Session 2-10
(OEWG 2021-25)

Good afternoon distinguished delegates, the 10th and last meeting of the second substantive session of the Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of ICT technologies, established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 75/240 of 31 December 2020 is now called to order. As I had indicated in the morning we will now continue to hear remaining speakers under the agenda sub item relating to regular institutional dialogue. I have the following speakers on my list; Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and UK, who had inscribed in the morning and the floor remains open. After we have finished with the speakers list on this agenda item we will proceed to agenda item six under other matters, where I hope to have an initial discussion today on the content and structure of the annual progress report. As this is the last session I would also like to make some concluding remarks at the end and given that we have quite a few things we need to get through this afternoon I’d like to seek your kind cooperation in continuing to apply the three minute rule for interventions under the different agenda items; and in accordance with the decision we made at the first session we will continue our work now in informal mode and I therefore suspend our meeting in order to continue our work in informal mode, and I give the floor now to Brazil. Brazil you have the floor please. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Before discussing the future dialogue, let me make two points on the current one. Regarding substance, we believe that each OEWG session should build incrementally on the previous one. We expect our statements, that I agree with you Mr. Chair were really productive and substantive this session, should be recorded in the work of the OEWG and on the verbatim records of the General Assembly. Therefore, next session instead of repeating those statements, we can advance further based on what we heard from each other. I agree with Austria on the need to unpack some topics, make them less generic. International law for instance is a good candidate for that. Therefore, we can allow more focus debate. These however, should be done by the full membership of this group. We don’t support the notion of creating subgroups, based on alleged expertise of states. Expertise is not something frozen or fixed, but is a process that is being renewed and enhanced every time we sit together to discuss. Furthermore, all countries have profound expertise on their own national interest, needs and priorities. Let’s break the discussion, not the group in smaller pieces. The second point would be on procedure. We believe that the next session should be formal with modalities agreed intersessionally. Noting that this specific point of disagreement, which wonders we understand that at its core is on the level of transparency of the exercise of the right to veto, or object would be the proper word, the participation of specific non-state organizations in the work of this group is something that we can address and should address within the group itself. We would like to make an appeal to all member states on the need to protect the consensual decision making of this group. Mr. Chair, we believe that in the moment that this group began its work under your leadership, it is not anymore a proposal from one or another state. This group belongs to all of us and in this sense, this test we are facing now on how to begin to work is crucial to determine the quality and the outcomes of the work that we have to do in the next five years. My delegation supports that the participation of stakeholders is brought the broadest possible, and also that the transparency is the broadest possible. However, we believe that this particular point, however important, is not necessarily important to the level of having to vote this particular notion. We believe that these would bring systemic consequences not only for this group, but also for the work of First Committee in general. We see the point made by our colleague from Jamaica, that precedents are important, and we need to set them; but in this particular point, we would prefer the precedent to be a good one and we believe that consensus is the best option. Finally, Mr. Chairman, on the future dialogue, we take note of all proposals made today by delegations and we thank their are efforts to engage and do some outreach with member states on them. We look forward to further discuss them on the third session, in a formal manner. Thank you very much. 

Thank you very much, Brazil for your comments. I give now the floor to Colombia, followed by Indonesia, Colombia please.

Thank you, Chairman. We already have an agreed framework for the responsible behavior of states in cyberspace, which includes international law, norms, rules and principles, and confidence building measures, supported by measures to enhance cooperation and capacity building.  We now need to move forward on concrete action focused on implementing the agreed framework, which will require first of all, supporting states capacities in an inclusive, coordinated, efficient and tailor-made way. Irregular institutional dialogue would support action oriented measures to look at the evolution of threats to peace and security, that are faced by states in the domain of ICTs. As we’ve already said, we think that establishing a POA would be the best possible way, the Program of Action could be a regular action oriented, inclusive, transparent results based mechanism. It could complement other relevant procedures of the United Nations. It could help us to map out precisely the specific challenges that states are facing to implement the framework effectively and it can also help us to analyze gaps to determine state’s needs and priorities. The program could also be a platform to exchange best practices and recommendations to then be implemented at the national and or regional level,.  The program would certainly play a crucial role on capacity building as well. Of course, it would be a process promoted by states, but it could be also a platform for periodic consultations with various stakeholders including the private sector, academia and civil society in order to consider the most relevant issues. Finally, the cyber POA could be a follow up mechanism to assess progress made and the results of the implementation of the recommendations agreed upon by the GGEs and the OEWGs, both the past and the current one, and those adopted by consensus at the GA. Mr. Chairman, establishing the POA as a regular institutional dialogue must be a task undertaken by all states. The program must be a forum for dialogue on the achievements and challenges for the collective implementation of the framework for the responsible behavior of states in the domain of ICTs and it should be a platform to continue discussing its development when new threats arise. In this regard, we of course welcome the participation of all states who wish to continue to help in the establishment of this initiative. We invite states who have not yet done so to join this initiative and we hope it is reflected in the annual progress report. Thank you. 

Thank you very much for the statement, I give now the floor to Indonesia, followed by the UK, Indonesia please. 

