Session 0-3 Transcript
(Global Mechanism ICTs)

We're about to begin, so please take your seats. A very good morning. I call to order the third meeting of this organizational session for the Global Mechanism on developments in the field of information and communications technology and in the context of responsible state behaviour in the use of information and communication technologies. Distinguished delegates, we will now resume our agenda, having completed item four yesterday, and once again I thank you for your cooperation in having made efficient use of the resources at our disposal. Before we come to item five of the agenda, this refers to the agenda of the substantive plenary sessions, I'd like to move to item six of our agenda entitled organization of work. I believe that these elements should be addressed first, because that will help facilitate our consideration of the agenda of the substantive session. And under this item, I intend to take up a number of issues, one by one, in the following order: Decision making and rules of procedure, Dates of the meetings of the Global Mechanism in 2026, Organization of work of the 2026 Substantive Plenary Session, Organization of work of the dedicated thematic groups, including appointment of facilitators of the dedicated thematic groups, and the modalities for the participation of other interested parties and stakeholders, including businesses, non-governmental organizations, and academia. Having said that, I would now like to turn to the matter of decision-making and the Rules of Procedure. As the Global Mechanism is a subsidiary body of and established by the General Assembly, the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly apply mutatis mutandis. These Rules of Procedure are available in all languages in document A/520/Ref.21. Furthermore, the heading entitled Decision Making, as contained in paragraph 17 of Annex C of document A/79/214, stipulates that the Global Mechanism would take all its decisions based on the principle of consensus. In addition, it stipulates that based on consultations with states, decisions could be put forward by the chair for adoption by states on a consensus basis at any time during a substantive plenary session, with decisions to be formalized as soon as they are decided upon by the future permanent mechanism. I hope that affirmation of these understandings should be sufficient to guide our work procedurally. May I take it therefore that the Global Mechanism wishes to affirm the applicability, mutatis mutandis, of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly to this body, with the understanding that all decisions by the Global Mechanism shall be taken based on the principle of consensus? It is so decided. Now I would like to turn your attention to the dates of the Global Mechanism in 2026. According to the consensus modalities agreed by states, the Global Mechanism is to meet twice per year, with one week of dedicated thematic group meetings, and one week of substantive plenary session meetings. The Secretariat has advised me, and thank you, there are other dates available for our meetings, which have already been posted to the dedicated UNODA Meetings Place webpage for the Global Mechanism. The 2026 substantive plenary session will take place from the 20th to the 24th of July at United Nations headquarters here in New York. The 2026 dedicated thematic group meetings will take place from the 7th to the 11th of December, also here at UN headquarters in New York. Moreover, as per the modalities agreed by states, additional dedicated intersessional meetings, and informal consultations could be convened as necessary, and the organization of these would be communicated to all states. May I take it that it is the wish of the Global Mechanism to take note of these dates for 2026? It is so decided. I now wish to take up the matter of the organization of work of the 2026 substantive plenary session. On the next item of the agenda, we will deal with the issue of the provisional agenda for the substantive plenary session, but I wish to inform delegations of my intention to prepare a Program of Action ahead of the July session to support states in their preparations. This was the practice of the Open-Ended Working Group. This program of work document will be shared in advance of the session and will be issued as an official document in all UN languages. The document will propose a structure for our plenary session and is without prejudice to how the Global Mechanism may adjust its proceedings. And now I'd like to refer to the organization of the work for the dedicated thematic groups, including the appointment of facilitators. I would like to refer to the consensus agreed by States on the dedicated thematic groups, as contained in Document A/75/257, Annex 1. Allow me to recall several important modalities. The work of thematic dedicated groups will aim to build on and complement the discussions in the substantive plenary sessions, by providing the opportunity for more detailed and action-oriented discussions, drawing on the five pillars of the framework, in line with the agreed functions and scope of the Global Mechanism. The Global Mechanism will be comprised of the following dedicated thematic groups: one, an integrated policy-oriented and cross-cutting dedicated thematic group drawing on the five pillars of the framework to address specific challenges in the sphere of ICT security in the context of international security, in order to promote an open, secure, stable, accessible, peaceful, and interoperable ICT environment, with the participation of technical experts and other stakeholders. And this is, as you all know, specific working group one. And then we have an integrated policy-oriented and cross-cutting dedicated thematic group for drawing on the five pillars of the framework to accelerate ICT security capacity building, with the participation of capacity building experts, practitioners, and other stakeholders. This is DTG2. These aforementioned groups will continue their work until the first review conference in 2030, after which the Review Conference will take a decision on the number and scope of the dedicated thematic groups that are to be convened over the subsequent four years. Meetings of each dedicated thematic group could proceed in the following manner: briefings from relevant experts, drawing from a pool of experts nominated by States, dedicated time for focused discussions on a rotating agenda of specific issues, including lessons learned and best practice, identifying capacity building needs and facilitating partnerships in this regard, and also updates and draft recommendations on possible action-oriented measures. To ensure focused discussions on specific matters, the chair of the Global Mechanism would prepare guiding questions prior to each dedicated thematic group meeting, which delegations are encouraged to address. In order to facilitate inclusive participation, all dedicated thematic group meetings will take place in hybrid format, with in-person participation strongly encouraged. Dedicated thematic group meetings will also be broadcast on UN Web TV, and this, in accordance with UN practice, hybrid meetings will be considered informal. The chair will be passing around some indicative dates for the work, and we would be very grateful if states could send me their observations on the dates proposed in the intersessional period. In accordance with the agreement by states, the dedicated thematic groups will report to the substantive plenary session with their updates and recommendations. Facilitators of the dedicated thematic group will provide updates to the Global Mechanism at its substantive plenary sessions, and also, they can transmit recommendations for work, if they so request, for consideration by states. All of this in accordance with the decision-making modalities that were adopted in Annex C of document A/79/214. As the dedicated thematic groups are by nature informal meetings, it is my intention to appoint two co-facilitators per dedicated thematic working group to work in their individual capacity at expert level, strictly observing the principles of neutrality and impartiality and inclusivity that will also guide the work of the Chair. I am convinced that this approach will help to make our work more productive and more dynamic, and will also help to share the workload. I also believe that if we have two facilitators per group, this will ensure geographic balance. And in line with resolution 75/240 on revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, I also plan to follow the practice of selecting one delegate from a developed country and one representative from a developing country. And during the period prior to the official election for the chair, I found out that some experts coming from certain regions expressed to the chair's team their vision of how the work should be organised for the specific thematic groups. Thank you for your patience, because I'd like to provide you with all of this information. So, having now informed you about all of the organizational matters, at this moment, I'd now like to give the floor to Member States if they would like to make any preliminary comments with regard to the organization of work for the specific work groups, particularly the appointment of the facilitators for each thematic group. I give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good morning, distinguished colleagues. I'm grateful for your presentation of your vision of the work of the dedicated thematic groups. However, I would like to draw the attention of my distinguished colleagues to the fact that previously we heard, and this is a confirmation of the agreed modalities that were agreed by consensus and enshrined in the final report and in the General Assembly resolution, that all decisions, political and coordination ones in the Global Mechanism, are adopted by consensus. And that was just confirmed, and there was no objection to that. As regards the work of the thematic groups, the only instruction in the consensus modalities pointing to the informal nature of the work was due to the fact that they will, it seems, take place in a hybrid format. And accordingly, because they're in the hybrid format, they have to be informal. And so we all very well understand that the thematic groups are going to prepare for the presentation at the plenary of political issues. And accordingly, the co-facilitators are, by definition, officials. That has been the case in many other formats in the UN, including in the Ad Hoc Committee for the Convention on Cybercrime. They're going to be where we don't, but in any case, any meetings, whether they take place in a hybrid format and therefore informal, they nevertheless are led by officials, by the chair of the committee or by the vice-chairs that have been elected. In that case, there was an election because there was no consensus. So, officials that have been elected by member states. I once again underscore that there's no doubt that the co-facilitators of the thematic groups are officials. Therefore, their appointment should take place through them being approved by consensus by all member states. And in that regard, Russia cannot agree with this interpretation of the fact that it falls within the purview of the chair to simply appoint co-facilitators. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the representative of the European Union.

