perceived Western bias Most initiatives of internet development, inevitably given the donor landscape, are driven by U.S. or European based organisations. Global indicators of media development drawn up in the developed internet environments may lack the degree of customisation required to reflect the local ecosystem in which they are applied. There are only a few initiatives that bring local experts and allow those to provide contextual narratives. Imprecise indicators and inconsistent results Any attempt to measure internet development requires clear and unambiguous indicators. Clarity is lost if the indicators blur the distinction between different units of analysis, fail to separate out different levels of engagement within a country, or bundle together several elements in one category. In the detailed analysis, the indicators have been broken down into a detailed ‘tree’ so that they can be placed more accurately in the framework chosen. Subjectivity One response has been to devise methodologies that assemble panels of media professionals to score countries on the basis of qualitative assessment. However, this methodology carries the risk that even the most experienced of panels will produce

23

results shaped by personal experience. Freedom House and Ranking Digital Rights seem to be the only initiatives that carry research workshops where local experts are brought together to compare their findings in order to deal with subjectivity. Measuring the correlation between internet and development Analyses using data from the initiatives covered by this paper make correlations between internet penetration, economic growth, and development. Some commentaries and reports point to the role broadband deployment plays in economic development, including the potential to generate jobs. These typically imply that higher speeds are better, but the correlation between connection speeds and economic development has not been extensively studied. More work is needed in this field. Absence of new communications platforms, such as mobile access to internet Many of the initiatives do not fully include the impact of mobile phone access to the internet. Mobile internet is a core access route in African and Asia countries, and has been important as a platform for content and for the rights of freedom of expression and assembly.

24

3. Draft Indicators and recommended categories As said above, existing indicators provide a large amount of useful thinking and data which UNESCO draw upon though none of those methodologies provide – in a one stop and shop – all the indicators needed to support the application of the ROAM framework. Any indicators developed by UNESCO should meet the following criteria (which were applied to the media indicators: the need to combine both quantitative and qualitative research; there should be caution in handling sources which offer large amount of metrics; where possible run independent technical tests should be run to obtain metrics; to use qualitative research in a very contextualised and country-specific way; developing a methodology that can apply to all countries; to avoid using a too limited sample of data that would undermine any sound statistical

conclusions; to use local researchers, and where possible peer-review the final results; to identify indicators that are relevant to UNESCO’s priorities and the ROAM framework. What follows is not a prescriptive list but rather an organising framework – and given the early stages of public policy debate, this will inevitably be more tentative than the media indicators were able to be. We considered a number of different organising frameworks – ROAM, expanding the MDIs, or developing an approach derived from layer models of the internet. Having explored the option of seeking to adapt the media development indicators based on an experience to seeking to apply them in Iraq, we concluded that the most likely options were the ROAM framework and the layer model approach. Using the media indicators framework – policy, plurality of ownership, platform for democratic debate, capacity and infrastructure – also fails to grasp the new socio-political dimension of the internet or its inherently global dimension. The ROAM framework is a normative frame that seeks to explore the application of the values of UNESCO to the internet environment. The layer model draws upon scholarly work which divides the internet into a series of layers for ease of analysis – anything from 4 to 7 in total34. 34 For example see Lawrence Lessig The Future of Ideas 2002 Random House.

25

The layer model approach In this case the suggested indicators are structured around four major categories which follow structure of internet using a layer model, with an added dimension of social-political interactions. For each category a series of high level indicators set out the conditions under which the requirements of an internet that is rights based, open, accessible and multi-stakeholder can be fulfilled. Under each heading sample issues are listed from which further indicators should be developed in the next phase of this exercise. Each of these issues is designed to amplify the high level indicators and provide the basis for verification and data gathering. As with the media indicators, the process can be thought of as one where it is possible to drill down from the high level to the detail and thus build up a comprehensive picture of the internet environment in any country. The four main areas or layers are:

Infrastructure and services layer. In this category are grouped a set of indicators that enable an assessment of the physical infrastructure of the country concerned in so far as it is necessary to support a flourishing internet environment. This will include indicators that assess how the policy and regulatory framework supports infrastructure development, investment and access at affordable prices. It will also include indicators for electrification, for the presence of an adequate telecommunications infrastructure as well as general infrastructure capacity indicators and the security of that infrastructure.