Thank you chair, Indonesia wishes to reiterate our support to the success of the OEWG process. We know that this is an important mechanism to address all issues on ICT security, also an important work which merits strong support and commitment from all states and stakeholders. We thank you Chair for providing us with guiding question on how the future dialogue could support action oriented measures. Our position on this issue has been delivered during the first substantive session. In principle Chair, we fully support the continuous dialogue on the issue of ICT under the UN framework, while taking into account resources and existing mechanism that is currently in place. Indonesia reiterates that we should avoid overlap and duplication between existing mechanism mandate and provide a channel for interaction between states and engagement with relevant stakeholders and regional organization with clear mechanism and also working method. The focus of future dialogues will be to strengthen our efforts on capacity building and implementation of recommendation. Aside from providing avenue for dialogue, we hope that the mechanism will also allow tangible result oriented outcomes while taking into account previous agreed frameworks and recommendation. Chair finally, we welcome and are open to hear various action oriented and concrete proposals which have been put forward by many delegation and stand ready to work together to reach consensus towards a concrete dialog mechanism. Thank you, Chair. 

Thank you very much for the statement. UK followed by Argentina, UK please.

Apologies Chair. The challenges of ensuring international peace and security in and through cyberspace remain significant. There is no question that regular institutional dialogue is needed on this topic. That dialogue will continue to develop over time, we may prioritize different approaches in response to different future contexts; but we know now that discussion will always need to build out from the consensus framework that we have all agreed and which is the baseline of our collaboration. We will of course, need to look forward and build our vision for cyberspace together. So in this regard, the UK’s current priority is taking practical action on the framework so that all states are well placed to shape that vision from a common starting position. The UK is a co-sponsor of the Program of Action proposal, and endorses the comments of other co sponsors today. Thank you, Chair. 

Thank you for the statement, Argentina, please.

Thank you, Chairman for giving me the floor. When it comes to the institutional dialogue, the POA hopes to provide a platform for regular institutional dialogue on international cybersecurity,and this from our point of view would provide stability to the work that has been carried out and will allow a framework for various procedures looking at the different levels of implementation. We think it is very important that we make headway on this POA for the use of ICTs in cyberspace, which already has more than 60 countries who have co sponsored it including us and more countries are joining as we have had this week. The challenges posed by the abuse of ICTs in cyberspace are increasingly complex in nature. So having a permanent, open and inclusive forum under the aegis of the United Nations, with a focus on the specific implementation of agreements and building capacity for all stakeholders is in our point of view a critical tool to achieve stability, predictability and confidence in cyberspace. We trust that this initiative can coexist with the current Open-ended Working Group. Details on how this coexistence would actually work; we mentioned in what was said by France, Egypt, Canada and others have given clarity to how this process could work to implement issues that are particularly crucial for all states and which have been raised in the meetings of this group. We don’t think it would lead to duplication. We are convinced that it is a way of achieving the necessary synergies to better take advantage of resources, dialogue and capacities of states and the fruitful work that we have been doing in the context of the different working groups. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the statement. Sri Lanka to be followed by Haiti. Sri Lanka, please. 

Thank you Chair. Sri Lanka wishes to align with the aspects mentioned by Thailand and Singapore. It must be appreciated the importance highlighted by countries to look at the complementarities when adhering to a Program of Action while maintaining a timeline. Sri Lanka also believes that it is important to prioritize the implementation according to a needs based assessment. In this regard, it is important to have regular institutional dialogue among regional organizations and other mechanisms to identify what should come first by analyzing the specific needs and priorities of those countries and regions. Such an initiative can facilitate the implementation of the Program of Action in such a way that context-specific issues are understood and considered to find solutions relating to the use of international law, Confidence Building Measures, and capacity building. Mr. Chair, we suggest that the institutional dialogues be processed through three tiers that is national, regional, and international. The national discussions may feed the regional mechanisms to facilitate the decisions and discussions of the international organizations such as the UN. Sri Lanka understands the importance of building holistic perspective to find solutions to the key issues. In that context, it is further suggested having study groups academic forums, compilation of a directory of cyber contact points in each country that could facilitate confidence building among countries, such groups can bring in innovative ideas and proposals for institutional dialogues. Thank you, Chair 

Thank you very much for the statement, Haiti please.

Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. Distinguished Chair, regulating cyberspace is the main challenge of the 21st century. Issues linked to cyber attacks and cybercrime are increasing and they are taking on more and more sophisticated forms. Even worse, we are expecting that this trend will become exacerbated due to the fact that by 2024, there will be about 22.3 billion devices connected to the Internet of Things around the world. In this context, my delegation fully supports the creation of a regular institutional dialogue within the UN. It should be founded on the broad participation of various states. Without such a dialogue, it will be very difficult to arrive at a common ground on issues of digital security and the use of digital technologies. Distinguished Chair, we believe that it is the duty of the United Nations to promote an open and sincere interstate dialogue in order to achieve a joint understanding of the complexity of cyberspace. This is why my delegation welcomes the efforts of the UN, which since 2004 has already established six GGE’s and two OEWGs on the issue of cyberspace. Distinguished Chair, my delegation supports the use of a dialogue-centered, multistakeholder approach that involves cooperation between the public and private spheres or states and industry. We should discuss the power balance and diverging interests in order to better balance supply and demand based on mutual trust between stakeholders. This multistakeholder dialogue should promote a climate of trust and growth in the market of cybersecurity, and trade between states. This should help strengthen companies obligations with respect to security and push them to ensure the security of supply chains and strengthen information sharing platforms. No entity, no individual is safe from the threats and risks of cyber space. It is with this in mind that cyber dialogue is key to strengthening cyber cooperation and to achieving a growing awareness of the importance of cybersecurity and the implementation of common rules. It is clear that the current power dynamics require us to properly master technology related to cybersecurity. In addition to the issues of national security and sovereignty, cybersecurity is a true source of economic opportunity for some countries. It is also a dangerous, silent weapon that is more dangerous than nuclear weapons and this is why cyberspace is a true battleground for power play. This diplomatic dialogue needs to promote an open, free, stable and secure cyberspace. It should ensure the respect for human rights fundamental freedoms and rule of law. This cybersecurity strategy, which should be a common strategy, should allow us to consolidate the response of the international community to cyberattacks by taking appropriate preventive measures. Distinguished Chair, defining and implementing global regional and bilateral cooperation strategies to combat cyber attacks is key. To this end, we must share information on national strategies concerning the fight against cybercrime and the use of internet for terrorist purposes. Also, we encourage the developed countries to share the latest advances in terms of policy on cybersecurity with developing countries. In conclusion, distinguished Chair, my delegation believes it is important to maintain ongoing dialogue within the UN, in international bodies in order to prevent and combat the use of digital technology for criminal purposes. These discussions should allow us to move forward in the debate on the implementation of international law in cyberspace, and on standards of behavior that should be adopted by state and non state actors in order to promote cyberspace stability. The implementation of formal communication channels at the regional level, and the creation of an international registry for technical, political and legal issues is necessary as part of this dialogue. Thank you. 

