Session 4-10
Transcript (OEWG 2021-25)

Good afternoon, distinguished delegates. The tenth and final meeting of the fourth substantive session of the Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of ICT, established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 75/240, is now called to order. I apologize for the late start this afternoon, but I assure you we have sufficient time to address all the issues that need to be addressed on our agenda. We will now continue consideration of agenda item five, relating to regular institutional dialogue, which we had begun this morning to look at. I have six speakers, five speakers, and I’ll give them the floor one at a time: Nicaragua, Ghana, Czechia, Italy, and Costa Rica. And if there are any other speakers on regular institutional dialogue, you’re welcome to take the floor. We are in no hurry. I want to listen to as many of you as possible on this particular agenda item. Nicaragua, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For our delegation, as a developing country, it’s important to have the continuity of a democratic, inclusive, and transparent process with specific results and without leaving anyone behind. Our current group has proven to be the best experiment of a mechanism of regular institutional dialogue in order to promote responsible behavior of states when it comes to the use of ICTs within the context of international security, above all because they respect the principle of consensus and decision-making, ensuring that we take into account the opinions, concerns, and proposals of all of the member states, protecting in this way their sovereignty of information. The continuity of this process requires a global permanent mechanism on the security of ICTs, which should be under the auspices of the United Nations and that could have the ability to adapt to the emerging challenges of the development of ICTs. The future mechanism of regular institutional dialogue should fully implement all of the decisions adopted by consensus within our group, and in particular, respecting the principles of the UN Charter. It would also be crucial to establish the appropriate mechanism to implement the programs of capacity building for developing countries, as well as international cooperation between states, in order to tackle the threats of the underuse of ICTs identified in our OEWG. As is established in Resolution 73-36, we reiterate our support for regular institutional dialogue on the use of the ICTs once we’ve concluded the process of the current group. We call for a single mechanism that would have a platform for dialogue, avoiding the duplication of efforts through the establishment of parallel processes such as is represented at the present time by the proposed Program of Action. This would become an obstacle when it comes to the participation of experts who come from developing countries as well as small delegations. And in this respect, we agree with the other delegations who said that the Program of Action should be discussed within the forum of the OEWG on equal footing with other states. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Nicaragua. Ghana, please.

Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. Once again, as we come to the end of this session, my delegation would like to thank you for the manner in which you have conducted these sessions. Mr. Chair, my delegation believes that processes under regular institutional dialogue need to be inclusive, transparent, consensus-based, and need to focus on capacity building. The focus on capacity building is especially important to provide opportunities for member states to learn from each other and build their capacity on matters related to the use of ICT in the context of international security. Mr. Chair, regarding the proposal for a Program of Action, we believe that the POA will further strengthen regular institutional dialogue. Guarantees of the view that the POA and the OEWG can be complementary mechanisms that work together to achieve a common goal of advancing responsible states’ behavior and the use of ICT. It is imperative that whilst the OEWG serves as a platform for discussing and promoting responsible states’ behavior in the use of ICT, the POA acts as a practical mechanism to support states with the capacity needed to adhere to commitments related to the responsible use of ICTs. The POA can enhance capacity by providing a concrete framework for action, including identifying specific capacity needs among member states and building concrete steps and plans to address them. This effort to support capacity building initiatives can provide member states with the tools needed to implement norms related to responsible states’ behavior. It is also important that the POA adopts a multistakeholder approach and that it remains flexible. Finally, the POA could provide a framework for monitoring and evaluation, which would involve identifying indicators and benchmarks for measuring progress in the implementation of these norms. Thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you. Ghana, Czechia, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Czech Republic aligns itself with the EU statement delivered earlier. I will be very brief. First of all, I would like to acknowledge your work, Mr. President, in the agenda of regular institutional dialogue. The Czech Republic is convinced that you are moving in the right direction, and you have our full support. I would like to express my strongest support for the Program of Action (POA) as the permanent and inclusive platform for our future work. I will not repeat all arguments which have already been raised. I consider, among others, the intervention of our French colleague comprehensive and succinct, and I fully support all of his arguments. I regret there are some misunderstandings in the room. In particular, I noticed that there has been voiced the concern that POA is in conflict with the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG). I certainly don’t think so. It is on the contrary. I would like to assure all hesitant countries that the main driver why the Czech Republic supports POA is precisely because it complements and extends the OEWG. We have very strong resolutions, 77-37, on POA, with overwhelming support of UN member states. Let us, therefore, work on it and elaborate it. Let us work together to ensure that the new POA does not duplicate other processes and that it’s built on synergic effects. I would like to recommend all countries who have concerns in this regard that they can submit contributions addressing these concerns to the UN Secretary-General. In the end, I would like to assure that the Czech Republic is fully engaged in developing regular institutional dialogue right now. However, we want to do so in a longer-term context, and POA provides us the horizon we believe we want to move toward. And it is from the perspective of this long-term horizon why we appreciate your work, Mr. Chair, and why today’s discussion is particularly relevant for us. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Czechia. Italy, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation aligns with the statement delivered this morning by the European Union. I would like to add some brief remarks in its national capacity. As I highlighted many times this week, the ICT domain is, by its very nature, a transnational space, meaning that the degradation of its stability and security can affect multiple actors and cross multiple borders. It attaches great importance to the establishment of regular institutional dialogue as a way toward an inclusive and transparent governance approach to the maintenance of peace and security in cyberspace. Effective governance needs dialogue, but it also needs action and result-based approaches. For this reason, Italy supports the proposal to establish a Program of Action to advance responsible state behavior in cyberspace, which we believe has the potential to become an enabling tool in producing tangible steps forward in the implementation of the existing framework, as well as in further developing it, if appropriate, on the basis of consensus. This week we heard multiple delegations highlighting the importance of capacity-building initiatives in the ICT domain, but at the same time, we heard about the challenges that diverse national contexts and needs represent. The establishment of a permanent structure for dialogue seeks to provide a stable and inclusive forum where these specific needs can be discussed and addressed, fostering the participation of all states in ICT-related processes through the enhancement of their capacity. In addition, the POA would provide an opportunity to broaden multistakeholder engagement, allowing regular consultations with the private sector, academia, and civil society, and thus benefiting from their expertise and specific knowledge. Chair, inclusivity – that certainly can be considered a key word in the work of this group, as well as a key principle in multilateralism. In this vein, Italy welcomes the submission of national contributions to the UN Secretary-General report on the possible working of the POA, and supports the proposal for a dedicated session in 2024 to provide the space for all states to express their views and expectations. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Italy. Costa Rica, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Beginning a regular institutional dialogue with the broad participation of states on the security and the use of ICTs is not only one of the mandates of resolution 75/240 that allows us to be here this week, but it’s also a need in order to reach shared understandings in this area, which is constantly evolving. And that is why Costa Rica acknowledges the value of this working group as well as the one that preceded it. We believe that it’s important to maintain multilateral mechanisms which are open, inclusive, action-oriented, and based on results, and which would make it possible to strengthen dialogue. We value the possibility of beginning to develop a mechanism that we can use after the end of this working group. In that respect, Costa Rica welcomes the proposal to establish a Program of Action, as was developed by resolution 77/37, and we believe that this working group gives us an opportunity to find convergence when it comes to building this new mechanism of a regular institutional dialogue. Mr. Chairman, Costa Rica feels it’s positive to have a permanent dialogue mechanism which is action-oriented with clear and identified objectives that make it easy to exchange experiences, which would promote international cooperation, which would provide a platform in order to implement the existing framework, which would be flexible to tackle new threats, and which would make it possible to assess periodically if we need additional measures in order to respond to the current and emerging challenges. It should be inclusive, transparent, and based on consensus as well as results. We recommend that we learn from the efforts made in other areas, such as the Program of Action on small arms and light weapons, and involve all of the interested parties who would have experiences to share. As our colleague from Ireland said, the Program of Action should be based on broad participation of states, regional organizations, civil society, as well as academia, such that we can guarantee that we take advantage of all areas of knowledge. We hope that this mechanism will allow the full participation of all of the interested parties and that it’s based on the convergence of visions and consensus. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Costa Rica, for your statement and for your contribution. I have no other speakers inscribed for this item on regular institutional dialogue, and I wanted to be sure I did not miss anyone who wanted to speak. So the floor is open. Please indicate if you wish to take the floor now. Portugal, you have the floor, please.

