COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Internet Policy and Governance Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet Governance (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2014-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, conflict of jurisdiction, dissemination of information, freedom of communication, globalisation, international cooperation, technical cooperation













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0072 - EN











|



52014DC0072

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Internet Policy and Governance Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet Governance (Text with EEA relevance) /* COM/2014/072 final */









1.           Introduction
For over fifteen years, the EU has helped
to sustain and develop the Internet: as an essential
part of life and a fundamental pillar of the Digital Single Market, the
Internet has fostered innovation, growth, trade, democracy and Human Rights[1]. Growth related to the Internet economy is
forecast at almost 11% in the EU, with a contribution to GDP expected to rise
from 3.8% in 2010 to 5.7% in 2016[2].
Small and medium-sized enterprises intensively using the Internet grow almost
twice as fast as others[3].
This economic potential needs to be further exploited ensuring that individuals
can access the content, goods and services they want, and control which
personal data they want to share or not. Secure, stable and resilient networks
form the basis of a trusted and flourishing Internet economy[4]. An open
and free Internet in which all rights and freedoms that people have offline
also apply online facilitates social and democratic progress worldwide. 
Sustainable governance
of the Internet involving all stakeholders[5] is essential to preserve these
benefits. Internet governance involves a wide variety of organisations[6], and is broadly understood to refer to the
"development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil
society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules,
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of
the Internet"[7]. 
Recently, conflicting visions on the future
of the Internet and on how to strengthen its multistakeholder governance in a
sustainable manner have intensified. Moreover, revelations of large-scale
surveillance programmes and a fear of cybercrime have negatively affected trust in the Internet. Taken together, a continued loss of confidence in the Internet and
its current governance could slow down innovation and the growth of European
internet companies. It could also lead to pressure for new regional and
national governance structures that might lead to a fragmentation of the
Internet. 
This Communication proposes a basis for a common
European vision for Internet governance
l 
to defend and promote fundamental rights and
democratic values, and multi-stakeholder governance structures that are based
on clear rules that respect those rights and values[8], 
l 
as a single, un-fragmented network, subject to
the same laws and norms that apply in other areas of our day-to-day lives; and
where individuals can benefit from their rights, and from judicial remedies
when those rights are infringed.