Thank you very much for the statement Haiti.  Distinguished delegates, I don’t have any more speakers under this agenda item. We will now therefore, move on to agenda item six and with that statement, from Haiti we have effectively concluded our consideration of agenda Item five and all the sub items. I now propose to move to agenda item six, under which I had indicated in my program of work, which of course was not adopted, but I’d like to propose that we have an initial discussion on the content and structure of the annual progress report. Prior to the meeting this week, I had indicated in the informal, open ended virtual briefing that I had with all delegations that it is my intention to use this meeting to hear views from delegations in terms of how we can organize and structure the annual progress report, which is expected of us in accordance with the mandate of resolution 75/ 240. So I recognize that this will be an initial discussion but we have to start somewhere and I’d like to get views from delegations as to what they think the annual progress report should look like. So the floor is now open and I’m really looking forward to your views and guidance as to how the Chair could go about preparing a zero draft of the annual progress report. I know it’s Friday and I know that the week has been long. Happy to hear any views delegations might have. Canada please. 

Thank you, Chair. First of all, thank you to you for convening what has been sometimes bumpy but overall very productive meeting I think. I just offer one very simple suggestion to answer your question directly. This meeting was held an informal format, I think that was an excellent solution for the week that had to be done. That said, I know that it also poses challenges for you in terms of then reflecting what we heard this week into the annual report, but I would urge you to try to do so because I think this has been in many ways the most substantive meeting that we’ve had. December was excellent, as well, but I guess my point is, it would be a shame if what we heard this week was not reflected because of the informal status of the meeting, and I’m no expert on procedural issues, but I guess I would say that when there’s a will, there’s a way. So hopefully, a solution can be found so that these rich discussions from this week can be captured into the annual report. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Canada. I just wanted to say that the fact that the working method of this meeting was informal in nature does not and will not prevent me from capturing all the ideas that I’ve heard and of course the question is how the report itself should be organized. What the structure should be is something that I’m going to give some thought to during the intersessional period. As I said on Monday, I and my team will review all our notes. We’ve been sitting here taking notes of all the different ideas that have been put forward, and I agree with you Canada that this has been the most substantive discussion we’ve had under this Open-ended Working Group and I certainly would review all my notes, and we will also review the entire video recording. I know that Mexico had said in one of the informal discussions that this is a movie that they had seen before, so I will see this movie again; not in slow motion, but just to make sure that we don’t lose any of the ideas so that we will do that we do in any case. I just wanted to give all of you the assurance. Russian Federation, followed by Singapore. Russian Federation please.

Thank you Chair. With respect to the report, in accordance with the mandate of the OEWG, our group is supposed to present its annual interim report at the 77th session of the UNGA in the fall. We believe that this document needs to be objective and fact based. It also needs to reflect the contents of the substantive discussion of the group’s agenda in a balanced manner. Thus, it is unacceptable for it to contain any politicized statements or propaganda. Since the report will summarize the first year of our work, we believe that it needs to be brief and contain a statement of the main issues going forward. We count on the chair to organize the future work on the basis of the session using the text of the draft report. Also, in order to avoid long discussions on language, which would impede substantial negotiations, during the third session we would accept redrafting the document in the form of a chair’s summary of the first OEWG, Thank you. 

Thank you for the statement. Singapore. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to start by first echoing what Canada said. This week started slow but I think finished strong. The conversations, the discussions and the ideas as well as some of the proposals that have been raised over the week were fantastic. We are supportive of an annual progress report of the OEWG to be submitted to the UN General Assembly. This will allow us to capture some of the rich discussions that have been had, the concrete ideas and the next steps that the OEWG will take. The key to us is to really to arrive at a consensus annual report, which will send a much needed strong signal to the international community and stakeholders on the progress that we’re making at the OEWG. Thank you. 

Thank you, Singapore. Iran to be followed by The Netherlands. Iran, please. 