Applications and code layer. In this category are grouped indicators which will assess one of the most crucial aspects of the internet – the various processes by which different elements of the internet communicate with each other. This will include indicators assessing net neutrality, open technology and standards; cybersecurity and restrictions on the logical layer; the availability of encryption and personal security technologies; conditions for creation and innovation.

Content layer. In this category are indicators which will help assess the availability of different kinds of content whether mass generated or user generated. Content indicators will include the availability of content in relevant forms; indicators to assess restrictions and barriers for content; the diversity of information sources; any barriers to producers of content; e-education and learning.

Socio –political layer. This category will cover both the element of social interaction that makes the internet unique as well as the broader normative and decision making frame. Indicators in this category will assess user capacity and security; levels of activism and mobilisation; the impact of measures to combat cybercrime. More generally indictors in this section will assess the extent of human rights legal framework, the application of due

26

process, questions of surveillance, privacy and data protection, and multi-stakeholder decision making processes; the presence and strength of civil society.

In this first phase we recommend adopting the following high level indicators (the sub sections are the more detailed indicators which will be clarified in the next phase):

27

1: Infrastructure and services layer Policy and regulatory framework There is a policy and regulatory framework that supports infrastructure development, investment and access at affordable prices including in remote and rural areas Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - The independence and transparency of the regulator - Presence of universal service goals (including plans for access in more remote, rural

areas) - Broadband plans and regulation (general or focused) - Restrictions imposed by licensing & spectrum policy - Universal service funds and subsidies/ tax incentives - Policy on open access infrastructure - Policy on infrastructure sharing - Public Private Partnerships (including solutions for investment in less economically viable,

remote, rural areas) Presence of infrastructure Telecommunications infrastructure is widespread, even in remote and rural areas

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - DSL - Satellite - Fibre optic cables - Wireless infrastructure - Coverage/ reach - Presence of internet exchange points - Electricity grid reach Infrastructure capacity The internet infrastructure can support people's ability to communicate effectively

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - International bandwidth - Download/upload speeds - IP address distribution - Internet hosts - IP address distribution - Availability of domain names - 3G/4G capacity Security of infrastructure National infrastructure is dispersed and secure so that it is difficult to compromise

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Lack of an internet kill switch at network or device level - Multiple international gateways - IXPs Market conditions There is a plural and diverse market encouraging infrastructure development and roll out of competitive services

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Policy and regulation to prevent market monopoly and encourage competition - Barriers to entry - Ownership/market share (carriers, ISPs, mobile service providers, equipment

manufacturers)

28

- Level of competition/ consumer choice Access & affordability There is access to infrastructure for all, including communities in remote and rural areas, that is affordable

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - National penetration rates - Demographic penetration rates - Type and use of access points - Affordability of services

2: Applications and code layer Net neutrality There is no unreasonable discrimination between lawful traffic by internet providers (subject to reasonable network management) Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Policy on net neutrality - Discrimination of network traffic by internet providers - Transparency about network management practices, performance and commercial terms

of service by internet providers Open technologies & standards There are clearly defined open standards and access to and availability of open technologies and software

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Open standards - Interoperability - Free and open source technology/software Security controls/ restrictions on application & code layer Cybersecurity controls and restrictions are in line with human rights standards, are proportional to the nature of threats, and are aimed at protecting, rather than harming users Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Policy on cybersecurity that it is line with international human rights standards - Existence of controls (are they compliant with HR norms) - Necessity of controls for cyber threats (i.e. extent of threats) - Existence/availability of encryption and personal security applications/ software Creation and innovation The environment is such that people are able to innovate and create new technologies, code and applications without the need for prior permission Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - To consult on - but including absence of regulatory and technical barriers to innovation - Investment in research community

29

3: Content layer Freedom of expression, access to information and freedom of belief These rights are protected in law and exercised in practise Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Constitutional and statutory laws exist, protecting these rights, are in line with

international human rights standards - Restrictions are defined, necessary and proportionate - Restrictions on rights (should be consistent with international standards) - There are due process guarantees if restrictions are applied - Public officials respect free expression principles - Self regulation Restrictions/barriers There are no restrictions and control of content subject to norms of international law

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Censorship - Blocking/ filtering - DRM/TPM - Copyright - Other contract restrictions of content or other rights - Intermediary liability Availability of content Content is relevant and accessible in local languages, to people with disabilities and to people with limited literacy

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Content available in local languages - Content available in formats for people with disabilities Policy on cybersecurity that it is

line with international human rights standards Information sources There should positive steps taken to ensure diversity and robustness of publication channels and sources of information Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Availability and diversity of Mass Online Media - Availability of centralised social media (E.g Facebook) - Availability of knowledge platforms and forums where users generate content (e.g.