Dear Chair, thank you so much for setting out your views with regard to the organization of work, more broadly, how you would like to prepare for the plenary, but also for the dedicated thematic groups. Please let me first say that I am honored to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states, the candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement. Chair, colleagues, as said, we are aiming for an organization of work in which the plenary, the DTGs, the Global Roundtable on Cybercapacity Building are complementary and deliver upon actionable and practical measures. And to this end, we encourage the Chair to appoint, in a timely manner, co-facilitators as her prerogative, in line with the practices in the UN for such roles. This would allow for timely preparation of the programs of work and enable us to have stable, action-oriented, and informed discussions in the first DTGs later this year. We really see a need to ensure that the discussion in all formats are able to deliver upon the expectations of delegations for concrete results. And let me go into some more views with regard to how that results could be achieved. We see the plenary as a platform where we can discuss the pillars, guiding the dedicated thematic groups, discussing their recommendations and progressing on the implementation of the UN Framework of Responsible State Behaviour in cyberspace. The work of the DTGs, who provide for focused, issues-based discussions, drawing on relevant expertise through expert briefings, and followed by States' interventions, exchanging on best practices, and developing practical guidance for the implementation. DDG1 and DDG2 should, in our view, also be interconnected and could be complementary to each other, allowing us to discuss specific threats and challenges, which could drive again the identification of gaps in capacity building as part of DDG2. The DDGs, who provide concrete recommendations on how to best address these threats and challenges, including through capacity building efforts. The plenary decides upon these recommendations and provides guidance again to the DTGs for further work. And like this, we have a solid loop that will help us to make tangible progress. To bring in the appropriate expertise and have the whole-of-government approach, inspiring further work and tangible outcomes also on the ground, we warmly welcome the opportunity for hybrid participation in the DTGs to allow smaller delegations to have meaningful participation. In this stage, should also be supported by the multi-stakeholder community, that could inform discussions verbally and through written contributions, including by developing a common understanding of their respective roles on the implementation of the UN framework. Expert briefings will enrich our exchanges with technical and operational insights. We also welcome the opportunity for stakeholders to speak during the DTGs and the additional opportunities for them to contribute to formal meetings, after States, at the discretion of the Chair, and subject to the availability of time. We also welcome the attention of the Chair to hold Chair-led consultative sessions with stakeholders in between. Please allow me also to take the opportunity of this moment to turn to the issue of reporting. In our view, the appointed DTG co-facilitators could update the plenary in a verbal summary on the discussions in the DTGs, in addition to the transmission of recommendations to the plenary session, in the case where they are agreed upon by States within the DTGs, in a spirit of consensus. As for the plenary, in order to avoid overburdening the mechanism with negotiations, allowing for it to focus on practical action, the EU and Member States suggest that two progress reports for the plenary sessions could be issued in Year 2 and in Year 4, while two summaries of preceding reports could be issued in Year 1 and Year 3. A final substantive report could then be produced in Year 5, in line with the dedicated purpose of the review conference. Dear Madam Chair, dear colleagues, as said, we are looking forward to taking this next step with you, and therefore we see a need indeed to appoint co-facilitators in this manner. In advancing a global, open, stable, and secure cyberspace, we need to proceed, we need to cooperate. And the EU and its Member States stand ready to contribute, wherever it's to sharing best practices, funding capacity building projects, hosting simulation exercises, all to ensure that the mechanism delivers tangible output for global cybersecurity. We look forward to engaging with you in the upcoming period, in view of the smooth transition, and in establishing the practice of actionable and effective discussions on the implementation of the UN Framework of Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace. You can count on us to be constructive. You can continue to count on us to contribute to international security and stability, and to build global cyber resilience in partnership with those in the room. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of the European Union for her comments and also on reporting. I am now going to read out the list of speakers of those countries that thus far have requested the floor, just so you're aware. Islamic Republic of Iran, Colombia, China, Australia, Belarus, Republic of Moldova, France, Canada, and United States. The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We welcome your proposal to appoint two co-facilitators for each thematic group, one from the developing country and one from a developed country, as this would help ensure equitable geographical distribution. At the same time, with regard to the selection process, we share the view expressed by the Russian Federation that co-facilitators should be chosen by consensus among member states rather than being appointed by the Chair of the Global Mechanism. Furthermore, as underscored in paragraph 10 of Annex 1 of the final report of the OEWG, in-person participation is strongly encouraged for the meetings of the dedicated thematic groups and therefore should be duly taken into account in the organization of the sessions of the DTGs. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. And I go to Colombia.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We are at a particularly relevant moment for ensuring the effective functioning of the Global Mechanism and its thematic groups. In particular, this initial phase will be key in order to translate the normative work of the Open-Ended Working Group into concrete and operative results. As has already been mentioned by my delegation, the thematic groups require specific mandates that are time-limited, with tangible and measurable outputs and products. It will be up for the plenary to identify those elements and to establish structured timelines that will allow for fluid and effective work. In that regard, Colombia suggests that Group 1 could deal with rotating and specific subjects within its mandate, instead of trying to simultaneously address all of the issues under its purview. That would avoid thematic overreach and would allow for verifiable results. In addition, it's important to ensure that the work of the thematic groups does not duplicate the debates in the plenary. In that regard, in addition to an exchange of experiences component, it would be useful to work on specific cases that may or may not be hypothetical, whose analysis would make it possible to generate concrete recommendations in areas such as incident cooperation, the development of response guides, and the carrying out of simulation exercises, as well as capacity building and coordination during needs mapping and the articulation of capacity building strategies. My delegation calls for the thematic groups, as much as possible, to have simultaneous interpretation. That would contribute to ensuring inclusion and would allow for the effective participation of technical experts from different regions and linguistic contexts. As for the relationship between the thematic groups and the plenary, Colombia believes it is relevant for the results of the thematic groups to feed into the discussions in the plenary. Therefore, at the end of each cycle, the thematic groups should produce a results document that would clearly distinguish between two types of recommendations: those that are sufficiently developed, upon which there is a consensus, which would be taken to the plenary for adoption or for incorporation into results documents, outcome documents, and those that, although they have conceptual support, need further development, and then it would be up for the plenary to continue developing those recommendations. That system would provide tangible benefits for the functioning of the mechanism. It would make the most of the time of the plenary, and it would only then have to deal with issues that are ready for decision. It would give visibility to work that is underway, making sure that all states can be aware of what is making progress and what needs more attention. And it would give an incentive for continuity that would help consolidate the progress that has been made cumulatively throughout the cycle, or throughout each cycle. Progress, and the final outcomes of these, need to be presented ultimately to the plenary, and, if necessary, also in virtual intersessional meetings. Madam Chair, Colombia is making this as a contribution to the debate, and not a closed position. We stand ready to listen to the perspectives and views of other delegations within this session, in order to enrich, adjust, or reframe our proposal, depending on what the member states believe is most appropriate for the proper functioning of the mechanism. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the distinguished representative of Colombia, and allow me also to commend you for your constructive spirit, and also for contributing opinions that can enrich this debate. Thank you very much. That's really what we need at this juncture, when we are… Building the Global Mechanism.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the representative of China.

Thank you, Chair. China supports our Russian and Iranian colleagues' views. Based on the Rosen procedure just agreed, the Global Mechanism, all its decisions should be consensus-based. The Chair can put forward her proposal on who will be the co-facilitators. The co-facilitators will be ultimately decided upon by the consensus among all member states. Thank you, Chair. Gracias.

Thank you. I give the floor to Australia.