Mr. Chair, thank you for including this important topic in the program of work of the second substantive session of the OEWG. First and foremost, I would like to remind the group of the importance of not only taking into account the experience of previous OEWG, but also building upon the lessons learned from that experience.  It was a fact that the final report or the previous OEWG could not reflect all of the member states’ views, and as a way out it was agreed to capture the nonconsensual points in the chair’s summary annexed to that report. As such, it was an immensely undesirable situation that the member states had to either take it or leave it. This approach was surely not satisfactory to all member states and a number of member states had to either disassociate from the report or raise their dissatisfaction with it. One obvious reason for this situation was the applied approach to deliberate instead of negotiate in the previous OEWG, where positions were raised repeatedly without any concrete attempt to bridge the gaps. A function that only real negotiations could deliver. We are of the view that repeating the previous experience should be avoided by applying a proper prudent and efficient approach. Fortunately, we have enough time to consider different options and choose the best one in the days to come, we can utilize the intersessional process to finalize this. Regarding the content of the report, we suggest having a report that reflects the procedural aspect, and to the extent possible captures consensually accepted substantial points. To do so, the first step is to establish an agreed upon structure for the annual reports to direct the flow of negotiations. Consequently, it is imperative to change the idea of deliberating guiding questions and replace it with a ruling-text based negotiation. That original text of each could be developed by the distinguished Chair. One probable complementary idea could be to also attach an annex to the annual reports consisting of comments of the member states for that report. After all, it is a logical expectation that the final report would be a reflection of the evolving ruling text that in turn had been improved through the extensive efforts in bridging the gaps among member states through real negotiations and drafting exercise. It is highly expected that the distinguished Chair would exert new creativity to guide negotiations, based on the drafting exercise on the six pillars of the mandate to gain outcomes rather than member states giving a statement.   We strongly propose that the OEWG choose this path that will allow all UN member states to comment, text-based negotiation in a transparent manner so that their interests and concerns can be accommodated. The purpose of establishing the OEWG is to promote a safe and secure ICT environment for all, not just for a specific number of states. To this end, we believe that instead of repeating well known positions and statements, the ruling text-based negotiations should be started as soon as possible. I thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, Iran. Netherlands, followed by China, please.

Thank you Chair, and thank you for initiating this discussion on the annual progress report. It was a very intense week, but as others have said, our discussions were rich and in depth and in particular we heard many practical proposals that really helped us put the agreed framework into action, and I really think we all agree that is what we need. I’d like to highlight the concrete ideas that were shared in the areas of confidence building, capacity building and certainly we are our delegation will do our homework to carefully study them all. We heard many of these proposals enjoy broad supports and so it would really be useful, I think, to capture those in the progress reports.  In reflecting on these proposals, I think it’s important to recall that we have a broad foundation of previous reports to build on, and that we can take sort of incremental steps to reflect those elements that really add a new layer to our work. Chair, we hope we will have robust and transparent modalities for multistakeholder participation in place by the time we meet again in July. This will allow the multistakeholder community to provide their inputs to the report and their views, and hopefully also allow us to formally adopt a progress report. Chair, my delegation would like to reiterate its appreciation for your guidance and tireless efforts this week, thank you. 

Thank you Netherlands. China, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. China has listened attentively to the statements by all parties and the discussions this week, and would like to share China’s opinion on the annual progress report.  Regarding the annual report, China believes that firstly, the relevant expressions of the GA resolution 75/240 should be strictly observed. [Audio interrupted] “…namely, annual progress reports and final report on the results of his work to the General Assembly and its eightieth session” end quote. Second, China hopes that the annual report will be comprehensive and balanced, reflecting the concerns and reviews of all on one hand and the discussions of the seven agenda items within the working groups mandate on the other hand. Specifically, the existing and potential threats, inter alia data security and the possible cooperative measures to prevent to encounter such as threats, initiatives of state aimed at ensuring security in the use of ICT for development of the rules, norms and principal ways for the implementation, applicability of law establishment institutional dialogue and confidence building measures and the building of capacity at the UN. Mr. Chair, at the time of the submission of the new report this year, we’ve actually had only three weeks of discussion in total. Compared to the first OEWG there have been important new developments in the situation and the diversity of views. So time might not be sufficient. As it stands, we have more differences on some issues and more consensus on others. If the annual report only selects or partially selects the consensus on certain issues it will be unbalanced and may set a bad precedent for future annual reports and may even turn our comprehensive process with universal participation into a process with a limited agenda item that will seriously undermine the importance of the OEWG and it’s not conducive to the healthy development of the progress in the long-term. Mr. Chair, China would like to reiterate that China will maintain communication with all parties in a constructive manner and work together on the basis of maintaining the integrity of the OEWG mandate to move the working group towards a comprehensive and balanced annual report in a pragmatic and a viable manner. Thank you, Chair. 

Thank you, Syrian Arab Republic, followed by Mexico. Syria, please.

Thank you Chair. I would first like to begin by thanking you for including this item on the agenda. We hope that, in accordance with the mandate of our working group which is in accordance with the UNGA resolution, we hope that this report will be objective, comprehensive and we hope that it will accurately reflect our discussions and areas of progress. We would like to express our gratitude for your efforts that you have made throughout this week, thank you. 