Wikipedia, Global Voices) - Availability of email - Open data

30

4: Socio -political layer Freedom of association online Citizens are able to mobilise and exercise their right to assembly using the internet and ICTs

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Constitutional and statutory laws exist, protecting these rights, are in line with international

human rights standards - Restrictions are defined, necessary and proportionate - Restrictions on rights (should be consistent with international standards) - There are due process guarantees if restrictions are applied - Public officials respect free expression principles - Self regulation User capacity Users should have an understanding of the capability of the internet and ICTs as well as the literary, skills and capacities to use them. They should also understand the online security risks posed and have the skills to protect themselves Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Literacy levels - Digital literacy - User security - User habits (to consult on inclusion) Cybercrime Measures to deal with cybercrime are proportionate and necessary

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - To consult on Surveillance There is no mass surveillance (national or international) and targeted surveillance only takes place in accordance with international human rights norms and practices Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Surveillance law and policy is in line with international human rights practices - Mass surveillance / targeted surveillance practices - Transparency of norms and regulations of surveillance - Presence of regulator/agency - External Oversight of regulator/agency - Court review - Who surveys - Types of surveillance executed - Data requests and due process Data protection & privacy Data protection practice reflects the online environment and adequately protects personal privacy

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Regulation and policy on data protection & privacy - including collection methods, storage

and use of users' data - Transparency around scope / capacity and potential for data gathering - including

technological advances - Transparency around current data gathering and storage practices by government and

companies - Transparency around use of users' data control of personal data - Informed consent by

users

31

- Ability to correct inadequate information - Responsibility to inform users of data breaches - Data shelf-life (ie deletion when it is no longer required for the purposes agreed upon) Consumer rights Protection of consumer rights online is equivalent to protection offline

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - To consult on this high level indicator Multi-stakeholder decision making processes Decision-making processes are multi-stakeholder, fostering participatory democracy on issues to do with the internet Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Presence of national internet governance bodies - Participation in international internet governance debates - Instances of multi-stakeholder participation (national and international delegations)

- Strength of civil society

32

The ROAM framework

As an alternative to the layer model we can look at the framework suggested by UNESCO with its concept of Internet Universality35. This concept is meant to incorporate four fundamental norms that UNESCO believes have been embodied in the broad evolution of the Internet to date – a rights based, open, accessible and multi stakeholder internet.

Breaking this down UNESCO arrives at four categories of potential indicators:

Rights-based indicators will emphasise the importance of democracy and human rights as core values on the internet, one that respects and enables the freedom to exercise human rights. Of particular significance to the Internet as a communications medium is the right to freedom of expression and right to information, as well as other rights that can be supported online. It means that any restrictions applied to human rights online should meet the accepted meeting international human rights standards such as that restrictions are defined in law, proportionate to the need to restrict rights, be for a legitimate purpose and be understood as necessary in a democratic society.

Open internet indicators will cover issues such open standards, the inter-operability of devices and open application interfaces ensure that technically; the internet can remain an adaptive environment capable of growing fast without requiring prior permission or the overcoming of technical obstacles. This will include the ready availability of open source software. Openness indicators will assess the ease of entry to the internet market with no exclusive licensing regimes or protectionist policies that seek to limit the provision of services or favour monopolies or specific technological platforms. Other openness indicators will assess the way in which the internet is a global platform rather than set of national internets or “walled gardens” based on different technologies or political criteria shaping development. There will be indicators for open data, and open educational resources.

Accessible internet indicators will embrace universal access for users with a basic minimum level of connectivity and infrastructure. They will assess infrastructure capacity as well as cost of access and the importance of urban-rural inequalities. They will include questions of social exclusions from the internet on grounds such as literacy, language, gender, and disability. Questions of user capacity are also relevant here as without user skills, the availability of the internet will be nullified. UNESCO also think that indicators assessing the sustainability and reliability of business models, able to finance universal access and ensure accessibility and provide a diverse range of content and services, are important elements of accessibility. Finally

35 http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/news/internet_universality_en.pdf.