l 
governed by a genuine multistakeholder model 
·      
where the necessary inter-governmental
discussions are anchored in a multistakeholder context in the full
understanding that the Internet is built and maintained by a variety of
stakeholders, as well as governments;
·      
where decisions are taken on the basis of
principles of good governance, including transparency, accountability, and
inclusiveness of all relevant stakeholders;
l 
with a strengthened and reformed Internet
Governance Forum; 
l 
with a globalised Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA).
This Communication builds on the European
Commission's previous Communication on Internet Governance in 2009, in
particular regarding the strengthening of the multi-stakeholder model. It does not
call for any new international legal instrument to address the issues of
Internet governance[9].
This Communication focuses on the main
policy areas relevant to the complex Internet governance ecosystem.  The main
areas of current debate, namely the development of Internet governance
principles, cooperative frameworks and core Internet functions are addressed in
Sections 2, 3 and 4. Section 5 makes concrete proposals for how to strengthen
the current multi-stakeholder model. Sections 6, 7 and 8 look ahead to some of
the key issues that must be addressed in the context of Internet governance in
the future, namely the strong interplay between technical norms and Internet
policy, the key challenges in rebuilding trust, and conflicts of jurisdictions
and laws. Many of the issues presented will be subject further specific
consultations with stakeholders.
2.           A Principles Based
Approach 
The strength of the Internet lies in its
open, distributed nature, based on non-proprietary standards which create low
barriers of entry. The European Union has always been committed to the Internet
as one single unfragmented space, where all resources should be accessible in
the same manner, irrespective of the location of the user and the provider.
This is especially so where they relate to human rights and some states,
quoting security concerns, attempt to curb global connectivity of their
citizens by censorship and other restrictions. Blocking, slowing down or
discrimination of content, applications and services goes against the open
nature of the Internet[10].
Even when faced with complex regulatory or political challenges, filtering
traffic at borders or other purely national approaches can lead to
fragmentation of the Internet and could compromise economic growth and the free
flow of information. This does not exclude increased efforts towards
diversification of the underlying infrastructure such as local internet
exchange points and transmission capacity, which can strengthen the resilience
and robustness of the Internet, as well as measures necessary to protect
fundamental rights and to address concerns raised by revelations of large-scale
surveillance and intelligence activities. 
For over two years, the Commission has
advocated an approach summarised by the COMPACT acronym[11]: the Internet
as a space of Civic responsibilities, One unfragmented resource
governed via a Multistakeholder approach to Promote democracy and
Human Rights, based on a sound technological Architecture that engenders
Confidence and facilitates a Transparent governance both of the
underlying Internet infrastructure and of the services which run on top of it. 
The COMPACT builds on the Tunis agenda of
2005. Since then there has been a proliferation of Internet governance
principles in various fora but in most cases each one supported by a limited
set of stakeholders, or limited in geographical scope[12]. A process leading
towards a more broadly supported and coherent set of principles for Internet
governance would be helpful in finding common ground. 
The
Commission supports establishing a coherent set of global Internet governance
principles, consistent with fundamental rights and democratic values, with all
stakeholders. The Commission will facilitate discussions among stakeholders,
including via multistakeholder platforms and the High Level Group on Internet
Governance[13].
The Commission invites the Council and the European Parliament to contribute to
a common European position in all appropriate venues. 
3.           A Cooperative Governance
Framework
Mutually respectful dialogues between all
stakeholders on the future development of global Internet governance are
essential given the global economic and societal importance of the Internet.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has emerged from the World Summit on
Information Society (WSIS) to facilitate forward-looking discussions amongst
all stakeholders, many of whom had not cooperated closely before. It is
important, however, to improve the quality and format of IGF outcomes to
enhance its impact on global Internet governance and policy.
Stronger interactions between stakeholders involved
in Internet governance should be fostered via issue-based dialogues, instead of
through new bodies. This would allow relevant stakeholders to address specific
challenges across structural and organisational boundaries. Such arrangements
could be inspired by the distributed architecture of the Internet which should
serve as a model for better interactions between all parties. 
Moreover, a sustainable model needs to
clearly define the roles of actors in the governance process, including the
role of public authorities to fulfil their public policy responsibilities
consistent with human rights online[14]. 
Such sustainability also needs a shared commitment by all stakeholders to a
coherent set of Internet governance principles.
Accountability mechanisms for actors in the
Internet space are essential, including organisations responsible for key
Internet tasks. Mechanisms such as self-assessment and independent (peer)
review can strengthen implementation and recommend improvements. 
The Affirmation of Commitments of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and its use of
multistakeholder review panels could be one inspiration for other organisations
and processes.
The
Commission will engage with stakeholders to: 
-
strengthen the Internet Governance Forum, taking account of the Recommendations
of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF[15]; 
-
clearly define the role of public authorities in the multistakeholder context, consistent
with an open and free Internet; 
-
facilitate issues-based multistakeholder dialogue and decision-making across
organisational boundaries.
4.           Globalisation of Core
Internet Decisions
The Internet has become a key
infrastructure with global dimensions. It works well without structural
oversight by international intergovernmental bodies. At the same time, greater
international balance within the existing structures can increase the
legitimacy of current governance arrangements.
In 2005 the US government committed itself
to work with the international community to address the public policy concerns
with respect to the management of country-code top-level domains (ccTLD)[16].
However, this has not yet been fully implemented. In its 2009 Communication[17] the European
Commission pointed to the incomplete internationalisation of Internet core
functions and organisations. 
Since 2009, ICANN has taken steps in this
direction, most notably the establishment of operational hubs in Istanbul and Singapore in 2013. These steps are welcome. However, ICANN's status under
Californian law with a contractual relationship to a single country has not
changed. The exclusive relationship of ICANN with a single government – as
illustrated by its Affirmation of Commitments – originates from the history of
the Internet and must become more global in an era of the Internet as it has
become a vital support function of societies and economies in the whole world. In
October 2013 the leaders of organisations responsible for the coordination of the
Internet's technical infrastructure called for accelerating the globalisation
of ICANN and IANA functions in their Montevideo statement[18] on the future of
Internet cooperation. The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of
Internet Governance, to be hosted by Brazil in April 2014, should identify
concrete and actionable steps to address the globalisation of ICANN and the
IANA functions[19].
The
Commission will work with all stakeholders to
-
identify how to globalise the IANA functions, whilst safeguarding the continued
stability and security of the domain-name system;
-
establish a clear timeline for the globalisation of ICANN, including its
Affirmation of Commitments. 
