The article analyzes one of the earliest intergovernmental initiatives regarding Internet constitutionalism. Based on an analytical framework that combines argumentative discourse analysis with elements from actor–network theory, it assesses the actors and discourses involved in the preparation of an international recommendation on universal access to the Internet, adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2003. During the contentious negotiations, UNESCO had to find a balance between the divergent positions of its member states and to account for the different levels of technological development amongst them. By retracing the performative and discursive struggles that UNESCO had to face to reach consensus, the article contributes to the general understanding of ideas and practices behind Internet policy making in international settings.
AkrichM (1994) The description of technical objects. In: BijkerWELawJ (eds) Shaping Technology/building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 205–224.
2.
BreunigC (2000) 50 Jahre Kommunikationspolitik der UNESCO. In: BrüneS (ed.) In: Neue Medien und Öffentlichkeiten, Hamburg: DUI, pp. 99–114. .
3.
CallonM (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: LawJ (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, London: Routledge, pp. 196–223.
4.
Canada (2001) Comment submitted by the Canadian Commission for UNESCO to the 1st member state consultation on the recommendation, no exact date (consulted before archiving).
5.
CarlssonU (2003) The rise and fall of NWICO. From a vision of international regulation to a reality of multilevel governance. Nordicom Review24(2): 31–68.
6.
FischerFForesterJ (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, Durham; London: Duke University Press.
7.
Frau-MeigsDNiceyJPalmerMet al.(2012) From NWICO to WSIS: 30 Years of Communication Geopolitics—Actors and Flows, Structures and Divides, Bristol: Intellect Books.
8.
Gill L, Redeker D and Gasser U (2015) Towards digital constitutionalism? Mapping attempts to craft an Internet bill of rights. Report, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University, US, November. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2687120 (accessed 23 January 2017).
9.
HajerM (1993) Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In: FischerFForesterJ (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, Durham; London: Duke University Press, pp. 43–76.
10.
HajerM (2005) Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: From acid rain to BSE. In: TorfingJHowarthD (eds) Discourse Theory in European Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 297–315.
11.
HajerM (2006) Doing discourse analysis: Coalitions, practices, meaning. In: van den BrinkMMetzeT (eds) Words Matter in Policy and Planning: Discourse Theory and Methods in the Social Sciences, Utrecht: KNAG/Nethur, pp. 65–74. Netherlands Geographical Studies.
12.
HajerMWagenaarH (2003) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
International Publishers Association (2001) Letter sent by the Legal Counsel of IPA, to Milagros del Corral at UNESCO, 26 October (consulted before archiving).
14.
IPA and STM (2001) Position paper of IPA and STM sent to the US observer for UNESCO, 21 September (consulted before archiving).
15.
Koven R (2015) Personal interview, 24 February.
16.
Kuhlen R (2001) Comments by Rainer Kuhlen on a position paper issued by IPA and STM, 20 October 2001 (consulted before archiving).
17.
LatourB (1986) The power of associations. In: LawJ (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, London: Routledge, pp. 264–280.
18.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, Cambridge, MA: Open University Press.
19.
Latour B and Crawford TH (1993) An interview with bruno latour. Configurations 1(2): 247–268.
20.
LatourB (1999) On recalling ANT. In: LawJHassardJ (eds) Actor Network Theory and After, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 15–25.
21.
LeyeV (2007) UNESCO, ICT corporations and the passion of ICT for development: Modernization resurrected. Media, Culture & Society29(6): 972–993.
22.
Montviloff V (2013) Personal interview, 21 October.
23.
Motion Pictures Association of America (2001) Email sent by the Vice President of MPAA to the US observer at UNESCO, “FW: UNESCO, draft resolution […]”, 21 September (consulted before archiving).
24.
PadovaniC (2004) The World Summit on the information society: Setting the communication agenda for the 21st century? An ongoing exercise. International Communication Gazette66(3–4): 187–191.
25.
PohleJ (2012) ‘Going digital’: A historical perspective on early international cooperation in informatics. In: Frau-MeigsDNiceyJPalmerMet al.(eds) From NWICO to WSIS: 30 Years of Communication Geopolitics—Actors and Flows, Structures and Divides, Bristol: Intellect Books, pp. 107–121.
26.
Pohle J (2016a) Information for all? The emergence of UNESCO's policy discourse on the information society (1990–2003). Dissertation in Communication Studies. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/158025 (accessed 23 January 2017).
27.
Pohle J (2016b) Multistakeholder governance processes as production sites: Enhanced cooperation ‘in the making’. Internet Policy Review 5(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.3.432 (accessed 23 January 2017).
28.
Quéau P (2000) Email sent by Philippe Quéau to Victor Montviloff, “Fwd: leonardo education informe sur la nouvelle approche […]”, 26 May (consulted before archiving).
29.
Quéau P (2013) Personal interview, 25 April.
30.
Rivière F (2015) Personal interview, 9 March.
31.
SantanielloMBlasioEDPalladinoNet al.(2016) Mapping the debate on Internet Constitution in the networked public sphere. Comunicazione politica17(3): 327–354.
32.
SiochrúÓS (2004) Will the real WSIS please stand up? The historic encounter of the ‘information society’ and the ‘communication society’. Gazette66(3–4): 203–224.
33.
UNESCO (1996) The challenges of the Information Highways: The role of UNESCO, 150 EX/15.
34.
UNESCO (1997a) The implementation of 150 EX/Decision 3.5.1 concerning the challenges of the Information Highways: The role of UNESCO, 151 EX/16.
35.
UNESCO (1997b) Summary records, 150 EX/SR.1–17 (11).
36.
UNESCO (1997c) 29 C/Resolutions, Resolution 36.
37.
UNESCO (1998) Experts meeting on Cyberspace Law, Working Document, CII/USP/ECY/99/01, CII-98/CONF-601.2 Annex II.
38.
UNESCO (1999) Report of the Expert Meeting on Cyberspace Law, CII/USP/ECY/99/01.
39.
UNESCO (2001) Draft recommendation included in 31 C/25 Corr.2 Annex II Rev.2.
40.
UNESCO (2002) Address by Koïchiro Matsuura at the 2nd expert meeting on the Draft recommendation, DG/2002/28.
41.
UNESCO (2003) Recommendation concerning the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace, 32 C/Resolutions, Resolution 41.
42.
UNESCO (2015), CONNECTing the dots: Options for future action conference outcome document, Paris.
43.
UNESCO ADG/CI (2002) Letter sent by ADG/CI to the US Observer, CI/INF/BR/02/257, 15 November (consulted before archiving).
44.
UNESCO CI (2000) First draft of the preliminary report on the recommendation prepared by CI/INF, no document code, August (consulted before archiving).
45.
UNESCO CI/INF (2001a) Email by CI/INF about a meeting of the US observer with ADG/CI, 25 September (consulted before archiving).
46.
UNESCO CI/INF (2001b) Debate on the draft recommendation on universal access and promotion and use of multilingualism in cyberspace, summary document, no document code, 31 October (consulted before archiving).
47.
Yushkiavitshus H (2015) Personal interview, 23 February.