I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought you had moved to the following item.

Not yet, Portugal. I just wanted to make sure that we give as much time as possible to regular institutional dialogue, and I wanted to be sure that everyone who wanted to speak was able to do so. So the floor is open for regular institutional dialogue. Well, I have no further speakers, which means that those who wanted to speak have had the opportunity. Now, once again, I don’t intend to make a summary, but I do want to share some reflections on this particular item before we go on to the POC directory. And I wanted to say that this has been an excellent opening discussion on regular institutional dialogue, probably the most in-depth and focused discussion we’ve had. Very candid exchange of views, and I think it bodes well for this agenda item. Second, I want to say that as chair of this process, I’m hopeful and absolutely committed to doing all I can to finding convergence on regular institutional dialogue. In many ways, if we are able to find convergence on regular institutional dialogue, we would be able to build and rebuild levels of confidence and trust that will help us as we move into the future. Or to put it differently, I think the debate about the future of regular institutional dialogue should be done in such a way that we do not undermine the consensus foundation that we have already built. So, in other words, we have to build consensus on regular institutional dialogue in order to strengthen the consensual foundations we have laid in the last 24 or 23 years. And that is why I’m committed as chair to do all I can to find convergence on regular institutional dialogue. And my own sense after this discussion, initial as it is, is that there are many common elements that have emerged. I’m sure you have listened as much as I have done to the various statements that have been made, and there are many, many common elements. So it’s not impossible to reach convergence on regular institutional dialogue. On this item, there is the proposal put forward on a Program of Action, which is reflected in the annual progress report. There is also the submission that was made by the Russian Federation, outlining elements for a future mechanism for regular institutional dialogue. And what struck me was the fact that there are many common elements across the board, which gives me some grounds for hope that convergence is possible. Now, certainly, we need more time for this, and I certainly will keep that in mind, and I want to devote more time to this discussion as we move forward. As we proceed from here to July. Now, even as we discuss the future mechanism, we should not allow this in any way to delay progress in our current agenda. In other words, the debate on the future mechanism should not lead us to a situation where everything is postponed to the future. Because we have two years before the mandate of this working group would come to an end. And it’s not my intention to spend the two remaining years just having a conversation about the future, because we also need to do very concrete, results-oriented things in the present. And I think there is a very high expectation that we deliver results quickly. So, in other words, we have to balance two very complex and demanding tasks. One is to carry out the work in the present, to implement the framework that we have, but at the same time discuss the future architecture that will allow all of us to continue beyond 2025. In terms of the many, many common elements, I think there is, as one of you put it, near universal agreement that we need a future mechanism that’s permanent, that’s inclusive, that’s transparent, that’s action-oriented. That’s focused on implementation of the framework of cumulative norms, rules, and principles that we have built over the last 20 years. We all agree that we need a future mechanism that looks at capacity building, that looks at confidence-building measures, that continues the conversation on international law, including considering the possibility of future legally binding obligations. There was also a lot of common understanding that we need a future mechanism that’s flexible. So there’s a lot of common elements here. And, of course, the discussion also revealed differences of views. I think the proposal for a Program of Action has been put forward very eloquently by the proponents. There have also been comments that we should have a single track, no parallel approaches, no fragmentation, no duplication. In fact, no one advocated a parallel approach. Everyone said that it will be complementary. So as I see it, we need to continue the discussion around a few key sort of elements. One is the whole question of decision-making. How would decisions be made in a future mechanism? Some of you have said that it should be based on consensus. One group of delegations said it should be consensus-based, if appropriate. So I think we need to have further discussions about how decisions would be made in a future mechanism. I think we need to have further discussions about how decisions would be made in a future mechanism for regular institutional dialogue. Another area where I think we need more discussions is around stakeholder participation and the modalities for that. And there is also the question of the monitoring and evaluation that some of you had said would be the task of the future mechanism for regular institutional dialogue. I think as far as the Program of Action is concerned, I think there has been a lot more clarity in terms of what it is, what the proponents have put forward. So I hope that all of you will reflect on it. And I hope also that people will reach out and have conversations across the aisle on this proposal. And I also hope that those who have made other comments will also think about how best we can build convergence. From my vantage point as chair of this working group, as I said, it’s my hope and determination to do my best to find convergence on this issue. In that regard, I note also that there will be a report of the Secretary General that will be made available around July, if I’m not mistaken. So that too will guide, hopefully, the discussions in our working group and give us more clarity. And at the end of the day, I ask all of you to help me, but more importantly, to help each other find middle ground. Because the manner in which we decide on the future mechanism, hopefully by consensus, will be a tremendous, tremendous boost to the acquis that we have, to the cumulative and evolving framework that we already have, to the very strong foundations that we have built over the last two decades. I’m not sure if any of that made sense, but these are random reflections after what has been a very useful debate and discussion. So with those comments, I think we might be ready to move to the next item, which is the revised paper on the POC directory. And after we conclude that discussion on the revised POC directory, I would offer some thoughts on our work going ahead after March. But before we get to that, I’d like to get into the POC directory discussion. Now, on the POC, on the revised POC directory, or rather, the revised paper on the POC directory, you will recall that we had a very useful discussion on last Friday, last Thursday, I think. It seems like a long time ago. So I’d like to hear views from all of you, especially those of you who were not able to participate at that earlier meeting. So again, I want to make sure that I hear everyone who has had the chance. I’m in no hurry to conclude. I’m here till six o’clock, if not longer. So let’s go through the list of speakers. And I have good news once again. We have a very long list of speakers. Well, sorry for that little pause. I understand there’s a group statement that has been requested. So I’d like to let the group go first, but the group has divided its intervention into different parts. So I intend to allow them to do so accordingly. So we’ll start with Israel. You have the floor, please.