Thank you Syria. Mexico, followed by Brazil, Mexico please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Given that we’ve reached the last session in this week’s working group, we’d like to place on record our gratitude for all of your work and, of course, that of your team and the members of the secretariat as well. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the report, we think that bearing in mind the specific nature of the informal meetings that we have held, that shouldn’t prevent your being able to reflect the substantive nature of the debates that we’ve had this week. Mr. Chairman, we would also like to highlight the importance that bearing in mind that the participation of other stakeholders that question has not yet been resolved, we should bear in mind the contributions of observer organizations this week, that should be borne in mind. Of course we’ve heard from the Organization of American States, the Red Cross, UNIDIR also made a very interesting briefing, in addition to the statements made by member states. So we think all of that does need to be highlighted and this in addition to the dialogue that you held with other entities, even though of course I understand that that was informal in nature. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to underscore the importance for the working group to continue to work with all member states, in particular, developing countries. We should have a broader viewpoint, if possible. Looking beyond the First Committee and looking at the developments that we can see within the entire United Nations system, and also remembering the SG’s proposal On Our Common Agenda for instance, and other important elements that will allow us to link those issues to the work of the working group. Of course within the mandate. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and we will continue to monitor the issue of the participation of other entities. Mexico’s position is well known, we are in favor of the broadest possible participation of civil society, of course bearing in mind the intergovernmental nature of our work. Once again, we reiterate our full support to you for your work. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mexico. Brazil, followed by Australia, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brazil would like to thank you, sir, your team and also the secretariat for providing us with a session that, even if informal, was very constructive and positive towards the direction of this group fulfilling its mandate. We believe that at this stage, initial state of the work of the group, all proposals that were made merit being reflected in your annual report. We don’t need still at this stage to decide which ones should prevail, which ones should be further discussed, because what we need now is a map of what was concretely proposed by delegations. We also invite all delegations to further elaborate on the proposals made that were really interesting and we look forward to engaging with them on this exchange. We should also begin to think about the institutional design of proposals, particularly on capacity building and confidence building measures, including budgetary implications on the voluntary or on the regular budget of the UN, in order for them to be actually being implemented and not figuring out as a generic proposal. Finally, Mr. Chair, we would like to come back to our first session, when the Under-Secretary Nakamitsu said rightly that it’s particularly in difficult moments that we need to work together and that this group has a great role to play exactly because we are in a challenging moment, not despite of it. And things we discussed yesterday, confidence building measures, we believe that those are more necessary when we are not talking to our friends or alies. Mostly they are unnecessary when we are talking to people we disagree with, this is when they are really important. So Chair, I trust that these intersessional moment will be really productive in the detailing of proposals in the elaboration of the report and in the agreeing of the modalities. Thank you very much and see you in July. 

Thank you very much, Brazil. Australia, please. 

Thank you Chair, I’d like to join with Syria in thanking you for including in our discussion this agenda item on our report. I think it’s important, and I thank you for putting it to notice to think about our report earlier rather than later, and I echo the views of many countries across the week who said that it would be very ideal for us and for our report to reflect the richness of our discussions over the past two sessions, and also to agree with The Netherlands – we do have an acquis and that forms the foundation of our work. It’s been elaborated in the 2010, 2013, 2015 GGE reports, in the March 2021 OEWG report, and then the May 2021 GGE report and reflecting this foundation, reaffirming it and elaborating further on the aspects of our framework in which we’ve been able to make progress is a very good start for our report. I also agree with China on the proposed structure of the report, this should focus around the agenda items that we’ve been discussing and I think Mexico makes a very good point about also reflecting in an objective manner the way that we have been able to include multistakeholder consultations informally. I think we have a few options for how this report is structured and some have been talked about today. Australia is open to the structure that’s most likely to gain consensus and I say this in the hope that doesn’t leave us without ambition for what this report could say. We could hopefully reflect the ideas and the proposals of the different participants in our discussions, and if possible, emphasize those that have garnered significant support, and I just want to say that I very much trust you to reflect this in an objective manner. And finally, Chair, I would like to beg everyone’s indulgence to talk a little bit about an issue that is very important to Australia, and I want to begin by noting with appreciation the many statements that have been made throughout this week emphasizing the importance of taking into account the gender dimensions in our discussions, and in particular I want to highlight the importance of bringing diverse voices and perspectives to our discussion through balanced representation, and that includes gender balance. Last December, I took the floor under this agenda item to provide some statistics to our group in the context of broader UN discussions and forums. To recap very briefly, the UN First Committee lags significantly behind the strides towards gender parity of delegations, including heads of delegations, and gender parity and interventions that can be seen across other committees of the United Nations. UNIDIR data has shown that in First Committee debates, 27% of speakers are women and this drops to an average of around 20% on forums on more special specialized topics such as cyber affairs. In our first session, in December, we had 37% of interventions from women speakers, and that’s much better than the average across the peace and security fora and I asked in December, whether we could do better, and I’m very, very excited to be able to leave this week with some good news for us all. Over the course of this week’s discussion, we’ve had over 280 interventions, and over 120 of those were made by women speakers. This equates to 43% of interventions this week being made by women speakers and if we break down the statistics a little bit further 50% of the interventions made on international law were made by women speakers. I’m very proud those statistics, and I hope we all are; and why does this matter? The data shows that peace deals stick better and last longer when women are included at the table, and a very wise person said during our short lunch break that we need women leaders to build bridges. The importance of our work here that we’ve all recognized over this week to protect promote and progress, peace and stability in cyberspace. With these statistics, they give me confidence that we are setting ourselves up for the best possible chance of success. Thank you Chair. 