5.           Multistakeholder Process
Multistakeholder processes in relation to
the Internet have taken various forms ranging from simple networking to
decisions with global impact such as those taken by ICANN and the specification
setting processes of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)[20]. However,
the fact that a process is claimed to be multistakeholder does not per se
guarantee outcomes that are widely seen to be legitimate. The Commission
continues to support a genuine multistakeholder approach for Internet
governance, which can provide this legitimacy.
In order to further strengthen the
multi-stakeholder model, the European Commission proposes that multistakeholder
processes in relation to Internet policies must fulfil – beyond their
consistency with fundamental rights – at least the following requirements:
·Transparency. All stakeholders must have meaningful access to and information on
the organisational processes and procedures under which the body operates. This
should prevent in particular any proxy activity for silent stakeholders.
·Inclusiveness
and Balance. Those responsible for an inclusive
process must make a reasonable effort to reach out to all parties impacted by a
given topic, and offer fair and affordable opportunities to participate and
contribute to all key stages of decision making, while avoiding capture of the
process by any dominant stakeholder or vested interests.
·Accountability. There should be clear, public commitments to give regular account
to its stakeholders or independent supervisory bodies, and to allow any party
to seek redress through effective dispute resolution mechanisms. 
In addition, multistakeholder approaches should
make appropriate efforts to counter the significant differences in the ability
to participate across the various stakeholder groups to better ensure
representativeness, e.g. by allowing remote participation by default. Further,
it should be recognised that different stages of decision making processes each
have their own requirements and may involve different sets of stakeholders. The
Commission welcomes that some stakeholder groups are working on the development
of multistakeholder guidelines and encourages further efforts. Sound
multistakeholder processes remain essential for the future governance of the
Internet. At the same time, they should not affect the ability of public
authorities, deriving their powers and legitimacy from democratic processes, to
fulfil their public policy responsibilities where those are compatible with
universal human rights. This includes their right to intervene with regulation
where required.
The
European Commission is firmly committed to the multistakeholder model of
Internet governance. The Commission calls upon stakeholders to further
strengthen the sustainability of the model by making actors and processes more
inclusive, transparent and accountable.
The Commission
will work with stakeholders on the exchange of best practice.  
Enabling inclusive participation
The broad range of Internet-related policy
areas, together with its complex institutional framework, represents an
obstacle to effective participation in Internet policy making for many
stakeholders. This can contribute to a general sense of non-inclusion and
disenfranchisement. In this context, the needs of persons with disabilities
must also be taken into account[21].Further
efforts are also needed to expand multistakeholder structures in countries
whose stakeholders are currently not sufficiently represented. The support of
the European and North American Regional Internet Registries in the
establishment of the African Regional Internet Registry is a good example.
One way to address this challenge is to
facilitate access to forums and information by remote participation in meetings
as a general rule. Further ahead, data mining and data visualization tools
applied to openly available data and information on Internet policy and
governance can enable broader stakeholder participation. 
The Commission plans to develop an online
platform, named Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO)[22] through
which such information can be channelled and made widely accessible. GIPO aims
to be a global online resource for monitoring Internet policy-making,
regulations and technology to help identify links between different forums and
discussions, in order to overcome "policy silos" and help to
contextualise information. This would make it easier for stakeholders with
limited resources to follow, understand and engage with Internet governance and
policy.[23]
The
Commission proposes to launch the technical development of the Global Internet
Policy Observatory (GIPO) in 2014 as a resource for the global community. 
The
Commission calls on stakeholders to engage in capacity building in order to 
establish and promote multistakeholder processes in countries and regions where
such processes are not or less developed. 
The
Commission, together with recipients, will continue in 2014 to strengthen its
development assistance programmes in support of media development and freedom
of expression, as well as technological, policy and regulatory
capacity-building related to the Internet.
There is some experience with operating a
multistakeholder model for the formulation of Internet-related policies at the
national level. In the EU, examples include the French Conseil national du
numérique and the UK Multistakeholder Advisory Group on Internet Governance.
Outside the Union, the Brazilian Comitê Gestor da Internet is a prominent
example where the multistakeholder process is used in the consultative
preparation of policies pertaining to the Internet[24]. Similar approaches might
be usefully employed at European level to minimize future fragmentation of
Internet governance related policies, possibly building on the experience of
existing networks[25].
This would respond to the need to have an early upstream consultation mechanism
in place that is adapted to the fast pace of technological change and the resulting
implications on Internet governance related policies, through a continuous
dialogue with a wide and complex range of stakeholder groups. Another important
function could be to help coordinate the activities of existing advisory bodies
in the EU whenever relevant. The Commission needs to be able to engage in a
meaningful manner with the diverse set of Internet stakeholders in Europe, also including grass-roots initiatives that form an integral part of the Internet
ecosystem. 
The
Commission will launch a broad consultation, of civil society, the technical
and academic communities and European industry, as well as the European
Parliament and Member States, on how to ensure adequate and transparent
multi-stakeholder involvement in the formulation of future European Internet
governance policies.
6.           Technical Norms Shaping
the Internet
Technical details of Internet protocols and
other information technology specifications can have significant public policy
implications. Their design can impact on human rights such as users' data
protection rights and security, their ability to access diverse knowledge and
information, and their freedom of expression online. It also affects other
stakeholders, including companies conducting business online, whose security
concerns also need to be taken into account.
The Commission welcomes the efforts of the
technical community to establish approaches to specification setting based on
public policy concerns. Positive examples include technical guidance for
privacy considerations in new protocols[26],
the recognition of multilingualism for internationalised domain names, or
accessibility standards for persons with disabilities. Such efforts are
especially important as IP-based technologies are increasingly used in
traditional economic sectors such as energy, transport, finance and health.
However, even where the technical
discussion process is open, key decisions are frequently made by technical
experts in the absence of broad stakeholder representation. An effective
multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet will be
based on efficient mutual interactions between technical and public policy
considerations[27]
so that technical specifications more systematically take into account public
policy concerns. This is particularly important when legal rights of
individuals, especially their human rights, are clearly impacted. At the same
time, the distribution and administration of Internet resources follows rules
that are created in multi-stakeholder processes. 
The implications of this evolution in norm
setting in relation to the Internet require an open public debate with all