Thank you, Chair. We’re very happy to be the first in line of speakers as we wish to deliver a joint statement by members of the Confidence Builders, as we call ourselves, an open, informal, cross-regional group working together to advance CBMs in the framework of the Open-Ended Working Group. The group consists, as of today, of the following member states: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Fiji, Germany, Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Uruguay, Czech Republic, and Argentina. We wish to present the purpose of the POC directory as our group envisions it. The POC directory would be a global, intergovernmental, point-of-contact directory. It would serve as a CBM in itself and possibly, if further agreed upon, can also provide a framework for the implementation of other CBMs that could help to promote an open, secure, stable, accessible, and peaceful ICT environment. The POC directory should aim to be practical, effective, and useful, and can achieve this through simplicity and flexibility. The POC directory will complement and not replicate or duplicate the functions undertaken by already existing Computer Emergency Response Teams, CERT, and Computer Security Incident Response Teams, CSIRTs, networks. Participation in the directory will be voluntary. The main purposes of the POC directory will be: A) enhance interaction and cooperation between states and increase transparency and predictability; B) facilitate communications between states in the event of an urgent or significant ICT incident; and C) help in reducing the risk of escalation that might stem from ICT incidents. Thank you, and I wish to pass the microphone to our honorable colleague from Mexico.

Thank you, Israel. Just a second before we go to Mexico, which will be followed by Singapore, Germany, and Czechia. It will be helpful if the rest of the speakers address the revised non-paper in a very specific and concrete way, because I do want to avoid general debate kind of statements, and one of the things that has characterized this week is how focused the discussions have been. So I’m not saying, Israel, that your statement wasn’t focused—please don’t take it that way—but I just am keen to get into the revised non-paper. So the pressure is on Mexico, Singapore, and Germany, as well as Czechia, to give me very specific comments on the revised non-paper. So Mexico, you have the floor, please, and no pressure. No, I’m taking it. Gracias.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be very brief. I will refer to the importance that we see in the group as to this PoC. We believe that it’s crucial to remind the members that the PoC directory will be used as a confidence-building measure in itself. And it’s important to point out that the establishment of this network, designated by members of every state, does not intend to replace the operation of the existing networks of points of contact and response. Recalling the establishment of this network with diplomatic and technical channels, we propose to improve communication transparency, as well as the confidence among member states, in order to tackle, in the best way possible, the malicious activities in cyberspace. I will now give the floor to my colleague from Singapore. Thank you.

Can we give the floor to Singapore, please?

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. In order for the Global POCs Directory to work and be sustainable in the long run, it is essential that all States can develop the capacity to participate in it, and for the POCs to be equipped adequately to fulfill their roles effectively. Capacity building activities in this regard should continually address the needs of States, taking into account that necessities may vary as they are region and nation-specific. In addressing capacity building, we should keep in mind the principles stated in paragraph 56 of the first OEWG 2019-2021 Final Report. Chair, in order to reflect and respond to the diversity of national contexts, we could organize the capacity building measures by their purpose and include a non-exhaustive list of examples. For instance, capacity building could be recommended for the purpose of establishing a POC, for ensuring that the designated POCs understand the expectations of that role, and for meaningfully participating in the POC Directory. We can continue to develop, adjust, and fine-tune these capacity building measures as we get feedback from the implementation of the POCs Directory. Thank you, and now I pass the floor to Germany.

I’d like to make a few remarks in the name of the group about the way in which the POC directory could be put to work, and I realize the Chair may not like this intervention too much because it’s more of a departure, a point of departure, and what do we need in order to make the POC directory work. But in my view, it is very important for us to keep in mind to understand the whole directory idea. And in order to make the directory functional from day one, our group suggests establishing a first initial set of very basic CBMs. The idea is that a directory by itself does not have a function. It needs to be filled with life. Without having a first set of CBMs as an entry point, the POC directory would just lie dormant, having no task to perform. Three distinct functions of the directory are already mentioned in the Chair’s revised elements paper. These could be framed as an initial set of CBMs. CBM number one could be using the POC directory to exchange information in the event of cyber incidents, and in particular, those whose gravity has an effect on international stability, peace, and security. The kind of information shared would be entirely at the discretion of any UN member state, which is a voluntary member of the directory. The intent of sharing the information would be creating transparency, building common understanding of threats, and contributing to de-escalation. CBM number two could cover regular communication checks or communication exercises in the form of ping tests, also as mentioned in the revised elements paper. This could be an exercise held twice a year to ensure POCs can be reached and are ready to receive information. CBM number three could be dedicated to running tabletop exercises, which the Chair has offered to hold as early as this year, involving the POCs. Participation in these tabletop exercises could vary. For example, the first tabletop exercise could be held involving diplomatic points of contact. The idea would be to agree on this first set of very basic CBMs in the annual progress report this year. As the POC directory is put to active use, the need may arise to add further and thematically more focused CBMs. Further CBMs should be developed in an incremental way, their consideration following challenges identified by member states, based on their experience with the POC directory. I’d now like to pass the floor to my colleague from Czechia.

Thank you. Let me build on the words of the last four speakers and bring to a close our coordinated intervention. I will be very brief. I would like to focus our attention on the next steps of what the Open-Ended Working Group should take to keep the momentum once the POC directory modalities are established, which we hope to achieve as part of the July report, as you, Honorable Chair, have indicated earlier. As a cross-regional group of states, we are of the opinion that the initial operationalization of the directory is the first step that should be followed by another one in order to operationalize the already discussed CBMs. We propose that we focus on elaborating clearly identified and thematically focused CBMs and would therefore see as the next step the development of the list of CBMs to enable easier recognition and further implementation of additional CBMs, as some of the regional groups have already done. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Czechia, as well as Germany, Singapore, Mexico, and Israel, for getting us started. I think that gives us a good opening frame for our discussion. Plus, of course, I invite delegations to look at the revised non-paper. There’s another group that wishes to make a statement, so I give the floor now to Saudi Arabia, which is making a statement on behalf of a group. Saudi Arabia, the floor, please.