Thank you very much, Australia for highlighting the statistics relating to the participation of women representatives in the work of our working group. Really appreciate it, also Australia’s role and also the role of other sponsors in supporting the participation of women delegates in the work of this working group, and I hope that we can continue to improve on the statistics and thank you very much for in a sense of being our accountant and holding us in some ways accountable on the gender dimension of our work. Thank you very much, Australia. I give the floor now to Cuba, followed by Colombia. Cuba please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to share some comments on behalf of our delegation. The final report of the previous working group included elements of common interest to all member states. This group should focus on deepening the areas where we have consensus and make progress on outstanding issues. The report should include references to what has been discussed about the militarization of cyberspace, unilateral, coercive measures, the need to have binding norms, respecting the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, capacity building and technical assistance. We are in favor of the swift presentation of a progressive draft that would be the basis for negotiation.  The report should allow for the systemization of the elements that have been discussed and proposals tabled by States during the meeting, as well as possible recommendations to be included in the final report or to be discussed in 2023 so that we can make headway towards developing developing new commitments. The structure should be in line with the mandate that has been given to the working group through resolution 75/240. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Cuba. Colombia, please.

Thank you, Chairman. We would like to thank you very much sir, for your work over the course of this week and, of course, that of your team and the Secretariat. In terms of the structure of the report, we think that they should follow the same structure of our agenda, in line with the structure of the final report of the previous OEWG. As Canada and Mexico inter alia said, Colombia also believes that we should make the most of the fruitful discussions that we have had this week, and include them in the progress report. As The Netherlands also said, we also agree with what they said about the fact that important proposals have been made on capacity building and confidence building measures and we think they should be also be reflected in the report. In this process, we can add an additional additional layer, if you’d like to the process, and we hope it will be action oriented. We also share the proposals for Mexico to include the other presentations by UNIDIR, the Red Cross, and what came out of the dialogue with other relevant stakeholders. Finally, we would like to stress the importance of us defining modalities for participation of stakeholders. Finally, we once again reiterate our full support to you and we’d like to warmly thank you once again. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Cuba. I have no more requests for the floor. I see Haiti now. Haiti, you have the floor please.

Thank you, Chair for giving us the floor once again and to allow us to speak about the format of the annual report. We have followed with great interest the various statements throughout the session and I believe that we are moving in the right direction, taking into account the various differing opinions that have been expressed throughout the session. So in terms of substance, we think that the report needs to be objective and it needs to account for these differing views. We think that it needs to reflect the diversity of viewpoints which have been expressed by various delegations during the session. As for the form, we are pleased that it will follow the same structure as the session and we hope that it will be clear and concise. If some items require an additional explanation these can be included in the annex. This would help the readability of the report. We also support a summary that would help facilitate reading the report and the text could also be accompanied by graphics that could help facilitate the understanding of the report. I would like to use this opportunity once again to congratulate you on behalf of my delegation for steering the discussion of our group. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Haiti. Japan please. 

Thank you Chair. I would like to express  Japan’s sincere appreciation to your patient leadership throughout the week. Having heard other delegations speak, I wanted to express our support for some of the opinions that have been expressed. We support the adoption of annual progress report by consensus, we hope that it will reflect the discussions that have taken place in the last two sessions, be it was it be called formal or informal and we would hope that it would include all the proposals that have been made. Thank you very much. 