concerned.
It is also important to support the
implementation of open standards by the European Internet industry and the
involvement of the European Internet industry in the development of open
internet standards.
The
Commission, together with interested parties, including the European Internet
industry, proposes to convene a series of workshops with international experts
in law, ethics[28],
social sciences, economics, international relations and technology. This
expected output will be concrete and actionable recommendations to ensure
coherence between existing normative frameworks and new forms of Internet-enabled
norm-setting.
The
Commission encourages all stakeholders to strengthen (and where appropriate
create) structured mechanisms to allow regular, early and truly inclusive
upstream participation, review and comment in technical decisions. These structured
mechanisms should also strive towards consistency of technical decisions with
human rights
7.           Building Confidence 
Confidence in the Internet and its
governance is a prerequisite for the realisation of the Internet's potential as
an engine for economic growth and innovation. The safety, security, stability
and resilience of the Internet are crucial to preserve and foster the economic
and societal benefits of the digital ecosystem.
The Commission is addressing these
challenges, notably via the reform of the EU data protection framework[29],
the effective fight against cybercrime and an ambitious approach to
cyber-security, such as the EU Cybersecurity strategy[30]. This
strategy aims at making the EU online environment the safest in the world,
while preserving and further promoting fundamental rights[31]. A rising number of
activities online directly contravene the exercise of fundamental rights. 
Cybercrime, including online child abuse[32],
identity theft, cyber attacks and non-cash payment fraud, and other forms of
unlawful processing of personal data pose a serious threat to confidence in the
use of the Internet. The Commission is committed to drastically reducing
cybercrime. 
The role of the technical community is
crucial, including by ensuring confidence in IP based communications and the
resilience of cryptosystems to increase the trustworthiness of IP-based
communications. This would support an effective fight against cyber-crime and ensure
the privacy of users. 
Large-scale surveillance and intelligence
activities have also led to a loss of confidence in the Internet and its
present governance arrangements. The Commission addressed some of these
concerns notably in its Communication on rebuilding trust in international
transfers of personal data[33].
The implications for global Internet governance must also be addressed. 
The
Commission will work with the Council and Parliament to achieve rapid adoption
and implementation of key legislation, including the reform of the data
protection framework and the proposed Directive on network and information
security, in order to strengthen trust online.
The
Commission is committed to working with partners to rebuild trust in the
Internet, including through the strengthening of its global governance, which
is an essential pre-requisite for a sustainable future for an open Internet.
8.           Conflicts of
jurisdictions and laws 
Like other cross-border activities, the
Internet poses a series of challenges for the application of laws. While such
challenges are not always specific to the Internet, the sheer quantity of
cross-border transactions of various types which take place online, call for a
more thorough reflection on how existing rules apply on the Internet.
Extraterritorial application of national
law, often based on the geographies of the Domain Name System, has led to a
number of contradictory legal decisions[34].
This can lead, for example, to cases where domain names used in one
jurisdiction are revoked on the basis of provisions under another jurisdiction,
depending on the geographical location of the registrar or registry. 
Many activities on the
Internet are increasingly governed by contractual arrangements between private
companies and users on the Internet. Non-contractual obligations of e-commerce
traders and intermediaries are also relevant in this context. The complexity
and, in some cases, the opaqueness of these arrangements, including for what
concerns provisions on applicable jurisdiction and law, may give rise to a
certain degree of legal uncertainty. 
From the point of view
of private law, uniform European rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments and conflict rules exist in some areas, in particular
in respect of contractual and extra-contractual obligations. These rules
regulate such problems within the European Union. At the international level,
conflict rules are insufficiently developed, leading to unsolved conflicts of
laws beyond the Union. In particular for Internet related services that are
inherently cross-border in nature, such as cloud-computing services, this
complexity at international level can be harmful for growth.
Addressing the tension
between an international Internet and national jurisdictions should also take
into account the diversity of cases that can be subject to these conflicts,
which are not apt to be addressed by one single mechanism.
The
European Commission will launch an in-depth review of the risks, at
international level, of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions arising on the
Internet and assess all mechanisms, processes and tools available and necessary
to solve such conflicts. All options for action at the Union or international
level will subsequently be carefully considered, including possible legislative
initiatives or additional guidelines as needed, subject to appropriate impact
assessments. This work will build on existing policies.
9.           Conclusions
The European Union, and the world at large,
needs to take a conscious position on the future shape and development of
Internet governance. The Commission believes that the EU institutions and
Member States need a common vision for the future model of Internet governance.
The Commission plans a progress report in 2015 on the key elements outlined in
this Communication in the context of global developments in Internet
Governance.
The Internet should remain a single,
open, free, unfragmented network of networks, subject to the same laws
and norms that apply in other areas of our day-to-day lives. Its governance
should be based on an inclusive, transparent and accountable multistakeholder
model of governance, without prejudice to any regulatory intervention that
may be taken in view of identified public interest objectives such as to ensure
the respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic
values as well as linguistic and cultural diversity and care for vulnerable
persons. A safe, secure, sound and resilient architecture
is the basis for trust and confidence of Internet users. At the
same time, the innovation power of the Internet must be maintained with
the full participation of the European Internet economy, building on a
strengthened digital single market interconnected to the world. This requires
careful yet robust stewardship.
The European Union is well placed to play
its part in the good governance of the Internet, as it continues to evolve
towards a modern networked society, with distributed centres of power and
decision making. The Commission invites the Council and Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, as well as Member States, to agree on a common vision as highlighted in this Communication and to
defend it jointly in the forthcoming international debates.
[1]               See COM(1998)111, COM(1998)476, COM(2000) 202, OJ C 293,
14.10.2000, COM(2009)277, EP resolution 15.6.2010 (2009/2229(INI))
[2]               Boston Consulting Group, 'The $4.2 Trillion Opportunity – the Internet Economy in the G-20', 3/2012
[3]               McKinsey Global Institute 'Internet matters: The
Net's sweeping impact on growth, jobs, and prosperity', 2011
[4]               Join(2013)1, 'Cybersecurity Strategy of the European
Union: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace', 7.2.2013
[5]               According to the Tunis Agenda, Internet Governance
should involve governments, the private sector and civil society (para 34), as
well as intergovernmental and international organisations (para 35 (d), (e))
and include the contributions by the academic and technical communities (para
36).
[6]               See e.g. "Introduction to Internet
Governance", http://www.diplomacy.edu/IGBook;
Mapping Internet Governance project at http://idgovmap.org/;
              
