For the other policy issues, organised in six clusters, the underlying principle is that the core rules for addressing these issues in the ‘offline world’ should be applied to the online world. This approach has been codified in the field of human rights by the UN Human Rights Council which stipulates that ‘The same rights that people have offline must also be protected online’.15 While in many cases, traditional (‘offline’) legal principles and approaches remain relevant and applicable to Internet public policy issues, the main challenge is in their implementation to the specificities of the Internet world. The implementation gap is caused by differences between the transborder nature of the Internet and predominantly national regulation of traditional policy issues. For example, consumers used to buy mainly in the place where they lived, typically confined by national markets. Trademarks were protected within national territories. Most of the fight against crime took place on the national level. These and many other issues have gained an international dimension with the Internet transborder communication. Existing mechanisms for implementation of regulation have not been sufficient. In some areas such as cybercrime, this gap was filled relatively fast with the adoption of predominantly regional legal instruments (82 countries are parties to regional cybercrime conventions). In other areas, such as copyright and data protection, international cooperation is gradually taking shape. In other areas, such as consumer protection, the development of policy mechanisms for transborder online transactions is still in a very early stage. The policy response cannot follow fast Internet developments and may create a situation in which Internet public policy issues won’t have the mechanisms and venue to be addressed on international level (so-called orphan issues). The analysis indicates the following gaps appearing frequently in the review of mechanisms for addressing international Internet public policy issues:  Insufficient institutional capacity and/or resources to address Internet aspects of traditional public issues (e.g. cybercrime, consumer protection, jurisdiction). This gap is particularly important in the enforcement and implementation of public policy given the specific nature of the Internet: the speed of Internet developments and the high level of transborder transactions.  A lack of mechanisms for addressing Internet public policy issues in an intersectoral way. For example, there is a challenge on how to address online privacy and data protection from all relevant perspectives, including human rights, trade, standardisation, and security perspectives among others.  A knowledge gap of data and research on international Internet public policy issues. 15 UN Human Rights Council, Resolution: The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, A/HRC/20/L.13, adopted on 5 July 2012. 47