Thank you very much, Japan. Now on this specific topic of the annual progress report, I wanted to say that it is my intention to prepare zero draft of an annual progress report and therefore, I found this discussion initial, though it is to be very, very helpful to me. Second, I’ll reflect very carefully on the comments that have been expressed today with regard to the structure and content of the report and naturally if we are going to adopt an annual progress report it has to be adopted by consensus and I will give very careful thought as to what could be the best way to organize such a report so that it will be able to garner consensus. The last point I would make with regard to the annual progress report is that I hope to make this available to all delegations about six weeks before the third substantive session. The dates for the third substantive session are the 25th of July till the 29th of July. So working backwards I’ll give delegations at least six weeks, so that delegations will be able to look at the zero draft, reflect on it and be prepared with comments. It is also my intention to organize an informal virtual consultation after I have circulated the zero draft, so that we will at least have one round of discussion before we meet again in person in June [sic] for the third substantive session. So once again, thank you to all delegations for the initial discussion and guidance and I will continue to be open and accessible to other ideas and comments that delegations may have with regard to the annual progress report. Now still under other matters, agenda item six on other matters. I like to ask if there are any other comments or requests for the floor from delegations under this agenda item before I go to the closing of the session and make concluding remarks. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair, distinguished colleagues, I would like to take the floor here, in order to say the following. You know this week during our session much was said about Russia. Often, these were negative things that were being said. Of course, you understand that I had the right to take the floor in order to respond every time. Every time that Russia was mentioned I could have responded but I did not do so. I hope that you did not have the impression that I had nothing to say. Quite the contrary, I have many things to say about this crisis. Many things which most of those present here surely did not know about. You did not know about these things, because unlike myself, you do not have access to alternative sources of information. Rather you take your information mainly from Western news sources, which are very biased and sensationalist in discussing this topic. However, those who are truly interested in the truth, understanding the sources of this conflict, understanding who launched this proxy war, and is using Ukraine against Russia. If you want to do this, this is easy. What you need to do is analyze the news critically, trust your logic and common sense. The main reason why I did not do this is I did not want to waste everyone’s precious time on discussing issues that are not directly related to the mandate of the OEWG. This is our position and I wanted to highlight that it is different from the approaches taken by Western countries. Western countries have ignored many pleas of this Chairman and other delegations and in their statements continued to attack Russia, share speculation that is completely unfounded and wasted our precious time in this manner. You know, if we were to discuss an aspect of the issue that is most important to us, the cyber aspect of the events in Ukraine, I would like to highlight the following, which was said of the so called cyber attack of Russia against Ukraine. I, for one, wanted to say that mass cyber attacks are being perpetrated against Russia and I wanted to share some facts with you about the real situation of cyberspace in Russia. Just over the three weeks alone, the number of cyber attacks against various facilities in the digital sphere in Russia increased by several hundred times. In the past there would be several dozen attacks a month, whereas now there are hundreds of thousands of cyber attacks per week. Here I am referring to DDOS attacks, which target mainly critical and civilian infrastructure. Also, they target the IT resources of the government hospitals, schools, kindergartens, commercial business websites, etc. Why is there such a great increase in aggressive cyber activity against our country? The answer is simple. On the call of the Deputy Minister for Information of Ukraine, the Telegram channels and other social media displayed links. Now, if you clicked on these links you could turn your computer into a source of a massive DDOS attack. This is undisputable fact, if anyone is interested, we would be happy to provide you with direct evidence of this, we could show you the telegram channels etc. Perhaps some of you would like to join in the DDOS attack. Moreover, I would like to say that these attacks against our country are being perpetrated in a cynical and open manner now. But consider the following: after the events in Ukraine come to an end, the same people will use the same links to potentially attack your countries. If we are discussing the lack of responsibility on these kinds of issues, well this kind of situation is truly plausible and it is a threat to national security, not just the national security of our country but of all of your countries. I am sincerely grateful to our Chairman for all of his efforts to maintain a constructive dialogue that’s related to the mandate of the OEWG. I certainly hope that all of the statements in a national capacity that were made during our informal session will be reflected in the summary report, in the final report and in the progress report of the OEWG. I would like to add one more point if you’ll allow me. The day before the session, the Special Representative of the President of Russia on International Cooperation on IT security, Mr. Krutskih, provided an extensive interview to Newsweek. In his interview, he discussed our approaches to ensuring information security around the world. His main point was simple: we are ready and we wish to work together and reach consensus with everyone. Several days later, in Newsweek once again, there was another very simple statement that was made by the US administration, we were told that no one wishes to negotiate with us and will not do so. After this, we believe that there is no reason to feel surprised at the reaction to any of our suggestions or initiatives, which are rejected immediately without any kind of explanation simply because they are proposed by Russia. This is not an effective approach, it is up to you to decide how effective it could be. In conclusion, I would like to say the cherry on top has been the news about the following. Yesterday, the US State Department officially restricted the right of our delegation head to receive a US visa, this is a fact, this is not speculation, this is not an accusation. In this context, in the current situation, to be quite frank with you, I am not sure whether I will be able to come in July to the next session. Nevertheless, I wish all my colleagues peace, stability, harmony. I wish your families, your homes, health and happiness and given the nature of our work, I also wish everyone’s security. I hope that you will enjoy full security and the use of IT technologies. It is my honor to work with you. I am very happy to have this opportunity and I hope to see you soon. Thank you. 

Thank you for the statement. I have no other requests for the floor, but I see one now. Canada, please. 

Thank you chair. I did not intend to take the floor one more time. But I feel that I must. I was in a very pleasant mood entering this Friday afternoon, concluding an excellent meeting. Now I’m in a slightly less good mood. So I would just like to say that I profoundly disagree with everything that was just said. It’s a cynical attempt to recast the aggressor as the victim. Other than that, I leave this meeting in your capable hands and look forward to seeing you in July. 