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I would like to deliver this statement on behalf of the Arab Group. Since this is the very first time that the Arab Group takes the floor during this session, we would like to express our appreciation to you, Mr. Chairperson, and your team, for all the effort made during the mandate of the Open-Ended Working Group. We’d also like to thank the Secretariat for supporting the work of the group. We’d like to refer to the following on CBMs regarding, in particular, the National POC Directory for Cyber Security. We stress the need to promote confidence-building measures in matters of cyber security, which will lead to greater coordination among nations and more consensus, to avoid any escalation and prevent armed conflict among countries in cyberspace. In this vein, we principally support the proposal to establish a National POC Directory in cyberspace security. We commend the revised non-paper submitted by the chairperson of the OEWG. This is a good basis for consultation, and we can build upon it to reach consensus among all parties. The Arab Group welcomes the voluntary and confidential nature of the proposed registry, as well as the gradual approach to develop it, positions of certain parties vis-à-vis a number of matters which require more effort to reach agreement. The Arab Group stresses the importance of giving countries flexibility to designate their points of contact voluntarily, so that they can designate one or two points of contact according to their national capabilities, taking into consideration the digital disparity between developed and developing countries. The Arab Group supports the valuable proposals in the chairperson’s non-paper on building capacity, which reflects the urgent need to support developing countries in the domain of cyber security. In a related vein, we support the engagement of NGOs and other stakeholders in the work of the working group, each according to his role and specificity. We value and appreciate the added value they will contribute with in the discussions, as well as the relevant expertise. We stress the need that such entities must cooperate and engage substantively, especially on issues relevant to the mandate of the working group. They must avoid tackling any non-consensual topics or terminology that are pertinent to other working groups in the United Nations, because such an approach would negatively affect the nature of our substantive discussions and the constructive atmosphere of our talks. To conclude, we are ready to work with all parties to develop the National Point of Contact Directory and call upon all parties to show the necessary flexibility during our negotiations to reach consensus. We hope to adopt such a directory as soon as possible as a fast step we can build upon to rebuild trust among different delegations. The Arab Group reiterates its support for the chair of the working group, and we will continue to participate positively in the work of the group. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for your statement, and please also thank the members of the Arab Group for the statement that you’ve just delivered. I now have the Islamic Republic of Iran to be followed by Switzerland. Iran, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, my delegation would like to thank you for preparing the new version of the Non-Paper on the key elements for the development of the POC Directory, which could facilitate our discussions during the current session of the OEWG. Mr. Chair, we welcome the revised Non-Paper, which has been significantly improved compared to the previous one. However, to make the POC Directory more efficient, we have the following comments. We note that the new paragraph 2b reflects some working principles for the future global POC Directory. This important element could be extended to include some other principles which have been proposed by States throughout the previous sessions of the OEWG, as well as through their written inputs to the Secretariat. These working principles could include, in trial law, the following: 1. Functions of the POC Directory will be guided by the principles of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States, along with sovereignty, sovereign equality, States’ territorial sovereignty, and national jurisdiction over their cyberspace as a fortiori, all its elements, as well as the peaceful settlement of disputes. 2. Given that ICT incidents can emanate from or involve third States, it is understood that notifying a State about malicious cyber activity emanating from its territory or cyber infrastructure does not imply the responsibility of that State for the incident. It is particularly important given the fact that many cyber attacks are carried out under false flags. 3. Acknowledging the receipt of notice does not indicate concurrence with the information contained therein. 4. Notification from an affected State must be made in good faith and should be accompanied by all relevant supporting information. Supporting information may include sharing possible indicators of compromise, such as IP addresses and computers used for malicious ICT acts and malware information. 5. A State that becomes aware of harmful ICT activities emanating from its territory but cannot respond is not responsible based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and should be assisted by technology transfer and forensic tools to combat the ICT malicious activities. 6. The POCs and their resources should not be subject to restricting and blocking measures, including UCMs. 7. Concerning the activities of the POC Directory, States will take into account the needs and requirements of developing States taking part in such collaborations. Mr. Chair, since States may voluntarily provide both diplomatic and technical POCs to the Directory, to avoid inconsistency and duplication of work, we believe that the revised Non-Paper should contain a clear reference to the specific functions of each diplomatic and technical POC. Mr. Chair, regarding the information protection that has been reflected in Paragraph 4B of the Non-Paper, we think that password protection would not be sufficient to ensure the security of the POC Directory and other protection methods, such as multi-factor authentication, should also be used. Last but not least, Mr. Chair, we welcome the improvement of a capacity building section in your revised Non-Paper. Capacity building is an essential element of the POC Directory and is required for the effective functioning of this mechanism. Considering that operationalization of the POC Directory may not immediately be possible, in particular for developing countries until they acquire adequate capacity and function equivalence, we propose the following amendments. In Paragraph 9E, it would be more appropriate to request the UN Secretariat to seek views from States on a. capacities required for effective participation of POCs in the POC Directory and b. suitable mechanisms and actions for building such capacities and then produce a background paper on these views. This background paper needs to be prepared by the end of June 2023 for consideration at the fifth session of the OEWG. We believe that proposed focused discussions in Paragraph 9G on potential follow-up actions drawing upon the information presented in the Secretariat’s background paper could not be postponed till forthcoming sessions of the OEWG and should take place and finalize during the fifth substantive session of the OEWG in July 2023. Also, the injectory statement, if any, in the same subparagraph is a prejudgment about the outcomes of the proposed focused discussions on the background paper and should be deleted. I would like to express my delegation’s gratitude for all the constructive proposals that were presented during this week’s proceedings. As stated in my initial statement, we reserve the right to provide comprehensive feedback at an appropriate time. In addition, I would like to reiterate that we will be submitting all of our statements in writing for your consideration, Mr. Chair, and posting them to the relevant portals and websites. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Islamic Republic of Iran, and thank you also for posting your statements on the website. Switzerland, to be followed by the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to you and to your team for all the hard work you’ve put into this elements paper. I think the revised paper provides a very good basis for our discussions here. We can support most of the elements, and in our view, we need to make only a few changes. We support the incremental and step-by-step approach outlined in the paper. Based on the experience of creating the POC network in the OSCE, we recommend starting out with a basic structure containing contact details of the political and technical points of contact, beginning then to enter the data and evaluate the functioning of the database after a certain period of time and, if necessary, make modifications to ensure it serves the purposes states intended. Overloading the elements will most probably have the result that we will not be able to establish the network in the near future. We would like to echo the proposals made by Germany to establish a first set of basic CBMs for the purpose of this network. Let me turn to specific elements. We welcome the edit in paragraph 2, making reference to the framework of responsible state behavior. This is key for us. We question the notion of political neutrality in paragraph 2bis. This notion is not contained in the UN Charter, and we propose to delete it. We welcome the addition of 2ter. The point of contact directory should remain complementary and not duplicate already existing networks on the regional level or CERT networks, as also Israel has mentioned. We note that information sharing has been deleted in 2.4b and 10b. As stated in paragraph 2, the point of contact directory shall provide a framework for the implementation of other CBMs, and Germany made a very good proposal in that regard, many of which are just about information sharing. In our view, this fact should be reflected appropriately in the paper. In paragraph 6, we could add that states should or could confirm the receipt of a communication without any prejudice to the substance of the answer to be given. This would help build confidence between states. We welcome that in paragraph 6a, it is stated that states may wish to utilize standardized templates. In our view, such templates should remain voluntary and flexible to allow for exchanges and cooperation, even if some information is unavailable. Accordingly, we propose to replace in paragraph 6b “will” with “could.” Finally, on the part about capacity building, we agree that we should be ambitious, but we should not be overambitious. Yesterday, we heard that we should consider the time factor and distinguish between what we should do now and what we should do later. In the spirit of a step-by-step approach, we therefore suggest that we should focus on a few measures that are easier to implement. In our view, these are the POC 101 online tutorial, the tabletop exercises that also have been mentioned, and tailor-made e-learning models, also mentioned by Germany. Furthermore, the term “will” in this paragraph 9 should be replaced with “should” or “could,” where we talk about what states should do. In the subparagraphs where activities of the secretariat or the chair are mentioned, “requested” should be used. This, of course, depends on whether these elements remain in the paper. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Switzerland. Russian Federation, to be followed by the Philippines. Russian Federation, please.