http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/governance-2500x1664-21mar13-en.png
[7]               Working Definition of Internet Governance, as
endorsed in the conclusions of the WSIS, see           
http://www.itu.int/wsis.
[8]                      As enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights
and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
[9]               In addition, the actions foreseen in this
Communication do not require any additional budget beyond current appropriations
already foreseen in the current multi-annual financial framework.
[10]             COM(2013)627. Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the European
single market for electronic communications and to achieve a connected
continent.
[11]             Presented at the occasion of the OECD's High-Level
Meeting on the Internet Economy, 28.06.2011, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/blog/i-propose-a-compact-for-the-internet
[12]             e.g. OECD Council Recommendation on Principles for
Internet Policy Making (2011); Deauville G8 Declaration (2011)
[13]             Commission Expert Group to ensure coordination at the
European level in the follow-up to WSIS
[14]                    See paras 35 & 36 Tunis Agenda and COM(2009)277 para 2
[15]             See http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf

[16]             See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2005/us-principles-internets-domain-name-and-addressing-system

[17]             COM(2009)277
[18]             See http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
[19]             The IANA functions include (1) the coordination of the
assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters; (2) the administration of
certain responsibilities associated with the Internet DNS root zone management;
(3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and (4) other services
related to the management of the ARPA and INT top-level domains (TLDs).
[20]                                            See http://www.ietf.org/about/
[21]             This will reflect the commitment undertaken by the EU
when concluding the UN Convention on the Rights of  Persons with Disabilities,
see http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
[22]             See http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-plans-guide-through-global-internet-policy-labyrinth.

