Global Commission on Internet Governance

Global Commission on Internet Governance
Name	Global Commission on Internet Governance
Formation	2014
Headquarters	International
Founders	Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Chatham House; Centre for International Governance Innovation
Type	Commission
Purpose	Internet governance policy

Contents

Global Commission on Internet Governance The Global Commission on Internet Governance was an international commission convened in 2014 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Chatham House, and the Centre for International Governance Innovation to study challenges to Internet governance arising from Edward Snowden disclosures, Syria civil war, and debates involving the UN General Assembly and the International Telecommunication Union. The commission produced policy reports aimed at informing debates among actors such as the European Commission, United States Department of State, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and the World Economic Forum.

Background and formation

The commission's mandate emphasized preserving an open, interoperable internet while addressing cybersecurity, privacy, and human rights tensions among stakeholders including the European Commission, United States Department of Commerce, African Union, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and civil society groups like Access Now and Electronic Frontier Foundation. Objectives included producing actionable recommendations to influence policy processes at bodies such as ICANN, the International Telecommunication Union, and national legislatures including the United States Congress and the Brazilian National Congress in the wake of debates spurred by the UN Human Rights Council resolutions on privacy.

The commission published major reports calling for a rules-based, multistakeholder approach and urging reform of surveillance laws in line with standards advocated by the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Recommendations targeted actors including ICANN, the Internet Governance Forum, World Economic Forum, and national bodies like the UK Parliament and the German Bundestag, proposing measures on cross-border data flows, transparency for intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency and the Government Communications Headquarters, and norms akin to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The reports referenced precedent from cases in the European Court of Justice and policy frameworks from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the G20.

Membership brought together prominent public figures and experts from institutions such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Chatham House, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Harvard University, Oxford University, Yale University, Google, Microsoft, Apple Inc., Amazon (company), Facebook, and NGOs including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Commissioners included former officials from the United States Department of State, former diplomats to the United Nations, jurists from the International Criminal Court and the European Court of Human Rights, and corporate leaders who had previously engaged with ICANN and the Internet Society. Governance combined an executive secretariat drawn from sponsoring organizations and advisory panels with links to the Internet Governance Forum and the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace.

The commission's reports influenced debates at forums such as the Internet Governance Forum, the World Economic Forum, the G20 Summit, and sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, informing legislative reviews in bodies like the United States Congress and the European Parliament. Civil society actors including Electronic Frontier Foundation and Access Now cited the commission in campaigns opposed to expansive surveillance, while technology firms such as Google and Microsoft used the recommendations to advocate for cross-border data transfer mechanisms referenced in negotiations involving the European Commission and the United States Department of Commerce. International jurists and scholars from Harvard Law School and Oxford Internet Institute engaged with its proposals during symposiums at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution.

Critics from organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy International, and voices in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee argued that commissioners with corporate affiliations such as executives from Google, Microsoft, and Facebook created conflicts similar to critiques leveled at ICANN and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Other controversies involved perceived bias toward the multistakeholder model over intergovernmental solutions championed by delegations to the International Telecommunication Union and governments like the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. Academic critiques published in journals associated with Harvard Kennedy School, Stanford Law School, and the London School of Economics questioned the commission's recommendations on surveillance reform and cross-border data flows relative to rulings from the European Court of Justice and norms emerging from the UN Human Rights Council.