Mr. Chair, distinguished colleagues, in order to successfully implement the idea of creating a global intergovernmental directory, the Russian delegation has been working on the contents and the format of this proposal. We have created a draft of the first universal confidence-building measure at the UN on the establishment of a global intergovernmental points-of-contact directory. We will transmit the document to the Secretary of the OEWG after our presentation and ask it to publish it on our behalf. Our initiative is aimed at creating an effective mechanism of interaction between states and their authorized bodies in the area of computer incident response, reducing tensions and the risk of conflict in the field of security and the use of ICTs. Russia’s experience of participating in regional institutions shows that excessive flexibility when elaborating CBMs hinders their effective implementation. Well-structured cooperation between POCs, for example within the CSTO Consultative Coordination Center, on the contrary, can significantly raise the overall level of information security of states. For this reason, it is important to clearly define such elements of the directory as its purpose and tasks, its guiding principles, its composition and functions of the POCs, protocols and procedures for interaction, the directory’s technical parameters, as well as financial issues. It is also reasonable to agree upon a template of messages containing the basic technical data on a computer attack or incident. We assume that defining a diplomatic and a technical POC is enough to organize practical interaction in the event of computer attacks or incidents. In the absence of a computer emergency response team in a country, this could – or any other authorized body in the area of security could be designated as a technical POC on a temporary basis. The most important thing is the participation only of authorized national agencies in the directory. We propose using the POC directory only to ensure ICT security and to prevent conflict. It is necessary to have an agreed procedure of interaction of POCs in the event of computer attacks on information infrastructure of UN member states. This procedure will allow us to determine basic processes, scenarios, areas, and forms of cooperation of national authorized bodies of the UN member states. We suggest organizing the information exchange bilaterally via email, telephone, diplomatic channels, and or other means if necessary. Developing a network-like mechanism similar to the OSCE communication network will not allow us to guarantee the necessary level of confidentiality. It is important to call upon states to take the necessary measures within their national segments of the internet to suppress malicious activity and strengthen confidence in the international information space. We understand that developing countries may require targeted aid in the area of computer incident response. A specific list of each state’s needs is necessary for the creation of the POC’s directory. We do not share the view that the global directory should complement and develop efforts made at the regional level. The existing directories reflect the specifics of regional interaction and cannot be automatically applied at the international level, especially given the fact that not all states are members of regional organizations. Moreover, it is important to take into account the negative regional experience as well. One relevant example is the OSCE directory. Its agenda is heavily politicized by systematic accusations of the so-called undesirable states. The OSCE directory is used for checking the availability of POC communication and does not have any practical value for interacting with authorized bodies. It would be inappropriate and, in fact, harmful with respect to launching such a global mechanism to support the view that the POC directory should complement and not duplicate the functions of the existing CERT C-CERT networks. In fact, this idea contradicts paragraph 16b of the first OEWG annual progress report. It speaks about reaching out to authorities with due competence at the national level in times of urgency. This means that in the event of a computer attack on the information resources of a UN member state, its authorized bodies can address the national CERT of the other member state, which is the tactical POC, with a request to suppress malicious activity originating from its national information space. By this means, it will be able to prevent the computer attack from growing into an incident and, as a result, prevent interstate tension. Such interaction in the area of detection, prevention, and mitigation of consequences of computer attacks is a basic function of all CERTs. Thus, the suggestion on avoiding duplication of the CERT and C-CERT networks functions by the global POC directory means that the role of technical POCs will be cut to a minimum. In this case, technical POCs will only play a formal role. It is important to understand that the CERT-C-CERT networks refer to concrete examples like the International Nonprofit Organization First or the Regional EU C-CERT Network. These organizations cannot ensure the equal and representative participation of all states in incident response activities, nor can their decisions be considered universal and automatically applicable at the UN level. First membership is controlled by the U.S., which significantly complicates and politicizes the process of accession to the forum. In short, the suggested arrangement conserves the block approach. Russia, in contrast, insists on creating a directory that would ensure the equal participation of all states. This would positively impact the capacities of developing countries and the overall level of information security. We count on a constructive exchange of views on the draft CBM proposed by the Russian Federation. The full text of our presentation will be sent to the Secretariat of the OEWG for publication on this website. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Philippines, to be followed by Latvia. Philippines, please.

Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair. I was unable to make a quick, very short intervention last Wednesday on CBMs. Allow me to mention a little bit before that, and then I’ll move on to our intervention on the global POC. The Philippines aligns itself with the statement of ASEAN as delivered by the Permanent Representative of Brunei on the ASEAN Regional POC Directory on the security of and the use of ICT within the ASEAN, within the ARF Forum. Since it has been established, it has been updated annually. It has facilitated information sharing and coordination among ARF participants on cyber incidents and threats. It has contributed to enhancing mutual trust and understanding among ARF participants on cybersecurity matters. We envision the global POC to yield the same achievements once established. I also heard the German delegation mentioning the tabletop exercise. In ASEAN, we have had tabletop exercises called ACID, as led and shared yesterday by Singapore. ASEAN has been at the 17th iteration of the ASEAN CERT Incident Drill, or ACID. The ACID test incident response procedures have strengthened cybersecurity preparedness and cooperation among CERTs and ASEAN member states and dialogue partners. As this exercise has proven to be useful since 2006, we can learn from this wealth of experience and determine the feasibility, practicality, and benefit of scaling this up at the global level. Moving on to the Global POC Directory, like many others, we thank you, Mr. Chair, and your team for the revised elements paper, non-paper, for the development and operationalization of the Global Intergovernmental POC Directory. The Philippines finds that the revised elements paper is generally in order and provides a very solid basis for the operationalization of the Global POC. In terms of the specific comments, we would like to propose adding the element of coordination among the main purposes of the POC Directory, which can be added in paragraph two-quarter, paragraph A, which reads, enhance interaction, add coordination and cooperation between states, and in doing so, promote international peace and security, and increase transparency and predictability. The Philippines is of the view that the element of coordination should be added as one of the main purposes of the Directory, as the POC Directory could ease coordination among states in order to respond to ICT incidents affecting international security and provide a communication channel for international technical and political POCs. Mr. Chair, we also appreciate the guiding questions circulated ahead of this substantive session so that we can dive deeper into the conversation of operationalizing the POC. In this regard, we would like to thank UNIDIR for its ongoing project on the POC to provide informed knowledge to the group of viable options for the establishment of the Directory, including modalities, formats, templates, as well as practices and lessons learned from existing networks in the field of disarmament. We find the ongoing POC survey project of UNIDIR as a good source of comprehensive knowledge and an indicator of the inclination and preferences of member states when it comes to the modalities, formats, features, and nature, among others, of POC directories. UNIDIR’s publication of the final report of this survey project is expected this spring, and the results of the survey could feed directly into the group’s fifth substantive session. The Philippines participated in this survey and encourages others who have not yet done so to do the same. In UNIDIR’s presentation last week, only 47 countries have participated, but we can all benefit from this survey if it can capture a greater number of respondents from member states. Finally, Mr. Chair, we appreciate how the Chair expanded the capacity-building portion of the revised elements paper to include very concrete activities, which build from one after the other. We see the value behind the conduct of technical experts meeting the POC 101 online tutorial, the tabletop exercises for simulations, and the development of tailored e-learning modules, among others. These concrete activities illustrate the tangible benefits and incentives that members of the POC Directory could derive. Seeing these incentives will encourage participation from member states, and in turn, with wider participation, it makes the global POC maximize its utility and contribution to global cybersecurity. Nevertheless, we also understand that these capacity-building features of the POC Directory may need to be refined and rationalized for its practical operationalization. Mr. Chair, thank you again for facilitating our rich, substantive exchange this week. We look forward to further engagement intersessionally leading up to the fifth session, and the Philippines remains engaged and committed to the work of this OEWG. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Philippines. Latvia, to be followed by Egypt. Latvia, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Latvia aligns itself with the statements made by the European Union and wishes to make the following additional remarks on the POC. We thank you, Mr. Chair, for your effort to advance discussion on the POC directory by distributing a revised non-paper. We believe that this document is a step in the right direction and provides a solid basis for further work. As expressed by many, we believe in a step-by-step approach towards the establishment of the POC, starting with a simple mechanism which can then be reviewed and developed further if necessary. We also subscribe to the need to ensure the voluntary nature of this instrument, both regarding participation in the directory and also regarding information exchange. As many other delegations, Latvia calls for the POC directory to be a flexible tool. We should avoid envisaging overly complex and prescriptive procedures, which in our view would not make the directory more effective, but rather dissuade states from engaging proactively. We strongly agree that the role of the POC should be complementary and it should not duplicate the role and functions of CERT and CSIRT networks, as has also been stated by Israel. We agree with the assessment of Switzerland that there is no need to highlight the political neutrality of the POC, as we expect any instrument established under the auspices of the United Nations by default to be neutral and impartial. When it comes to the type of POC to be designated, we retain our position that we should initially aim for a single contact point, a diplomatic one. However, in case we proceed with two categories of POCs, there should be flexibility for states to opt for only one of them. Furthermore, we support the notion that states should be encouraged to designate the same POC for the global directory as for regional networks. On the languages, we can support the use of all UN languages in the POC directory. However, we believe that in order to ensure the effective functioning of the directory and prompt information exchange among the member states, an unofficial English translation of entries should be mandatory rather than optional. Finally, Latvia recognizes that capacity building initiatives outlined in the non-paper may play an important role in empowering a larger number of countries to participate effectively in the global directory. For that reason, it is important to maintain the notion that any capacity building initiative outlined in the paper will be pursued with the concrete aim to help states build their capabilities in order to effectively participate in the POC directory while addressing larger ICT security capacity building matters in other venues. We look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chair, on establishing this directory. Thank you.