Thank you very much, Chair. I take the floor to thank you for providing the details about your vision for the organisation of work of this mechanism and particularly the work plan and modalities of our discussion teams. The work of our discussion teams is going to be incredibly important for the success of our mechanism. They provide a platform for our experts to go really deep on the most important issues and work on the details and the substance in a really cross-cutting and collaborative way. I thank you, Chair, for providing some of the details of your vision. Expert briefings and guiding questions will be incredibly important for the work and hybrid meetings, very important for inclusive participation, particularly for those of us who come from countries very far away. The updates from the discussion teams to the Chair and the Plenary are on action-oriented measures. I take note of the very helpful proposals from the floor already this morning and think that we should be careful and take into account some of the ways the discussion teams could report to the Plenary, just so that we're making sure that we're very flexible and agile in the way that they operate and really maximise the benefits of the discussion teams and the Plenary. And I also thank you for noting that you'll be appointing two experts for each discussion team to assist you in steering the progress of the mechanism. And Australia echoes the requests of many, both yesterday and today, including the Arab Group, the Africa Group, and the European Union, among many others, for you, Chair, to appoint co-facilitators to these groups promptly so that these groups can begin to assist you, Chair, in preparations, gathering ideas from all states to inform the Plenary's decisions on the discussion teams' work plans and tasking in July, and to find a balance in that appointment of co-facilitators that reflects established General Assembly practice, balancing a developed state and a developing state, often looking at gender balance where practical as well, so that these co-facilitators can help share the workload and support you, Chair, to provide substantive technical expertise. Yesterday we heard a lot of innovative ideas on how to organise and practically progress the framework through the discussion teams. For discussion team 1, for example, I heard ideas to take forward our norms implementation checklist, our point of contact directory, implement our new agreed Confidence-Building Measures, and take forward some of the international law simulation exercises that went down so well in our past Open-Ended Working Group. For our capacity building discussion team, Brazil proposed diagnostic assessments similar to the Africa Group's proposal to look at challenges that states face to access capacity building. Many proposed exploring coordinated matchmaking as a way to achieve best value. The European Union reminded us to draw on and engage complementary regional and national efforts. China proposed that we make sure that we develop measures for developing countries to enhance their digital capabilities. And Australia, for our part, would like to see the discussion team 2 strengthen our capacity building roundtable under the Global Mechanism, breathe even more life into it as a platform for exchange and connection and take forward an advantage of our mature ecosystem that we already have for cyber capacity building, the providers, the exercises, the matchmakers, the funding mechanisms that already exist. So, building upon your vision, Chair, and working with all the valuable and innovative ideas from Member States on the work of the discussion teams, both those already suggested and the new ideas that I hope will be put forward in the coming months, these discussion teams can identify concrete needs and best practice, practical actions to really advance our framework and uplift both inclusivity of the mechanism and also the capabilities of all States. And Australia stands ready to support you, Chair, to do the hard work to back up these discussion teams with an objective evidence base and to do so objectively, substantively and with optimism and imagination. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for your statement. I now give the floor to the delegation of Belarus.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And my thanks to you very much for presenting your vision of the way in which the Global Mechanism is going to work. We support your efforts in this position. Rest assured, you have comprehensive support from the Delegation of the Republic of Belarus, and we stand ready to cooperate on every issue. We welcome the vision that was just confirmed, which is that all of the decisions of the Global Mechanism need to be taken by consensus. That imperative should apply in full also to the process of appointing the co-facilitators or co-chairs of the working groups, the thematic groups. The DTGs are very important in the work of and coming up with the recommendations of the mechanism. Their work and their outputs are going to have an extremely important, fundamental effect for the results of the entire negotiating process within the mechanism. The co-facilitators of those groups, as the delegation of Iran said, will be introducing substantive issues of a political nature. These decisions will be an integral component of subsequent efforts within the activities of the mechanism. And it is entirely clear that the appointment of those co-facilitators needs to be done on the basis of consensus among member states. We share the concerns expressed previously by a number of delegations that the arbitrary appointment, unilaterally, of those co-facilitators of the Global Mechanism could harm the principle of consensus in decision-making in full. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the Republic of Moldova.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And my delegation welcomes the proposed agenda for the substantive plenary session, first of all. We believe that structuring discussions around the pillars of the framework provides a solid foundation for guiding our work. The plenary should play a central role in setting strategic direction, advancing implementation of this framework and considering concrete recommendations emerging from other formats. We particularly appreciate the inclusion of an agenda item dedicated to the consideration of the work of the dedicated thematic groups. This linkage is essential to ensure that discussions are not conducted in isolation, but rather as part of a continuous and dynamic process. In our view, the plenary should serve as the space where outputs from the thematic groups are consolidated, discussed and, appropriately, translated into actionable CBMs. Madam Chair, we would like to thank you for your clear presentation regarding the organization of the DGGs, as well as for your thoughtful approach on proposing a balanced composition of facilitators, including representation from both a developing and a developed country. We fully support this approach, which contributes to inclusivity and ensures that diverse perspectives are reflected in the work of our mechanism. We have full confidence in your leadership in identifying the most suitable candidates and look forward to engaging with the appointed facilitators promptly, as my distinguished colleague from Australia also mentioned, and working closely with them. We see the DTGs as key engines of substantive progress. They should allow for more focused and in-depth discussion on a limited number of priority issues with a view to producing concrete and implementable recommendations. To achieve this, their work should be informed by technical expertise and practical experience, including through briefings by experts and stakeholders. At the same time, we underline the importance of ensuring coherence and complementarity between the thematic groups. Discussions on specific ICT threats and challenges should inform the identification of capacity gaps, thereby strengthening the link between substantive and capacity-building efforts. Such an approach would enhance the relevance and effectiveness of our work, particularly for developing countries. Finally, Madam Chair, we emphasize that proper gender representation for the selection of facilitators should also be taken into account as an important element of inclusivity and balance in the work of this mechanism. I thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I now give the floor to France.

Madam Chair, my delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and would like to make the following comments in our national capacity. The new nature of the mechanism is where its added value is, which is in the creation of thematic groups that will complement the plenary, as we saw it in the Open-Ended Working Group. We welcome this point of view, the addition of a dedicated item in the plenary. A lot has already been said about the groups, but I will stick to the following four points. First, it is up to the thematic groups to conduct in-depth work on precise, concrete subjects that are limited in number. Those subjects should be subjects of major challenges that face member states in cyberspace, basically those that are keeping our administrations up at night. As Singapore said yesterday, many states are wondering about what is the interest in devoting resources into following the mechanism. France believes in the fact that thematic groups can provide results, not only that are concrete and tangible, but also that are easy to use and that justify our collective engagement within the mechanism. Regarding the choice of the subjects that these groups will work on, my delegation is in favour of them being proposed to states by the Chair on the basis of informal consultations with states. Several subjects have already been proposed since the beginning of this meeting. As was underscored yesterday by Mexico, Morocco, and others, the choice of these subjects should above all allow us flexibility and adaptability. Thirdly, France underscores that thematic continuity must exist between the two groups. The considerations in the first should allow the second group to identify the specific needs that states have in a particular area. Lastly, concerning the co-facilitators, in light of UN practice that you recalled, my delegation has no objection to them being appointed by the Chair in accordance with the Chair's prerogatives. We also support the statement yesterday by Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group, calling for the co-facilitators to be appointed in accordance with geographical balance, but also on the basis of their competence. Their role will be to support the Chair in running the thematic groups, and their expertise will be a crucial asset. You have the confidence of my delegation, Madam Chair, to appoint candidates that will be able to meet those two criteria. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

. The floor is given to the United States.

Chair, thank you for sharing your vision and your efforts. Just two very quick reactions from us. We appreciate your efforts to find a balance among the co-facilitators of the DTGs. We look forward to hearing from you on the appointment of your co-facilitators. The DTGs will advance the action-oriented mandate of the Global Mechanism. As such, the selection of strong co-facilitators is important to ensuring both the general function of the DTGs as well as the overall balance of the discussion to be had in the DTGs. We will not support any attempt to use the appointment of the co-facilitators as a means to derail our important work here or to co-opt the DTGs for individual states' interest. Turning to the plenary agenda, or the draft plenary agenda, and as we said in our national statement, we should respect the two-day window we have and focus on the decisions that must be taken in this session and leave questions belonging to the plenary and the DTG co-facilitators to July. We welcome the initial draft of the agenda for the plenary sessions. The plenary sessions will serve as an important function in the Global Mechanism. We have seen the value in this format over the years of discussions in the OEWG. We view these plenary meetings as providing states with an opportunity to reflect on the high-level topics in more depth, as well as to consider the work of the DTGs. With this context in mind, the United States prefers to let the July plenary decide on its organization of work and agenda items for the DTGs rather than decide these issues today, particularly given the short window we have for discussion. As such, we reserve our position on the draft plenary agenda. Chair, we look forward to hearing from you on the co-facilitators as well as proposals for the plenary agenda and the organization of the DTGs. We are prepared to engage on those proposals constructively, but we will reserve our detailed views for that discussion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I now go to the floor to the delegation of Cuba, followed by Italy, Egypt, Senegal, and Japan.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Once again, we congratulate you and we recognize the work that's been done with your team to arrive at this organizational meeting. We very much appreciate what you explained this morning. When we spoke yesterday, we stressed the importance of consensus in the Global Mechanism, and we join in the proposals made by a group of countries to have the ability to take a decision on the co-facilitators for the thematic groups. And we're grateful that the Chair has followed the practice of taking into account equitable geographic distribution for appointing the co-facilitators. We also agree with the recommendation made by Colombia with regard to the need for our work to be multilingual. These will be informal meetings, but despite that, in-person group, in-person meetings are very important, and we are sure that you'll be able to address these issues. As soon as possible, thank you.

