Findings and Recommendations

The consensus recommendation is to empower the creation of a framework broad enough to be practical and accessible for general use and understanding, specific enough for applicability and accountability, and flexible enough to respond to ongoing processes and refinement. Consistent guidance for ethics and standards that applies across all communities in service of technology is warranted.

While the preliminary research and roundtables inspired high levels of interest and engagement about the creation of guiding principles for technologists, questions remain about effective models of implementation and accountability. It is essential to recognize that codes or frameworks conceived to strengthen people-centered societal outcomes are just one tool. Developing our digital future will take multiple approaches with different communities, organizations, and institutions.

To move this effort forward, the following ten areas need to be thoroughly examined and addressed to effectively create and implement guiding principles for technologists:

1. Commit to an open, iterative, and inclusive multistakeholder process. Global representation is essential. There must be a substantive effort to be inclusive and ensure that all stakeholders—especially vulnerable and underserved communities that are frequently affected both directly and indirectly by technology governance decisions—have an equal voice.
2. Build upon existing code and frameworks.
3. Prioritize transparency, accessibility, and implementation.
4. Acknowledge that directing efforts towards technologists may be more effective in parallel with additional measures like regulation, compliance, and ethics policies.
5. Identify resources for drafting processes and participants.
6. Design for cross-sector engagement and endorsement, especially from the private sector leaders training and employing technologists.
7. Include academic institutions. Educational institutions have a critical role to play in including and advancing ethics and technology in meaningful ways through curriculum development and implementation.
8. Operationalize viable implementation plans that create mechanisms for accountability and adaptability with local context and culture.
9. Pilot or test guiding principles in several contexts, organizations, and sectors. This could help advance understanding of what different contexts might involve, stress-test the recommendations covered in these findings, and potentially identify additional challenges and opportunities.
10. Empower regular review of guiding principles.

Based upon the roundtable discussions and our initial findings, three action areas could be undertaken by a global, interdisciplinary, rights-respecting community:

1. Document a process for drafting guiding principles for technologists that includes both the principles and an associated framework for operationalization;
2. Create or identify engagement and accountability structures; and
3. Execute an open, inclusive, and iterative drafting process.

Sustaining and encouraging an ongoing dialogue around the development of technologist guiding principles focused on global inclusion, cross-sector collaboration, and equity could build upon the work of the many individuals and organizations exploring various codes for technologists or working in the field of tech governance. Providing an open and inclusive forum to begin consolidating these conversations could be a real benefit for the field of responsible technology use.

There is consensus from participants that this effort could be most effectively undertaken by an international organization. There are existing multi-stakeholder collaboration processes that could be adapted to better inform the strategies powering this field of work. For example, some multilateral movements pursue global codes or frameworks with multiple regional initiatives driven by a combination of stakeholders that span sectors and areas of expertise. In these models, deliberations and drafting processes are often open and responsive—incorporating periods for public response and engagement. Further, regional initiatives can increase participation and inclusivity, rather than relying on the leadership and relationships of one country or entity.

Other inclusive and independent approaches could be modeled after existing international bodies, civil society organizations, or technical governance and standards forums. Many different models were cited during this process, including the ASEAN Online Business

Code of Conduct, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), Internet Governance Forum (IGF), International Association of Science and Technology for Development (IASTED), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Although New America is not the appropriate global entity to lead on these three actions, we are ready to support global institutions as a civil society leader and independent convener committed to advancing rights-respecting initiatives. Working on effective guiding principles for technologists is just one critical piece of a complicated puzzle for a better digital future. We are encouraged by the enthusiasm to build on the conversations and ideas debated during the consultations and cross-sector roundtables hosted by our university partners.