Thank you, Canada, the speaker’s list is closed. I’d now like to make some concluding remarks as the Chair, and before I make my concluding remarks, I’d like to resume the formal meeting so that my comments as Chair are made in the context of a formal meeting of this working group. Now distinguished delegates, I do not intend to summarize the very rich, varied and interesting discussion we’ve had over the past week. It has been, as some of you said, a very intense, but also a very productive week, but I wanted to share with you some reflections from the podium. First, it is true that we had a difficult start to the second substantive session. That is the reality. The second substantive session met in the context of a very challenging international environment. We also began our work in a context when we had not yet been able to agree on modalities for stakeholder participation, even though we had met and worked hard during the intersessional period. That framed the beginning of the second substantive session. We heard some very important remarks from the High Representative for disarmament, and Under-Secretary-General Miss Izumi Nakamitsu, who said in her opening remarks that confidence building measure, such as the Open-ended Working Group, are needed not in spite, but because of periods of high tension. I too, had made the same observation in my opening remarks on Monday. The truth is that we need this platform as a neutral venue for us to engage in dialogue and discussion, and if we did not have this platform we would have to invent it. But ironically, even if we were able to invent it, we would not be able to establish, I think, a platform like this in the current context. So the fact that this platform was established some time ago means that we are fortunate now to have such a platform that will enable all of us to have the difficult discussions and dialogue that is needed to build trust, to build confidence, and hopefully to build convergence and consensus around some of the most difficult issues in the area of ICT security. Second, it is also true that this week there was an underlying sense of frustration and disappointment, because of the fact that we had not been able to arrive at consensus on modalities for stakeholder participation. There was also some degree of frustration and disappointment that we were not able to meet in the context of a formal meeting, as was mandated by the General Assembly resolution, and this frustration was also expressed by delegations who had travelled long distances from their capitals, and there was also some frustration that some precious time was lost on some of the discussions surrounding the modalities of our work. Now I too share these frustrations, and disappointment, but I’m not pessimistic as we look ahead. I think as I said, it is precisely at moments like this during a period of heightened geopolitical tension that we need an Open-ended Working Group like this one to discuss issues relating to ICT security. Now, thirdly, let me give you my views on what we were able to achieve. You all know what we were not able to achieve, which is the modalities for stakeholder participation, but let me give you a sense of what I think we were able to achieve this week. First, I think we took a big step on substance and substantive issues under agenda item five. I think it was Canada that said it earlier this afternoon, in describing this session as one of the most substantive sessions of the working group, and I would agree with that assessment. We had very detailed and in depth discussions on agenda item five on all the sub item and there were some very detailed and important and interesting ideas that had been put on the table. That in my view is a good step forward and a big step forward with regard to getting on with the work of this working group. The other thing that I thought we achieved was that we took a step from the what to the how, I think this was a challenge that I had put the delegations on Monday to focus on how we get to the how, as opposed to the what. I think we all have a sense of what needs to be done. But the question is, how do we do it? How do we take the next step? How do we implement it? In that context, the different proposals that were put forward is really a way of translating into action what is the normative framework. There is no doubt that we have a framework of norms, rules and principles, adopted and agreed by consensus, which is a very precious asset that we have. But a framework like that needs to be translated into action, implemented, and it must make a difference to countries around the world, especially to countries who need the most assistance in terms of building capacity to deal with the challenges posed by ICT security. I and my staff have taken careful notes of the different proposals, we will study them carefully and if we have questions about some of your proposals we will come back to your delegations. In the meantime, I would also ask each one of you to give some further thought to your own proposals and encourage you to put forward concept papers. Elaborate your proposals that you have put forward in a way that can be disseminated to all others, to build up on your ideas and the feedback that you might have received and prepare papers and upload them onto the OEWG portal, and you can also send your concept papers or proposals or written input to my team and to the secretariat. I think it’s important to get into a level of detail, so that the annual progress report can also be equally detailed and implementation oriented; as opposed to being aspirational and conceptual. We need to be action oriented with a keen eye on getting things implemented. Now, the question of implementation I think is a very important part of our mandate and how we are able to deliver on the implementation potential of this process will actually shape the perception of this process as to whether it is able to deliver results. I said at the beginning on Monday when we met that the expectations are high in terms of what this process can deliver. Many countries, smaller countries, developing countries have come to this process looking for results, not looking for concepts, looking for proposals and projects that will make a difference to them looking for a pathway that will help them to prepare to deal with the challenges posed by ICT security. Now, my final point relates to the question of modalities for stakeholder participation. Before I come to the question of modalities, I’d like to say to all of you that from the moment I took on the post of Chair of this working group, I have been very clear in my mind that it is important to engage with stakeholders. They are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution. They are needed for the solution that each one have to define in our own national contexts, but also, they are part of the solution at the international level. They have the expertise, they have the resources. And we have a framework for capacity building, which was adopted by consensus in the previous Open-ended Working Group in terms of capacity building being needs driven and determined by sovereign governments. So we have a good framework, but where possible if stakeholders are able and willing to help I think it’s only in our interest that we mobilize all the resources and assistance we can get. So they are and can be a partner for all of us in this process. In that spirit, I have continued my approach of engaging with stakeholders informally. Prior to this week, on the 24th of March, I had an informal virtual engagement with stakeholders, which was well attended, and this week, on the 31st of March, Thursday, I had another round of informal engagement with stakeholders, which was focused specifically on the topic of capacity building. It was a thematic discussion and I think it went quite well. Although the session itself was cut short to less time than I had planned, the stakeholders came prepared. They were very focused, and I had prepared guiding questions for them and they came prepared to answer those questions. I think it’s an asset, that we have so many stakeholders who are interested to participate and therefore – and this leads to my final point – therefore, it is my hope that we will have stakeholder modalities in place before our July session. This week, there has been some very candid conversations about the way forward on stakeholder modalities. I hesitate to characterize or describe the state of consensus or the state of a lack of consensus. But I think this week, the candid conversations have given everyone a realistic sense of where everyone is and what the stock options are and the options are not many. It remains my hope that we will be able to agree on modalities in this working group before the July session, and based on the conversations that I’ve had, and my team has had, and the feedback that we have received from many delegations it is my intention to continue some of these conversations intersessionally to explore further options to arrive at a consensual solution for modalities within this working group; that remains my hope. I’ve already spent the previous intersessional period working on this issue and my track record on this front has not been stellar. But I am going to continue to apply my best and try my best to facilitate the conversation that needs to take place, ultimately it is not a conversation with me, but it’s a conversation between delegations. If it was up to me to impose a solution that could have been done on the first of June last year when I assumed the post. It is precisely because that the mandate of our process requires us to adopt decisions by consensus that we are forced to have difficult conversations between ourselves. And as I said, this is a confidence building measure in itself, and the confidence building measure like this one will require us to have very difficult conversations and listening to each other is part of the process of building confidence or rebuilding confidence. I know that agreement will not be easy, but it is my responsibility as chair to continue some of these conversations during the intersessional period and I will do so with the hope that we can reach a consensus decision on modalities in time for accreditation to begin for the July meeting. It is my hope. Well, distinguished delegates, I have no further points to make, except to thank all of you for all your support and your cooperation to me and my team. It has been an intense week, but very, very productive indeed, and I’m pleased that we can conclude well before 6pm. I hope it gives you a little time to catch up with each other, because the pace has indeed been frenetic, but I hope each one of you will have a wonderful weekend ahead and have some rest before we resume our work informally, virtually and intersessionally. So with those comments, I thank you once again for your support. The meeting is now adjourned. See you in July.