Very much, and I'll give the floor to Italy.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor, and thank you for sharing your views on the next steps. Italy fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and wishes to add a few considerations from its national perspective. Dear colleagues, against a very difficult time for multilateralism and the UN itself, we are called to prove that the international community can work fruitfully and achieve meaningful goals, despite different stances, priorities, or sensitivities. Looking at the Global Mechanism, the best we can do in the interests of the UN and of our peoples is to seize the relevant opportunities offered by the work of the DTGs to deliver concrete outcomes. As set out in the 2025 OEWG final report, DTGs are expected to conduct focused discussions, and then report to the substantive plenary session with updates and recommendations. Italy regards such a structure as a virtuous circle, where plenaries and DTGs reinforce each other to the benefit of action-oriented discussions and potential initiatives. In line with the position of the EU and other countries, Italy sees the DTGs as interconnected and complementary, where the appointment of co-facilitators falls within the prerogatives of the chair, as per UN practice. In Italy's view, it is also advisable to limit the number of topics to be discussed every year, so that Member States have proper time to exchange their views across the five pillars, also benefiting from experts' and other stakeholders' contributions in a substantial manner. Among the topics of major interest for us are certainly ransomware, the protection of critical infrastructures, the role of non-state actors in the ICT environment, and the impact of EDTs on cybersecurity. We are keen on sending experts to some sessions, and we look forward to learning the modalities on how to do that. DTG2, in particular, provides for an important opportunity to identify needs and possible solutions, also by matching demand and offer of capabilities. From this perspective, we would also like to highlight that a concrete work through DTG2 on cyber capacity building can be seen as a way to implement not only the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace, but also the global digital compact, by bridging digital divides, and thus accelerating the achievement of sustainable development goals. Madam Chair, Italy is ready to do its part, and to cooperate with you, your team, and all member states, in a spirit of openness and constructiveness. We look forward to diving into many topics of interest in the plenaries and the DTGs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Egypt.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. And as was referenced yesterday during the Arab statement and the African statement, I wish to highlight one point. The main focus of developing countries, if I speak as one of them, is to engage in substantive discussions as quickly as possible, to address the challenges that we all face, whether to threats, capacity building, or otherwise. In order to engage in these substantive discussions, we need to empower our Chair, and to do this, the Chair needs a team. It goes this way: the team should be appointed as quickly as possible and should be well equipped. We need experts that are professional in this domain, that have been engaging with the OEWG for a considerable period of time, that understand the specifics. Chair, I will speak in honesty with you. After two years from now, you will be held accountable and people will ask what you provide to the mechanism. So, if we do not engage as quickly as possible in substantive discussions, questions will be raised about what has been done in the two years. So, again, I understand the procedural interpretations of the report. Every delegation might have their own views to whatever is written in it. However, as developing countries, we focus more on substantive discussions. We ask the other request to you to engage with us in those discussions as soon as possible. So, we support your proposal in appointing the co-facilitators as the way you deem it. Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Seneca, followed by Japan, the Netherlands, and Canada.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to briefly come back to our current discussions. Let me welcome your proposal, first of all, to appoint two co-facilitators, taking into account the need to have fair geographic distribution and also focus on level of expertise. I'd like to suggest, as far as possible, that we also account for different languages so that we can promote multilingualism. I think Colombia referred to this as well, the need to have an inclusive approach in terms of language. So, if the linguistic criteria could also be taken into account when you choose the co-facilitators, we would be very happy about that. I also wanted to come back to Egypt's proposal. I think this was said yesterday. We need to use the intersessional periods to make progress on the discussions for the future mechanism. And, as soon as we have the list of co-facilitators, the sooner we can start bilateral and multilateral discussions to make progress. Very briefly, with regard to the DTGs, we welcome the need to put forward reports, and we welcome what the EU has said about two yearly reports, and also to have a report at the end of five years. I'd also like to reiterate the need in those reports to strike a balance between discussions where we've had consensus and discussions where we have not found consensus. We're in a rather complicated geopolitical environment, and it means that there's a lot more divergence than there is consensus, but we mustn't lose sight of the discussions that we've had, and very often during these processes, we see that when you read the final report, it gives the appearance of not having discussed anything, but that's not true. Progress can be made on certain subjects, even if there's not agreement. And we need to have this institutional memory about what we have discussed. That's very interesting to read in the reports. So, we need in the reports to list areas where there was consensus and where there was not consensus, so that we can continue to move forward in the debate. I think that's it, probably, and reiterate the position of the African group with regard to the need for the chair to appoint these two co-facilitators as soon as possible. Thank you.

Muchísimas gracias. Japan. Thank you very much. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As stated in yesterday's remarks, Japan places great importance on practical discussions and concrete outcomes regarding the Global Mechanism. From this perspective, we believe that the DTGs will play a significant role, and we strongly hope that preparations for substantive discussions within the DTGs will begin as soon as possible. In this regard, the final report, which was adopted by consensus among all Member States, stipulates that the Chair would prepare guiding questions prior to the DTGs. With this language and the UN practices in mind, Japan understands the Chair has the authority to appoint co-facilitators of the DTGs. Japan strongly hopes that the preparations for the DTGs will proceed as soon as possible, including the appointment of co-facilitators for the DTGs under the Chair's leadership. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kingdom of the Netherlands aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and please allow me to make some additional remarks in my national capacity. We listen carefully to your proposals, and we welcome your approach. Regarding the co-facilitators, we join others in supporting your approach, and view this as balanced, inclusive, and reflective of existing UN practice. We believe it will benefit the process if the co-facilitators would become part of the Global Mechanism team promptly, so that the Global Mechanism can start its functioning timely, and allow for our substantive exchanges to start in a well-prepared manner. Chair, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is, by land mass, one of the smaller countries in the European continent. At the same time, we are a country with one of the highest rates of digital connections in the world. It is for that reason that responsible state behavior in the field of ICTs remains a topic that the Netherlands adheres great priority to. As a successor of the previous GGEs and open-ended working groups, the Global Mechanism is uniquely positioned to aid member states in taking the cumulative and evolving normative framework for responsible state behavior from these conference walls into the reality of cyberspace. Moving to the DTGs, the Kingdom of the Netherlands attaches great importance to these. We view the threat landscape as a prism by applying international law, the 11 non-binding voluntary norms, confidence-building measures, and capacity building through simulations to specific cyber threats, like ransomware or the protection of critical infrastructure, as was mentioned yesterday by a few. DTGs can actually help states better navigate an increasingly complex cyber environment. Substantive streamlining between DTG1 and DTG2 would then allow member states to build on those insights in the second DTG on capacity building. Exploring specific threats through the evolving and combative framework can provide further understanding of capacity building needs. This could then be addressed, and could provide focused recommendations to the plenary. A comprehensive, well-informed picture is essential to ensure all states can effectively monitor and mitigate these threats. We stand ready to work collaboratively and constructively with the entire membership, and with your chair and your team. I thank you.

Thank you very much. I now read out the following list: Canada, Djibouti, Malaysia, Switzerland, and Mexico. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Our statement will address the functioning of DTGs, their topics, and our agreements on stakeholder modalities. Dedicated thematic groups will complement the plenaries. They are our best opportunity to get more value for our efforts. They are as important, if not more, than the plenary meetings to achieve concrete outcomes. On the structure of the discussions, our consensus agreements provide, under paragraph 8 of Annex 1, that we should start with expert briefings, continue with discussions on best practices, lessons learned, and capacity building, and then engage on updates and recommendations to the plenary. This is a solid basis, and we welcome the French paper that proposes ways to build on this. The discussions on best practices should note how such practices advance the implementation of each pillar of the framework, including how existing voluntary norms and international law apply. States could draw lessons from this, and therefore focus capacity-building activities where it matters most. On substantive topics for the thematic groups, we should be focused and not try to address too many all at once. This is how we can achieve more action-oriented outcomes. It would be wise to focus on topics that are most pressing to address for most states. In this organizational session alone, we heard Colombia, Iraq, Turkey, India, the European Union, the African Group, and the Pacific Island Forum, and many others calling for more work on the production of critical infrastructure. There were also numerous references to ransomware as a threat. These are also the specific challenges that have been raised most in the OEWG years. These would therefore be, in our opinion, a logical place to start. Regarding facilitators, we understand that they will act in their personal capacity and that they will be under the responsibility of the Chair. We welcome the Chair's vision in that regard, which aligns with UN practice. We heard many delegations call for substantive work to start as soon as possible, and therefore for the prompt appointment of facilitators, or co-facilitators. Madam Chair, opportunities like today are useful for states to provide input into how the thematic groups should work. At the same time, these meetings are informal, and this is by design. For us to prepare, we will need advance notice of the topics and structure of discussions, and this will be the work of the facilitators. Flexibility and agility are necessary to adjust the thematic groups so they remain fit for purpose over time. Remember that this is a permanent mechanism. A number of delegations addressed the important matter of stakeholder participation over the last few days. It is hard to keep track of how many states consider their contributions essential, but it is clearly an overwhelming majority. It includes delegations of all sizes from all regions of the world. Madam Chair, stakeholder modalities were one of the very last issues resolved last July. Our agreements there are integral to the consensus package. We recall that a cross-regional group put forward a proposal for ambitious stakeholder modalities in the lead up to July. That proposal went way beyond what we agreed to as a compromise. Where we landed is the bottom line for those who recognize that stakeholders add value to our discussions. We invite you and all delegations to respect the careful balance struck in the final report. That balance provides for stakeholder participation in every aspect of the Global Mechanism. That is clear from paragraph 11 of Annex C. Formal meetings call for more detailed modalities. These are specified under paragraph 15 of Annex 1, which notably indicates that stakeholder sessions will take place during the plenaries and that there will be virtual consultations. The framework for stakeholder participation in thematic groups is different. As for any informal meeting, UN practice applies, and the July consensus is clear that states will be able to nominate stakeholders for the expert briefings that will kick off the DTG discussions, that's paragraph 8, and that the wider stakeholder community is invited to participate throughout the DTG discussions, that's in paragraph 7. Madam Chair, let me conclude with a traditional Canadian reference in these UN discussions. When it comes to cybersecurity, we are all in the same canoe. We all need to paddle towards our agreed destination, which was decided last July. This is the only way to make consistent progress. This concludes Canada's remarks.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Djibouti.