Thank you. Let’s hear Egypt, followed by Croatia. Egypt, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the Distinguished Delegate of Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Arab Group, and we would like to add the following remarks on our national capacity. Mr. Chair, in addition to our position on the POC’s directory proposal expressed during the inter-sessional meetings, we reiterate our support for the confidential and voluntary nature of the proposed directory, as well as the gradual approach reflected in the Chair’s updated paper, which represents a solid basis for further discussions. We also noted the detailed references in the Purposes and Principles section, pending further enhancement of the language, including paragraphs 2bis and 2ter. Additionally, we commend the flexibility reflected in the text regarding the standardized templates of communication, to be part of the future work of the directory, with the aim of agreeing on a flexible and inclusive template based on States’ views. We believe that some elements require further clarity, including the stakeholders’ participation. In this vein, we underscore the inter-governmental nature of the POC’s directory, while at a later stage we can consider collectively workable methods to allow, where appropriate, interaction with stakeholders consistent with the UN pre-established practices. Additionally, clarity is required regarding the reference in paragraph 8b on the synergies with other directories, taking into consideration that not all States are members of respective regional and sub-regional organizations. In this vein, we should be carefully revising this section, taking into consideration that we are elaborating a UN global mechanism. Furthermore, we believe that assigning POCs should be on a voluntary basis, and it might be challenging for some delegations to assign POCs at this early stage, perhaps due to the lack of technological expertise. Therefore, flexibility is essential, and we support proposals by the Distinguished Delegate of Iran regarding the importance of clarifying the principal responsibilities of both technical and political POCs in this regard. Additionally, capacity building is a crucial element to allow an effective and sustainable operationalization of the POC directory. In this vein, we support in principle the concrete proposals reflected in the Chair’s updated paper that could be accommodating to part of the developing States’ related ambitions, and we also support the inclusion of capacity building as one of the purposes of the POC as proposed by some delegations. However, we should not ignore the reality that capacity building is also an enabler for the effective functioning of the proposed directory. Therefore, we believe it is relevant to retain the capacity building proposals as reflected in the Chair’s updated paper as it is now. Finally, we express our readiness to engage with all concerned States on this proposal with the aim of reaching common ground and its adoption as soon as possible. And I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Egypt. Croatia, followed by Vietnam. Croatia, please.

Thank you, Chair. You mentioned on Monday that this Working Group is by itself a confidence-building measure, and we agree with your thoughtful observation. Moreover, by listening to great interventions this week, we would add that this Working Group is also a capacity-building measure, bearing in mind that every time more and more Member States are intervening, and such broad engagement is a good sign for the future outcome of this process. Thank you, Chair, once more for your commitment and efforts in drafting the revised Non-Paper and Points of Contact Directory, and the informal inter-sessional meeting on POC last week. Croatia aligned itself with the intervention of the European Union on POC, given earlier under the agenda item on CBMs, and would like to add a few remarks in its national capacity. We believe that the POC Directory will be a milestone for the whole cyber-community. Therefore, the POC Directory should be operational, easy to use, and updated regularly, and not duplicate regional efforts as already stated by the Cross-Regional Group on Confidence-Building. We would have a slight preference to nominate both an institution and a responsible person, but Member States should have flexibility on this issue. However, we would suggest using one, preferably generic, email address to allow easier communication. The most important thing is to establish trust, so we would encourage regional and cross-regional conferences, communication check exercises, technical meetings, and exchanges, both in person and virtual format. We strongly advocate hearing the voices of regional organizations and their experiences with POC networks so that we can learn from their good practices. In the section on capacity building, we would suggest grouping actions according to the timeline, starting with those which could be achieved in a very short time. We can support the e-learning initiative, which in the long term can be further developed within the Program of Action, also for other topics. Mr. Chair, the POC Directory is a low-hanging fruit, so let’s pick it up this year, because we will need energy to build that canoe and to walk 1,000 miles. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Croatia, for your statement. If there’s one thing that should never be taken for granted, it is low-hanging fruits. I’ve seen many times that there is a slip between cup and lip, and we don’t want to be too confident that anything is low-hanging. But let’s hope that we can do some harvesting in July. We must; otherwise, this process would disappoint many, many people. Thank you in any case, Croatia. We move now to Vietnam, followed by Venezuela. Vietnam, please.

Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor again. Mr. Chair, in our view, it is crucial that we consider the developments of a total reference which acknowledges some principles for the efficient and effective operation of the directories. First, the directories should be maintained as a voluntary mechanism where every state has a right to participate and nominate their national POCs. Second, the establishment and operation of the directories should be based on decisions and recommendations of the OEWG itself, taking into consideration the concerns and circumstances of all states and at the same time be consistent with fundamental principles such as mutual respect, non-intervention in internal affairs, sovereign equality, respect for territorial integrity, and political neutrality. On the issue of modalities, each member state should establish a POC core group led by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which may comprise representatives from other government agencies. Each state should also develop a standard of procedures that applies to their POC core group. To maintain the directory, we suggest that the TOR should provide for a regular update of information contained therein. Moreover, the establishment of a convenient communication platform incorporating essential functions as well as encryption standards is also vital for the effective operation of the POC networks. Therefore, we welcome the suggestion contained in the Chair’s non-paper that the directory should be run on a designated, encrypted, and password-protected website. We consider UNODA as the most appropriate body to discharge the responsibilities of managing as well as facilitating capacity-building activities in support of the operationalization of the directory. Regarding the directory’s specification, Vietnam endorses both diplomatic and technical POCs as the communication in both fields can facilitate effective and efficient communication. For our information-sharing mechanism, we are of the view that the type of information to be shared should always be at the discretion of the participating state. Last but not least, Vietnam shares the view of many delegations in acknowledging the significance of capacity-building for the utilization and operationalization of the POC directories. I thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you, Vietnam. Venezuela, followed by Slovakia. Venezuela, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to thank you for your efforts in preparing and circulating this non-paper on the Global and the Intergovernmental Directory of Points of Contact. For the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the establishment of a global POC directory is a practical confidence-building measure, which can only be achieved as a result of work that is based on consensus and within the framework of the mandate of the Working Group, which was established under Resolution 75-240. The main function of the POC directory should be to facilitate communication between member states of the organization, to enhance intergovernmental communication, and to tackle the crises that could stem from the malignant use, perceived or real, of ICTs. The POC must be structured as a platform of a voluntary composition, as well as an intergovernmental nature, under the exclusive auspices of the United Nations in accordance with its purposes and principles, and within the framework of existing mandates on security and the use of ICTs. The strength of a confidence-building measure such as the POC lies in safeguarding the confidentiality of its participants, guaranteeing the security of information provided by states, as well as having agreed protocols for its operationalization and for the voluntary exchange of information. Its processes must be transparent and measurable, allowing for accountability, and proving its usefulness in contributing to guaranteeing security in the use of ICTs. Mr. Chairman, member states are responsible for deciding the most appropriate forum to participate in the exchange of information on security and the use of ICTs. Even though there are regional and sub-regional experiences on POC directories within the area of ICTs, not all of the member states of the United Nations belong to these regional organizations, and as a result, frameworks and initiatives, as well as the existing mechanisms and practices which exist at the regional and sub-regional level, should not be considered as replacements vis-à-vis the POC of a universal nature which is structured under the auspices and within the framework of UN mandates. Effectiveness in the application of the POC will depend, among other factors, on capacity building for the interaction among its participants. Technical bilateral and multilateral assistance can strengthen these capabilities, and bilateral partnerships for the development of capabilities on the use of ICTs should not be the object of political stigmatization or penalization of any kind. And that is why unilateral coercive measures applied to legal and physical persons could be a factor which would impede the ability of member states to play a full role in the implementation of the POCs. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to reiterate its willingness to work constructively on the development of the directory with a view to safeguarding the collective interest that ICTs be used in a peaceful manner for the good of humankind and to promote the sustainable development of all countries, regardless of their level of scientific and technological development, and with the understanding that threats in this area could affect in different ways all of the different member states of the organization. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Venezuela. Slovakia, to be followed by the United States. Slovakia, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Slovakia aligns itself with the statements delivered by the European Union. I would like to stress the following points from our national perspective on the POC directory. As Slovakia has already indicated via the UNIDIR survey, we support the establishment of the global POC directory. In this regard, we support an incremental and practical-oriented approach and its voluntary nature. We think that the goals of the global POC directory need to be clearly defined, since member states’ resources and existing domestic structures vastly differ. In order to expand and improve existing channels of communication, the POC directory should include two contexts for each state, diplomatic and technical. While Slovakia is fully aware that there are outstanding issues to be discussed to standardize forms of communication within the POC, we are ready to provide our national context as soon as the POC directory is finalized. Thank you.

Thank you. Slovakia, United States, followed by Colombia. U.S., please.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for circulating an updated text on the proposed PSE directory. It is stronger in many areas, particularly in explaining the scope and purpose of this directory and its relationship to the framework. We are supportive of the development of a global PSE directory to help us communicate with each other regarding those cyber incidents that may impact international peace and security. We have a few comments to help clarify some points in the paper. The 2022 progress report emphasized that a global PSE directory should build on the extensive work already undertaken in certain regional organizations, namely ARF, OAS, and OSCE. We should seek to avoid requiring states that already participate in these regional directories to maintain the same information across multiple platforms. We’d welcome contributions from those who maintain these regional directories on how their directories could be incorporated as a part of the global PSE directory. We’d strongly prefer to address this question as this directory is finalized, rather than after its creation. In addition, the paper should be more clear on what we are agreeing to establish now, what immediate capacity building efforts need to be taken on to help states join, and what the group may need to consider, both on operational issues and on broader capacity building support, once the directory has stood up. The text, particularly in the future work section, also needs to give states more flexibility to decide in the future what issues need to be discussed. In paragraph six, the new subparagraphs on standardized templates address future work, as our group has not considered the topic in any detail. It is a relevant issue and one we have experience with, so we are open to discussing the issue in future OEWG sessions. We’d recommend keeping that topic in the future work section. Regarding the capacity building section, we support proposals like a POC 101 tutorial that can help states participate in the directory. We also strongly support the proposal in paragraph 9E for the Secretariat to consider what capacity building measures would be particularly useful in this regard. That review will be very invaluable for us. That said, some of the elements in this section have not been discussed within the group and seem more appropriate for future discussion and action. Paragraph 9B, on holding meetings with POCs to share experiences, is an example of this. The paper provides ambitious timelines for the directory’s functioning, and I would appreciate more information from the Chair and Secretariat on how and when the directory would be formally established in order to fully assess the other timelines in the paper. Thank you, Chair, for your efforts to move this practical and valuable proposal forward. We look forward to its functioning.