33

UNESCO sees this category of access indicators as requiring an assessment of users trust in a secure internet environment.

Multi-stakeholder indicators will seek to provide an internet reflecting the reality that the internet is a something in which all users have a stake and therefore in which there is need for many voices to shape policy. In order to ensure the widest possible participation a stakeholder model of participation can ensure then widest representation of people.

As with the layer model approach in this first phase we recommend adopting the following high level indicators (the sub sections are the more detailed indicators which will be clarified in the next phase):

1: Rights-based Freedom of expression, access to information and freedom of belief These rights are protected in law and exercised in practise Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Constitutional and statutory laws exist, protecting these rights, are in line with international

human rights standards - Restrictions are defined, necessary and proportionate - Restrictions on rights (should be consistent with international standards) - There are due process guarantees if restrictions are applied - Public officials respect free expression principles - Self regulation Restrictions/barriers There are no restrictions and control of content. Subject to norms of international law Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Censorship - Blocking/ filtering - DRM/TPM - Copyright - Other contract restrictions of content or other rights - Intermediary liability Freedom of association online Citizens are able to mobilise and exercise their right to assembly using the internet and ICTs Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Constitutional and statutory laws exist, protecting these right to freedom of association, are in

line with international human rights standards - Restrictions are defined, necessary and proportionate - Restrictions on rights (should be consistent with international standards) - There are due process guarantees - Public officials respect free expression principles

34

Security controls/ restrictions on application & code layer Cybersecurity controls and restrictions are in line with human rights standards, are proportional to the nature of threats, and are aimed at protecting, rather than harming users.

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Policy on cybersecurity that it is line with international human rights standards - Existence of controls (are they compliant with HR norms) - Necessity of controls for cyber threats (i.e. extent of threats)

- Existence/availability of encryption and personal security applications/ software Cybercrime Measures to deal with cybercrime are proportionate and necessary Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - To consult on Surveillance There is no mass surveillance (national or international) and targeted surveillance only takes place in accordance with international human rights norms and practices

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Surveillance law and policy is in line with international human rights practices - Mass surveillance / targeted surveillance practices - Transparency of norms and regulations of surveillance - Presence of regulator/agency - External Oversight of regulator/agency - Court review - Who surveys - Types of surveillance executed - Data requests and due process Data protection & privacy Data protection practice reflects the online environment and adequately protects personal privacy Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Regulation and policy on data protection & privacy - including collection methods, storage and

use of users' data - Transparency around scope / capacity and potential for data gathering - including

technological advances - Transparency around current data gathering and storage practices by government and

companies - Transparency around use of users' data - control of personal data - Informed consent by users - Ability to correct inadequate information - Responsibility to inform users of data breaches - Data shelf-life (i.e. deletion when it is no longer required for the purposes agreed upon) Consumer rights - protection of consumer rights online is equivalent to protection offline

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - To consult on this high level indicator

35

2: Open Net neutrality There is no unreasonable discrimination between lawful traffic by internet providers (subject to reasonable network management) Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Policy on net neutrality - Discrimination of network traffic by internet providers

- Transparency about network management practices, performance and commercial terms of service by internet providers

Open technologies & standards There are clearly defined open standards and access to and availability of open technologies and software Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Open standards

- Interoperability - Free and open source technology/software Creation and innovation The environment is such that people are able to innovate and create new technologies, code and applications without the need for prior permission. Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - To consult on - but including absence of regulatory and technical barriers to innovation - Investment in research community Information sources There should positive steps taken to ensure diversity and robustness of publication channels and sources of information Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Availability and diversity of Mass Online Media - Availability of centralised social media (e.g Facebook) - Availability of email - Availability of knowledge platforms and forums where users generate content (e.g. wikipedia,

global voices)

- Open data Market conditions There is a plural and diverse market encouraging infrastructure development and roll out of competitive services