Thank you for giving me the floor, Madam Chair. Well, after having listened to discussions as they are progressing, I'd say that we don't have a lot of time. We've only got today to finalize our work. So our work needs to conclude today at the end of the afternoon, and to make progress, I'd like to support your proposal by ensuring an inclusive choice, including developed and developing countries. The group report, well, indeed all of the work of the DTGs will be discussed in plenary, and the mechanism, as always, will favour adoption by consensus. So, I don't see why anyone would not accept the choice you have suggested. Senegal and other countries from Africa have stressed, particularly Egypt. We, as a developing country, what's important to us is that we make progress on this mechanism. We also need to take into account multilingualism, that was stressed by various countries, because that means that there'll be a lot more involvement in the discussion on this mechanism. Particularly for developing countries, this is relevant. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your statement. I now give the floor to Malaysia.

Thank you, Chair. Malaysia appreciates your clear vision for the dedicated thematic groups, and we see strong value in these groups serving as key platforms for more focused, substantive, and action-oriented discussions across all pillars of our framework. We particularly appreciate your emphasis on expert briefings and guiding questions, which we believe will be essential in helping delegations engage more meaningfully and in ensuring that discussions remain structured, inclusive, and productive. Malaysia also welcomes the proposed hybrid formats for meetings, which will be critical in enabling the effective participation of all member states and other relevant stakeholders, particularly those joining from different regions and time zones. On the reporting arrangements, we support the idea of regular updates from the DTGs to yourself as Chair, as well as to the plenary. At the same time, we see value in ensuring that these arrangements remain flexible and adaptive, so that the DTGs can operate efficiently and maximize their contributions to the overall work of the mechanism. Malaysia also would like to join others in encouraging the early appointments of co-facilitators to assist in guiding the work of these groups, while also facilitating your role as Chair in overseeing the overall process. We believe that such appointments, taking into account equitable representation, will help to ensure both inclusivity and effectiveness in advancing the work of the DTGs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Switzerland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We thank you for sharing your views on the work of the plenary and the DGTs, as well as for nominating the co-facilitators. A lot has already been said, and I would only like to highlight a few points from our national view. Expectations for the Global Mechanism are high. After 20 years of discussions at the UN, during which time states have developed the framework for responsible state behavior, the new Global Mechanism is a tool that will enable us to make concrete progress in implementing what has been achieved. We have to show that multilateralism can deliver. The DGTs will play a central role in this process. In addition to the strategic discussions that will take place in the plenary session, the DGTs will hold more in-depth and targeted discussions on specific topics that are relevant for states and the reality on the ground. We thank France for the non-paper and support the proposals it contains for how the DGTs should function. Madam Chair, we support your proposal on the appointment of the co-facilitators for the DGTs, taking into account the need for geographical distribution, gender equality, and expertise. The sooner the co-facilitators are appointed, the sooner we can start working and make progress. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and I'll give the floor to my Mexico.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We thank you for your vision with regard to the organization of our work and the relationship between the plenary and the DTGs. For my country, the plenary session, as well as the DTGs, should consider a limited, clearly defined number of thematic subjects that will make the whole thing practical from the get-go. We think that the balanced governance model could be particularly useful. The plenary can set the strategic goals, whereas the DTGs can produce concrete results within the mandates and the clearly defined timelines, so that we have a mechanism that's oriented; the DTGs could focus on practicable deliverables and also include guidelines for the implementation of regulations and cooperation upstream of incidents, and also an exchange of national experiences on confidence-building measures in the ICT area. We think it would be fundamental to have cycles for the presentation of regular reports from the DTGs to the plenary. That would mean that the thematic discussions will then become part of a collective understanding. And we need clear mandates as well. Deadlines and the regular presentation of DTG and plenary reports could help to guarantee that discussions remain focused on achieving results. With regard to the appointment of your co-facilitators, we agree with those that took the floor before us in saying that those appointments need to be made as soon as possible, that they respect geographic distribution, which is clearly defined. And we'd like to echo here the request made by Colombia and other delegations, that we take into consideration, if possible, the aspect of multilingualism, as well as the comment made by Moldova with regard to gender parity. And also, the appointment of co-facilitators is a prerogative of the chair, and in that, we support your work on the understanding that the plenary does conserve the final decision right in this regard. All of this is taking place under the auspices of the General Assembly, so those facilitating processes within a mechanism, DTGs or other groups, are directly appointed by the President of the General Assembly. And so, we invite the chair to have broad-based informal discussions with member states to ensure that there is broad support, on the understanding that the formal act of appointment is a prerogative of the presidency of the chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the following speakers: Nicaragua, Argentina, Nigeria, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Russian Federation. Nicaragua, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, my delegation would like to stress the importance of us making progress in appointing the co-facilitators for the DTGs of the mechanism. We also feel that those groups will be fundamental to guide the substantive work of the process, and therefore, they should enjoy trusted Member States from the very beginning. In this regard, we feel that the appointment of these co-facilitators should be done on the basis of broad-based, transparent, and inclusive consultations and reflect consensus among Member States in line with the intergovernmental and consensual nature of this mechanism. We also believe it's essential that this process take due account of the principle of equitable geographic representation in order to ensure balanced and representative representation of the various regions in our work. In our view, this will help to increase the legitimacy of the process, create greater balance, and greater trust between the delegations. We therefore feel that these appointments should not be seen as the result of a unilateral decision, but as a determination that is made collectively with the agreement of Member States, respecting fair, balanced geographic representation. Thank you. Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Argentina. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I begin by thanking you for sending to us the draft agenda in good time, that enables us to look at that agenda at this organizational meeting. With regard to item six of that agenda, relating to the consideration of the work of the dedicated thematic groups, my delegation would like to make the following comments. We feel it would be very useful if the Chair could lead intersessional consultations prior to the holding of the next plenary, aimed at identifying issues that could be addressed during the DTGs. This exercise would make it possible to have a more precise understanding of Member States' priorities in all of these working groups, in both working groups. On the basis of those consultations, we then feel that the Chair could prepare and circulate in good time a document containing a draft of the subjects that are proposed for each DTG. That document could form a substantive basis for consideration under Item 6 in the Plenary, and we think that that draft should be considered formally by the plenary, so that Member States are able to make adjustments if they feel that's appropriate, and finally approve it and approve the working agenda for the DTGs. That could help give greater clarity to the process, more predictability, and more legitimacy. Madam Chair, we are sure that focusing on these things, we can help build consensus, and it will make it possible for the DTGs to start their work with a clear mandate that is supported. Supported by a broad majority of member states. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the Delegate of Nigeria.

Madam Chair, Nigeria appreciates your vision for the modalities of the Global Mechanism, and we stand ready to engage constructively with you and other Member States on all thematic issues. Given the important role of the co-facilitators and the exigency of time in this process, Nigeria reaffirms the Global African Group's earlier statement that calls for the Chair to nominate the co-facilitators with balanced representation. I thank you.

I'm ready to help. Please provide the transcript text that needs correction.