[23]             For the technical development of GIPO and indicative
European Union contribution of EUR500,000 has been provisioned in the Horizon
2020 workprogramme for 2014-2015.
[24]             Other relevant examples include the
"Internet" advisory committees to the OECD, as well as the Kenyan
KICTAnet. 
[25]             E.g. EuroDIG, http://www.eurodig.org/
[26]             See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973
[27]             See Regulation 1025/2012 of 25.10.2012 on European
standardisation, Commission Decision of 28.11.2011 setting up the European
Multistakeholder platform on ICT standardisation, see https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/european-multistakeholder-platform-ict-standardisation

[28]             See also the opinion of the European Groups on Ethics
in Science and New Technologies, http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/ict_final_22_february-adopted.pdf
[29]             COM(2012) 11, 25.1.2012, 'Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such
data (General Data Protection Regulation)'
[30]                    JOIN(2013) 1, 'Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union: An
Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace', 7.2.2013 and COM(2013)
48, 'Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to
ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union'
[31]                    As enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention
on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
[32]             Directive 2011/93/EU of 13 December 2011 on combating
the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and
replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA and COM(2012) 196, 'European
Strategy for a Better Internet for Children', 2.5.2012
[33]             Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council: Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows, COM(2013)
846. 
[34]             A useful inventory of examples is available from the
Internet and Jurisdiction project. See  http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/