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Policy and regulation to prevent market monopoly and encourage competition - Barriers to entry - Ownership/market share (carriers; ISPs, mobile service providers, equipment

manufacturers/companies etc. - Level of competition/ consumer choice

36

3: Accessibility Policy and regulatory framework There is a policy and regulatory framework that supports infrastructure development, investment and access at affordable prices including in remote and rural areas Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - The independence and transparency of the regulator - Presence of universal service goals (including plans for access in more remote, rural areas) - Broadband plans and regulation (general or focused) - Restrictions imposed by licensing & spectrum policy - Operation of universal service funds and subsidies/ tax incentives - Policy on open access infrastructure - Policy on infrastructure sharing - Public Private Partnerships (including solutions for investment in less economically viable,

remote, rural areas) Presence of infrastructure Telecommunications infrastructure is widespread, even in remote and rural areas Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - DSL - Satellite - Fibre optic cables - Wireless infrastructure - Coverage/ reach - Presence of internet exchange points - Electricity grid reach Infrastructure capacity The internet infrastructure can support people's ability to communicate effectively Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - International bandwidth - Download/upload speeds - IP address distribution - Internet hosts - IP address distribution - Availability of domain names - 3G/4G capacity Security of infrastructure National infrastructure is dispersed and secure so that it is difficult to compromise Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Lack of an internet kill switch at network or device level - Multiple international gateways - IXPs Access & affordability There is access to infrastructure for all, including communities in remote and rural areas, that is affordable

37

Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - National penetration rates - Demographic penetration rates - Type and % use of access points - Affordability of services Availability of content Content is relevant and accessible in local languages, to people with disabilities and to people with limited literacy Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Content available in local languages - Content available in formats for people with disabilities User capacity Users should have an understanding of the capability of the internet and ICTs as well as the literary, skills and capacities to use them. They should also understand the online security risks posed and have the skills to protect themselves Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Literacy levels - Digital literacy - User security - User habits (to consult on inclusion)

4: Multi-stakeholder Multi-stakeholder decision making processes Decision-making processes are multi-stakeholder, fostering participatory democracy on issues to do with the internet Indicators will be developed to assess issues below - Presence of National Internet Governance bodies - Participation in international internet governance debates - Instances of multi-stakeholder participation (national and international delegations) - Strength of civil society

38

4. Internet Development Indicators Timeline The frameworks of the indicators set out above are an attempt to set out a comprehensive policy framework for internet development. As such, they have profound implications for governments, the courts, for private companies and for users. It is crucial therefore that there is a further wide ranging stage of consultation to deepen a shared understanding of both the values and norms that lie behind the indicators and the approach adopted in this paper. In this stage there should a conscious attempt to incorporate the views of experts in civil society, academia and the private sector. The most immediate task is to fix upon the organising framework that makes the most effective tool for assessing internet development. The first phase of this project runs to April 2014 and comprises benchmark research comparing existent core indexes and frameworks, and this paper which sets out the purpose of the project, the results of the analysis, conclusions drawn and a draft set of indicators organised in contrasting frameworks. It will be necessary to undertake a second phase of this project running for between 12 and 18 months in which the project managers will seek and receive credible and reliable information from Governments, academia, technical community, non-governmental organisations and any other parties who have knowledge of the object of this toolkit. The intention is to ensure multistakeholder participation in helping shape the final set of indicators though of course UNESCO will need to make a final decision through its own processes. It is envisaged that there will regional consultations conducted by the project coordinators, with UNESCO personnel, as well as bilateral consultations as appropriate. In addition there will be an online moderated platform to gather comments and consultations with individual international experts.

39

5. Conclusion On of UNESCO’s core values is the promotion of freedom of expression – an essential condition for democracy, development and human dignity. The internet has changed the way people communicate dramatically. It has immeasurably strengthened freedom of expression – offering new possibilities to create, share, edit and organise information and ideas. It has allowed new forms of freedom of association and new opportunities for innovation and creativity. All of these are central to UNESCO’s mandate, so it is inevitable that UNESCO should consider what kind of policy underpinning is necessary to secure a global internet hat is consistent with its own values and mission. The pace of change brought by the internet is so intense, its global character so distinctive compared to other modes of communication and its impact so spread across different fields, that public policy has struggled to keep up. For this reason an attempt to define a set of indicators for internet development is extremely timely. Indicators can provide a number of advantages. They can offer a diagnostic tool to examine a full range of internet issues, from completion policy, to investment in infrastructure to measures that seek control the availability of content online. They can suggest a policy agenda to guide those countries wishing to reshape their internet environment consistent with international standards. They can also provide a useful checklist for independent experts looking for tools to assess how a particular internet environment. For these indicators to fulfil these goals they need extensive debate and scrutiny. We welcome any constructive comments on the approach adopted in this paper – both on the organisation of the indicators, the high level indicators themselves and the more issues flagged up for future development as indicators.