Very much. The United Nations, you have the floor. Madam Chair, thank you. Yesterday we had national statements calling for a new Global Mechanism to deliver practical support to states. For this to happen, we urge rapid agreement on the practicalities to enable us to move forward with our common goal, ensuring we can use the intersessional period to start the work. With that in mind, we welcome your remarks on the organization of work. Now that we have elected a chair, the prompt appointment of the co-facilitators is crucial to ensuring the new Global Mechanism gets off to an effective start. We support your prerogative to make these appointments and agree with the principles of balance between developed and developing states and geographic distribution you have set out. We also support the principle of gender balance. As experts supporting the chair, the personal skills and experience of co-facilitators are also key factors. On the topics, we agree that they should be clearly focused on delivering meaningful recommendations on a limited number of topics that are of concern to Member States. Examples we've heard include ransomware and critical national infrastructure. There should be clear continuity but not duplication between the two groups, and these topics can be agreed at the July Plenary. Thank you.

Muchisimas gracias. Thank you very much. And I'll give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to note that Russia is convinced that the questions of the organization of the work of these thematic groups should be guided by the principle of consensus, and that understanding is provided for in the parameters of the Global Mechanism and enshrined in the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, specifically resolutions 79-237 and 80-16. And this refers to all of the aspects of the DTG's work, including the preparation of recommendations for transmitting to the plenary for consideration. It is extremely important that the agenda and the work program of the DTGs is developed in a transparent way based on consensus, taking into account the opinions of absolutely all states. Discussions, first and foremost within the framework of DTG1, need to be strictly in accordance with the five pillars of the mandate without distorting that or going beyond the bounds of that. The topics that will be discussed need to be determined based on the interests of all states. I would like to point to the possibility of inviting to the discussions within the DTGs of so-called briefers, that is item 8 of the additional parameters of the mechanism. I'd like to underscore that including briefers in the discussion is not a mandatory condition, but it is a possibility, and that decision needs to be taken exclusively based on the situation, based on the agenda, and based on the consent of member states. We are of the view that the thematic groups are created first and foremost for a thorough discussion by governmental experts that have sufficient expertise and ordinarily do not need briefings from outside briefers. When it comes to the selection of briefers, as determined in the modalities for the participation of interested parties or stakeholders, this is 15C of the additional parameters for the Global Mechanism in the Annex of the OEWG report, that they should be representatives exclusively of accredited NGOs. We call upon the Chair and the UNODA to strictly adhere to these ways of working that are in consensus and which were adopted by the General Assembly. The same goes for configuring the leadership of the groups. As far as we understand it, currently within that configuration there are four seats that will be equally distributed among developed and developing states. Despite the formal observance of the principle of fair geographical distribution, here we can see an unfair imbalance in favor of developed countries. Developed countries, there are various different criteria for assessing how many there are, but in any case, those assessments do not exceed one fifth of the total membership of the United Nations. And that means that three of the positions among the co-facilitators should go to states from the Global South. I would also like to draw attention to what we've heard here in the statements of distinguished representatives of Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Senegal, if I'm not mistaken, about the need to uphold the principle of multilingualism. Moreover, for Russia, it is unacceptable that countries that engage in political attribution without any evidence. In our view, candidates from those countries can hardly act as neutral arbiters in discussions on such sensitive issues as ICT security. We call upon the Chair and the UNODA to resolve this issue, making sure that there is a transparent and inclusive discussion of the current and possible future candidates for these posts with the involvement of all. Member States, thank you very much.

Gracias. Thank you very much. I give the floor to Germany.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Germany aligns itself with the statement of the European Union and wishes to deliver its remarks in a national capacity. And as this is the first time taking the floor, Germany would like to warmly congratulate you for your appointment as Chair. Chair, Germany prioritizes a seamless transition to a single-track, inclusive, consensus-based, and action-oriented permanent mechanism that focuses on the implementation of all pillars of the UN Framework of Responsible State Behavior. Therefore, in line with UN practice, we encourage a timely appointment of co-facilitators by the Chair, which we view as the Chair's prerogative, in order to help prepare the work of the DTGs, as echoed by the representatives of Egypt, Mexico, and many others. We believe the criteria you laid out are all well balanced and reflect the delicate balance struck in the consensus report last year and also they reflect the practice of other UN formats. We welcome your intention to appoint two co-facilitators per working group, one from a developing country and one from a developed country, to ensure equitable geographic representation. We also take note of the views, for example, expressed by Senegal and others on lingual diversity. Allow me to provide our views on DTGs more broadly. The DTGs should zoom in on challenges that we collectively share and that are of priority to our policymakers. For example, ransomware or the protection of critical infrastructure. These are topics that many of us referenced yesterday. Through their cross-cutting discussions, the working groups would provide concrete, actionable recommendations and identify best practices to address these challenges using all elements of the framework in a balanced way and thereby help advance the implementation of the framework. We believe that there should be thematic cohesion between the meetings of DTG1 and DTG2, meaning that they should focus on the same threat or challenge as a starting point. At the same time, we will also look into other proposals by states, for example, to have specific agenda items for DTG2, such as the cyber capacity building assessment proposed by Brazil. Secondly, academia, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community are central to all discussions around state behavior in cyberspace and their roles cut across all pillars of the framework. Drawing on this knowledge through expert briefings during meetings of the DTGs is essential and it will allow states to have focused, concrete exchanges that are grounded in the technical reality of how cyberspace actually works. On the issue of reporting from DTGs to the plenary, the DTG co-facilitators should provide a verbal summary on the discussions that took place in the DTGs. States would then have an opportunity to reflect on the DTG sessions under the proposed agenda item 6 during the plenary meeting. In addition, if the co-facilitators and the Chair believe they identified consensus recommendations, they should transmit those recommendations to the plenary. Thereby, we would avoid overburdening the plenary with negotiations. We believe, as a minimum requirement, the consensus draft recommendations, or singular as well, should be shared in writing with Member States ahead of the session with an appropriate amount of time to study them ahead. The plenary could then reflect on these recommendations and adopt them by the consensus principle. And we also will study the proposals, for example, by Colombia and Senegal on how to differentiate between the consensus and non-consensus elements that are presented to the plenary in order to help our discussions becoming more substantive. Turning to the reporting in the plenary, Germany believes that a progress report could be issued for the plenary session of Year 2 and Year 4 of each cycle, thereby providing each Chair an opportunity to take stock of progress made at the end of their biennial term. A summary of preceding reports should be issued in Years 1 and 3. A final substantive report could be produced in Year 5 in line with the purpose of the review conference. In practical terms, we believe that the selection of topics for the sessions of the DTGs is the prerogative of and should be undertaken by the Chair and the co-facilitators in close consultation with Member States. Allow me to briefly turn to the plenary. The plenary, the dedicated thematic working groups, and the global roundtable on cyber capacity building should be seen as complementary and mutually reinforcing building blocks for advancing the implementation of the framework. The plenary is a forum for all states to address any topics of their national priority and discuss them under the respective pillar. And, for example, the statement by the African group yesterday highlighted that there are indeed many threats to discuss which we would see under the pillar threats for the plenary. The plenary is also a forum to discuss the lessons learned, best practices, and actionable recommendations generated in the working rooms in a holistic manner to advance our understanding of the implementation of the framework. By providing feedback to the DTGs in the plenary, we would create a virtuous and meaningful link between the plenary and the DTGs and ensure that they are complementary in their work. Dear colleagues, Madam Chair, Germany stands ready to constructively engage with all ideas brought forward by Member States. The UN and its Member States are charting historic new territory in the global cyberspace discussions. And we wish you all the best and a steady hand, Madam Chair, in steering this. Mechanism on that journey. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The last two delegations that have requested the floor are the Islamic Republic of Iran and Algeria. If there are any other delegations that wish to take the floor, I'd be grateful if you could request the floor. The floor now, just so we can coordinate. Thank you. Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly, in reaction to comments made by some delegation, we would like to underscore that, in our view, the consensus-based modality for stakeholders' participation in the Global Mechanism, as reflected in the final report of the OEWG, also applies to the thematic groups. Therefore, we cannot agree with the interpretation that this modality does not apply to the DTGs. Furthermore, the topics to be discussed in the thematic groups should be selected by consensus among all Member States, in order to reflect the priorities and concerns of all countries. Therefore, we don't agree with the view that such topics could be determined by the Chair. The co-facilitators. I thank you.

Gracias. Thank you. Algeria, you have the floor.

Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you also for presenting your vision on the work of the Global Mechanism. For our today's discussion, it seems that the expression repeated so many times by Ambassador Burhanga, for not to kick the can down the road, is taken on its full meaning. During the work of the OEWG, we tried collectively to avoid delaying, postponing, or evading difficult interpretation and decisions aiming for a seamless transition to a permanent mechanism. Consensus-based decisions have a price, and the price for the adoption of the final report of the OEWG was kicking the can down the road on some matters. Of course, the priority of the Arab group and the African group is to focus on substantive discussions to deal with the challenges we are all facing together, which are moving at a faster pace than our ability to move forward. Nevertheless, for Algeria, procedural issues are as important as substantive ones, and transparency in appointing co-facilitators is as important as their very role. Transparency in our work context is also a form of confidence-building measure, CBMs. We support a transparent and balanced appointment of co-facilitators, both procedurally and geographically, including representatives from Arab and African groups. We have listened carefully to the remarks formulated by all delegations. We think there is a way to uphold our procedures and the consensus-based decision while allowing for the rapid appointment of co-facilitators for the discussions. Informal consultations would greatly help in this regard. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Since I see no other delegation requesting the floor under this item, allow me, please, to provide some reactions to what you've been saying. First of all, it's worth recalling that this is a mechanism that was established by the General Assembly, and it's also one of its subsidiary bodies, and as we said at the beginning of this meeting, its rules of procedure will apply mutatis mutandis, as well as the practices of this meeting, its rules of procedure will apply mutatis mutandis, as well as the practices of the General Assembly. And that's why it was important for the Chair, in one of the most recent resolutions on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, to refer to the fact that it's worth clarifying that the President of the General Assembly, as part of the practices of the General Assembly, and the President is also the officer that is elected. In that resolution, it takes note of the fact that the President of the General Assembly can and should appoint co-facilitators to guide intergovernmental processes. I also wish to note that I do not think that for the Global Mechanism, the procedures or the provisional procedures of other processes apply. For example, the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime. There, for example, officers were elected to ensure the composition of a bureau who would then serve as Vice Chairs in accordance with the modalities that were agreed for that process. Coming back now to the Global Mechanism, I'd like to thank you for the confidence expressed by the majority of delegations in the appointment of the co-facilitators for each group with this same vision of ensuring geographical balance. I have taken note of the suggestions by some states that also expressed concerns over gender balance in the composition. And I would also like to express my gratitude for the fact that you welcomed other very important aspects, such as technical experience that the co-facilitators need to have. I completely agree with, and I'm aware of, the need to begin working as soon as possible, and therefore I am interested in, and committed to, appointing those co-facilitators shortly. Now, I hope that in that process, as well, the Chair will be supported, because it is in the interest of the Chair to make headway with the work. Many of you said in your statements that we don't have much time, and you have already invested years in advancing questions of substance that are extremely important. But you also indicated yesterday that it is necessary to implement this. It is also necessary to begin the work. So, in practical terms, I am clear-headed when it comes to the principle of consensus, which was reaffirmed at the beginning of this meeting. But I'll be grateful to you if, when I present my proposals, and involving all of you in these broad informal consultations, I would then be grateful if you could show flexibility. Precisely taking into account the urgent need to begin our work as quickly as possible. We cannot postpone this for very long. I'm also clear that a transparent process is needed. And I will echo what the last speaker, Algeria, said, that transparency is also a form of confidence-building. But if we reach an understanding, I also need us to decide to work hand in hand, to work together. That's going to be important. And lastly, recall that the co-facilitators are going to work under the leadership and under the coordination of the Chair. And you have already given the Chair your confidence, your trust. Those are my thoughts, and I will now return to the notes that we had prepared for the conclusion of this agenda item. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your comments. The Chair and my team have taken due note, as I said, of all of your opinions. And I would like to invite you to get in touch with me or my team in the next few weeks to make any comments or additional observations, specifically relating to the organization of the work of the dedicated thematic groups. Once again, it is my objective that the makeup of the experts is well-balanced, so that we can make headway with the work of the thematic groups in a solid, robust way, but one that is also action-oriented. So, I hope that an agreement can be reached on the appointment of the co-facilitators as soon as possible, with the aim also of making sure that we have what all of you want, which is greater predictability for the work that we have ahead of us in the coming months. In anticipation of the meetings of the DTGs that are going to take place in December, I am going to work closely and in coordination with the four co-facilitators, my team, to determine the provisional calendar for each group. I therefore intend to hold some informal consultations with states, precisely so that we can further perfect the organization of the work of the thematic groups. Can I then take it that the Global Mechanism takes note of my intention as to how to proceed with the appointment of the co-facilitators to steer the work of these thematic groups? It is so decided. The Islamic Republic of Iraq. John has requested the floor. Is it under this agenda item?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your explanation. But if I recall correctly, during the discussions on the modalities of the Global Mechanism in the OEWG, the proposal for the chair to appoint facilitators, or co-facilitators, for the discussion teams, appeared in the initial draft, but was ultimately removed due to the lack of agreement among member states. The UNGA rules of procedure apply to the Global Mechanism with mutatis mutandis, which means that the necessary changes having been made. One of the important changes is the consensus-based decision-making within the Global Mechanism, which we believe applies to the election of the facilitators. So we would like to insist that the facilitators should be selected, elected by the. Member States by consensus, and not by the Chair of the Mechanism. I thank you.

Thank you. I said I've heard you all. I've heard a wide support for the Chair's proposal to apply what has already been agreed in the Revitalization Resolution and the practice of the General Assembly, and I also said that I'm going to engage with all of you in informal consultations to try to find and to appoint the co-facilitators. But when I do that, I really hope that all of you will also engage in good faith with the presidency to try to start working as soon as possible. I'm pretty aware of the consensus basis, but I really hope that we can all find a solution. You already heard the requirements and the vision that I have for the co-facilitators, and I really hope that with these informal consultations that I'm going to engage with all of you, and that all of you will also have the time to provide further visions on it, that we can speed up precisely the appointment and that we can start working together with the different groups. Okay, now I get the floor. The Russian Federation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your latest explanation of your position. I support what was said by the distinguished representative of Iran. And also, once again, I'm grateful to you for your explanation. The Russian Federation will proceed from the understanding that the matter of the appointment of the co-facilitators of the DTGs, in doing so, you will determine those candidacies on the basis of broad consultation with UN member states. And then, after that, the time will come to address the matter of their appointment. That is to say, that the principle of consensus will be fully observed, as enshrined in the modalities for the Global Mechanism, and approved by a UN General. Assembly decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Another delegation wishes to take the floor on this issue. We're ready to move forward. Okay. It is so decided. I turn now to the participation of stakeholders. States will recall the additional elements on modalities on the participation of other interested parties and stakeholders, including businesses, non-governmental organizations, and academia, agreed by consensus in Annex 1 of Document A/80/257. States will recall the agreement that States of the Global Mechanism are committed to engaging with stakeholders in a systematic, sustained, and substantive manner. While the Global Mechanism is an intergovernmental process in which negotiation and decision-making are exclusively the prerogative of States, stakeholders would be engaged in a consultative manner to assist and inform the work of States in view of their technical expertise. States also have emphasized the importance of ensuring diverse stakeholder participation with due consideration to equitable geographic representation. I will refrain from reciting all the modalities agreed in the annex, but I do wish to recall the following key elements. Relevant non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council in accordance with resolution 1996/31 would inform the Secretariat of the Global Mechanism of their interest in being accredited to participate in the substantive plenary sessions and review conferences of the Global Mechanism. In accordance with UN practice, other stakeholders relevant and competent to the scope and purpose of the Global Mechanism should also inform the Secretariat of their interest in participating by submitting information on the organization's purpose, programs, and activities in areas relevant to the scope of the Global Mechanism. These organizations would accordingly be accredited on a non-objection basis to participate in the substantive plenary sessions and review conferences of the Global Mechanism. Once received, accreditation would remain valid for the duration of each five-year cycle of the Global Mechanism. Applications for accreditation may be submitted to the Secretariat during an annual window to be determined by the Secretariat. Accredited stakeholders will be able to attend substantive plenary sessions and review conferences of the Global Mechanism and make oral statements during dedicated stakeholder sessions. They may also be allowed to make oral statements after States, subject to the availability of time and at the discretion of the Chair, at substantive plenary sessions and review conferences. Stakeholders may also submit written inputs to be posted on the webpage of the Global Mechanism. Where there is an objection to a stakeholder, the objecting Member State will make known its objection to the Chair of the Global Mechanism and, on a voluntary basis, make known to the Chair the general basis of its objections. Guided by the principles of inclusivity and transparency, the Chair will disseminate any information received to all Member States and engage in informal consultations as appropriate for a period not exceeding three months regarding the objection expressed, with a view to addressing concerns and facilitating accreditation wherever possible. Following the conclusion of the period of informal consultations, the Chair will provide an update to all Member States at the next substantive plenary session and allow for an exchange of views if necessary. On the basis of informal consultations, if there is consensus to do so, the Chair may put forward a decision to the Global Mechanism to confirm the accreditation of some or all stakeholders that had initially received objections. Where consensus is not yet attainable, the Chair will continue to engage in further informal consultations as appropriate. With regard to next steps, the Secretariat will announce the opening of the annual accreditation window in the coming weeks and well in advance of the July substantive session. Information on the application process will be shared with stakeholders and States alike. An email distribution list for interested stakeholders has been set up by the Secretariat. Interested stakeholders may find the link to join the distribution list on the Global Mechanism webpage. State communications will continue to be done through the eDelegate module. As I noted in my letter dated 18th of March, I also intend to hold an informal consultative meeting with interested stakeholders in the coming weeks. States are invited to observe and do not need to register. Connection details will be shared by the Secretariat. May I take it that it is the wish of the Global Mechanism to conclude its consideration of Agenda Item 6? It is so decided. As I said, we will now turn to item 5 of our agenda, entitled Agenda for the Substantive Plenary Sessions. On the 18th of March, together with my letter, as the Chair designate, I circulated a provisional agenda for the substantive plenary sessions for the first cycle of the Global Mechanism. That was drafted in accordance with the modality agreed by States, which is that the plenary sessions would be organized in accordance with the five pillars of the framework for responsible State behavior in the use of ICTs, and that is Document A/AT/257 Annex 1. That is circulated for the consideration of States. And the document symbol is A/AC.304/2026/L.1. I propose this Provisional Agenda guides the work of the Substantive Plenary Sessions to be held in 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029, ahead of the first Review Conference in 2030. A separate agenda for the Review Conference is envisaged. As you can see, Items 1 to 4 include basic organizational matters, including item 1, opening of the session, item 2, election of the officers, item 3, provisional agenda, item 4, organization of work, and also item 8, any other business. Item 5 is drawn directly from the consensus modalities agreed by States in General Assembly document A/80/257 Annex 1 and A/79/214 Annex C. It lists the familiar headings of the five pillars of the framework for responsible State behaviour in the use of ICTs. Item six provides for the consideration of the work of the dedicated thematic groups, including updates by facilitators of those groups. This item also provides for the consideration of any draft recommendations transmitted by the dedicated thematic groups to the Global Mechanism at its substantive plenary sessions for consideration by States, in accordance with the decision-making modalities of the Mechanism. Item 7 provides for adoption of reports, the frequency of which remains an open question, on which I would invite States to share their views, to communicate that to the Chair's team or to your humble servant. I hope that all delegations will have received the program for the agenda for the substantive sessions, and I would now like to open the floor for States' delegations if they would like to make any comments on any of this. Well, I see that there are no requests to take the floor. The Delegation of Iran has the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the explanation of the Provisional Agenda for the perennial sessions. First, we don't think that Agenda Item 5 accurately reflects the mandate of the Global Mechanism. And in response to the comment made yesterday by one delegation, I wish to state clearly that we are not seeking in any manner to expand the mandate of the Global Mechanism. Our position is to ensure full and precise adherence to the mandate as agreed by all states, as set out in paragraph 9 of Annex C to the third progress report of the OEWG, including its five-pillar structure. We believe that the organizational session provides the appropriate opportunity to adopt the agenda for the substantive planning session. This would enable the Global Mechanism to commence its substantive work without delay and avoid diverting valuable time to procedural matters. We must underline that the mandate of the Global Mechanism has already been agreed by consensus and is not open to reinterpretation or renegotiation. The issue before us is therefore not one that requires additional negotiations or consultations, but rather one of ensuring that the provisional agenda accurately and fully reflects the agreed mandate. We are confident that this can be addressed at this organizational session, thereby allowing for the timely adoption of the agenda, preventing the unnecessary deferral of a matter that is both clear and already agreed, and facilitating the effective commencement of substantive work. And, Madam Chair, we would like to recall that in the OEWG process, the mandate set out in Resolution 75/240 was consistently and precisely reflected in the agenda and Program of Action of the OEWG. We believe that the same approach should be maintained. For the Global Mechanism. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, and I'll give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. I would like to return to what the Russian delegation said yesterday. In large part, this is a technical problem, which is that the wording of the agenda on the five pillars needs to be brought into line with paragraph 9 of Annex C of the report, which you just – which is the distinguished report. Representative Aram was just talking about. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I'd like to know whether any other delegation would like to take the floor to respond to recent observations made. I see that's not the case. So, may I take it that it is the wish of the Global Mechanism to update the agenda, taking into account the proposals made by the Islamic Republic of Iran. I now give the floor to the following delegations, the European Union, Canada, and the United States. The European Union. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and welcome the provisional agenda as you set out for the plenary as is. We indeed see a need, in line with the mandate provided by the Open-Ended Working Group, to discuss the five pillars guiding the steps and guiding our work that we need to do to implement the United Nations framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace. We see that the agenda already refers to the annexes, both Annex C as Annex 1 of the 2024 APR and the final Open-Ended Working Group report, and we feel that singling out just one paragraph is exactly what the Iranian delegation does not want to do, and that is reinterpreting and renegotiating of what has been done in the Open-Ended Working Group. And therefore we cannot accept that proposal.

Thank you, Canada.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Canada refers to our July consensus agreements, which provide that, and I quote, the work of the substantive plenary sessions will be organized in accordance with the five pillars of the framework, end quote. Our July consensus agreement also provides that the dedicated thematic groups would report to the plenary sessions with updates and recommendations, and as such, we support the Chair's proposed plenary agenda and the Way it reflects those elements. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. The United States has the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I think we would also like to reiterate our reservation to the plenary agenda, as we shared a few minutes before. Like I said back then, too, we welcome the initial draft that you have shared with us. We think that the plenary sessions will serve an important function in the Global Mechanism. We've seen that over the years in the OEWG, and we think that the plenary meetings will be a good opportunity to reflect on the high-level topics more in depth. But we think that the plenary should decide its own agenda, so we would like to continue to place a reservation on the agenda and leave it for July to decide. But we are very happy to engage in the intersessional with you. Who are with others interested.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much for those comments. Would any other delegation like to take the floor on this item of the agenda? I see that's not the case. It's not the intention of the Chair to renegotiate anything relating to the very valuable work that you've done for so many years. It's just my intention to provide a basis for discussions, making a reference to all of these agreements that were achieved. If you see in the draft agenda, there are hyperlinks included as well to all of these documents if you want to consult them. So let me make this clear. At no time have I been trying to limit or get around any language. On the contrary, all of the documents that form the basis for the work are referenced. So the agenda has that information and we'll be able to guide our work for the upcoming months. I think it's important to just make this clarification. Senegal, you've asked for the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly, I welcome the provisional agenda. I'd like to stress the need that we keep transparency so that delegations can know what any future developments are with regard to this Program of Action. With regard to item seven, adoption of reports, I'm thinking aloud here, would it be better to say consideration of reports because we might adopt or we might not adopt reports, depending. So perhaps we need to be more flexible on how we word that item, but that's, as I say, thinking aloud. Thank you. Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much for that comment. I'd like to perhaps hear from other delegations now with regard to Senegal's proposal. No veo alguna. I don't see anyone asking for the floor. Very well. Well, unfortunately, I don't think that the group is yet in a position to agree on the provisional agenda that we are looking at. Therefore, and also with a view to continuing to follow a transparent approach but also to speed up our work and that's what we were discussing on the previous item. It's my intention to continue with these consultations on the draft of the Program of Action so that we can approve it before the beginning of the session in July. Once again, my request to all of you is that when you get involved in these informal consultations that we be able to work with a view to implementing all of these commitments that you've been working on for so long so that we can really get down to work. So these will be the… the following steps so that we can reach agreement on this item of the agenda. I don't see any other delegation asking for the floor. So it's my understanding that the Global Mechanism has concluded agenda item five of the agenda. That's agreed. So we'll move now onto the last subject, which is other business. I'd like to know whether any delegation under this item would like to take the floor. Since no one is asking for the floor, may I take it therefore that the Global Mechanism would like to conclude its consideration of Agenda Item 7? It is so decided. Very well. Excellencies, distinguished delegates. We've exhausted all items of the agenda for this organizational session and we have concluded on some matters, others are still outstanding as we've just heard, but with a view to continuing to work and reach agreements as soon as possible, we will be convening these informal consultations once again. I thank you for your flexibility and your spirit of constructive good faith. I think that's what will enable us to reach agreements as soon as possible. The agenda is very important so that we can ensure the predictability that so many of you have asked for. This preparation will be so necessary so that we can proceed with the work of the Global Mechanism. And also, we need to work on the composition of the team for the co-facilitators, the chair's team. Thank you in advance for the support that you will be providing to the chair in that work. Therefore, I declare closed the organizational session of the Global Mechanism on developments in the field of information and communication technologies and advancing responsible state behavior in the use of information and communication technologies. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.