Thank you. United States, Colombia, followed by Ecuador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the POC Directory, we reiterate our gratitude for your non-paper and for the revised version of the non-paper, as well as for the informal meetings which took place on the 15th of February and the 2nd of March. My delegation would also like to thank the Secretariat for submitting this informative background document, and we acknowledge their contribution to the non-paper of the Chair and to our discussions. As we pointed out on the 2nd of March, we would like to stress the importance of the Directory as a confidence-building measure and the relevance and need to establish this as soon as possible. Colombia believes that the non-paper of the Chairman is a good basis for the establishment and implementation of a global POC Directory. As a result, we trust that during this meeting we’ll be able to come to an agreement around the key aspects of it, which would allow us to adopt it by consensus this same year. Mr. Chairman, we welcome the inclusion of your revised non-paper, including in your non-paper various aspects pointed out by Colombia in its national report. We would also like to suggest, as we said last week, that in the section on purposes and principles, we include, as one of the main purposes of the Directory, the following: supporting and strengthening technical cyber capabilities of developing states to respond to incidents related to ICTs. This addition is completely in line with the other purposes and with the principles contained in the non-paper. Likewise, and as we pointed out on the 2nd of March, we consider that its inclusion would be an incentive to achieve greater participation in the Directory, especially for states that are not part of any initiative of this kind. We agree with you that the capacity building in relation to the Directory must be specifically for its operationalization. Mr. Chairman, lastly, and as a later contribution for the implementation of the Directory, in line with what you have pointed out in the informal meetings last week and with the item modalities of your non-paper, we believe it’s timely to invite the next session of this working group to the CSIRT Americas, the Organization of American States, as well as to other regional organizations which have experience in the establishment of POC directories to ask them to provide a briefing on their work. And Croatia also expressed the relevance of sharing these experiences. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, we’d like to refer to some of the proposals that we have heard. We support the proposal of the Philippines to include coordination at the regional and sub-regional level in paragraph 8. We are grateful as well for the proposal made by Germany on behalf of the inter-regional group to advance the CBM framework of the OEWG to establish a first initial set of very basic confidence-building measures and the suggestions for these CBMs. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Colombia. Just an update, we have more than 20 speakers. It’s five minutes to 5 p.m. I have checked that this conference room is available beyond 6 p.m. without interpretation. I am prepared to continue beyond 6 p.m. If we continue with this current trajectory, we will need more than an hour to finish the 20 speakers, unless, of course, those who are going to take the floor are able to provide me with a summarized and succinct version of your intervention and provide the rest of it in writing. And also, if you have already made your interventions in the informal consultations last week that were held virtually, you don’t necessarily need to repeat that here unless you wish to register it on UN Web TV. If your intention is to convey those amendments to me, you can assume that what was said last week was well noted by me and my team. In fact, as I’m making notes, I note that the different amendments, quite a number of them, have already been proposed. So I leave that sovereign decision in your hands. We can proceed beyond 6 p.m. if you wish to. You can be telegraphic in your interventions if you wish to. And on that note, we will continue. Ecuador, followed by Pakistan. Ecuador, you have the floor, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Preventing crises and conflicts, promoting development, and creating conditions for effective and efficient cooperation are some of the tenets that the establishment of confidence-building measures point to, and that’s why it’s crucial that there be transparency as well as goodwill on all parties. The active and firm participation of this working group speaks undoubtedly about that need – that current need to enhance the debate on the serious implications of an unsafe cyberspace and restricted for many, but above all, to take firm steps towards the establishment of these confidence-building measures to move towards a common understanding in this area. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, Ecuador welcomes the revised version of the non-paper on the operationalization of the global directory of POCs, and we’d also like to thank the different delegations for their contributions. They have made it possible to have a document which is more robust, and we support its swift implementation. Ecuador acknowledges the value and the importance of establishing a global POC directory that gives us the opportunity for capacity building. Furthermore, we agree that it should be established under the principles of inclusiveness and it should be voluntary in nature and on the premise that there is no duplication of effort. Furthermore, my country feels it’s essential that the directory have a technical and diplomatic nature, and therefore, constant updating is crucial in this. Similarly, my delegation supports the proposal made by Colombia with respect to the section on purposes and principles. Therefore, I trust that dialogue and commitment for a safe cyberspace and for the benefit of all will be the main premise in the future deliberations of this working group and will allow us to take positive steps forward with respect to our mandate. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, since this is the last day of our deliberations, allow me to echo all of those – all of the delegations who raised their voice in favor of the need to continue to grant effective instruments so that cyber security can benefit from the capabilities and the great potential of women. Ecuador reiterates its gratitude to all of those initiatives which point towards eliminating the gender gap and which would encourage the effective and substantive participation of women in all of the deliberations on cyberspace. And lastly, Ecuador thanks you, Mr. Chairman, for your efforts as well as the excellent way in which you have conducted the meetings this week, and we are looking forward to working constructively in the upcoming discussions.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Ecuador. Pakistan to be followed by Costa Rica. Pakistan, please.

Thank you, Chair. I will be succinct and will only be sharing with you Pakistan’s comments on the revised elements paper, which is a step in the right direction. However, later we will share with you our detailed statement in writing as well. Agreeing with the purposes and principles of the directory, which will be used for information sharing, trust building, crisis handling, and facilitating communication among states in an event of an ICT-related incident. However, Pakistan believes that the POC directory should be used in a politically neutral manner and not be used to determine the technical or political attribution of cyber incidents. Under the modalities section, we agree that the participation and sharing of information in the directory should be voluntary and confidential and the adoption of an incremental approach. However, we believe that there is a need to outline the key responsibilities of diplomatic and technical POCs. We suggest that the duties of the diplomatic POC may include facilitating cyber dialogue among the states, while the technical POC may be tasked with the technical evaluation of the information exchanged through the directory and to share and receive data relating to cyber incidents. In the modalities section, part C concerning information access, we request further clarification on the type of information that will be accessible on the public page. We would like to emphasize that, as previously stated in our views submitted on the POC directory, there needs to be a mechanism for private entities and tech companies which are engaged in cyber threat hunting and identifying hardware and software vulnerabilities to promptly notify POCs about cyber threats. This would significantly enhance the effectiveness of the POC directory. On directory maintenance, we agree on conducting ping tests. However, for the sake of clarity, a brief technical description of ping tests may be added in the footnotes. Moreover, in future meetings, there is a need to discuss the means and methods to ensure the protection of information that will be contained by the directory. We highly appreciate the detailed roadmap presented in the non-paper under the capacity building section, especially the proposal-like development of e-learning modules and tabletop exercises. Mr. Chair, Pakistan is open to constructively taking part in discussions on finalizing the different technical aspects of the directory, such as the communication protocols and the measures for the proper handling and labeling of the information that will be exchanged through the platform. In the end, I would like to commend the work done by you and your team in the area of confidence-building measures and in drafting a balanced elements paper. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Pakistan. Costa Rica, to be followed by France. Costa Rica, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Costa Rica welcomes the development of the long paper that you have presented. We acknowledge the value of your efforts in order to move forward in establishing this directory as a specific result of our deliberations this year, and which could be implemented without any major problems. On the proposal, we believe that the main value of the directory is that the points of contact can exchange information and experiences, and in this respect, we support the designation of technical and diplomatic points of contact according to what is relevant. We acknowledge that there are different levels of experience and knowledge development in this area, which means that the points of contact could benefit from capacity building activities, and that is why we support the inclusion of proposals along these lines. In this respect, we support the proposal made by Colombia to identify as one of the purposes of the directory to support and strengthen technical cyber capabilities of developing states in order to respond to incidents related to ICTs. To inform our debates, we should bear in mind the lessons learned in similar efforts, for example, in regional organizations or those undertaken by other interested parties, such as incident response teams. Besides defining the meaning of the functions of the directory and agreeing on where it will be located, we should bear in mind its preservation and maintenance, which could be another major challenge, and hence we have to have a practical approach which would incorporate the lessons learned. Clarity on the scope and the ultimate purpose, as well as on the different frameworks of capability necessary for its application, will be essential. It’s important to look at the directory not as a panacea, but rather as part of a constellation of other CBMs, which collectively would build trust and confidence and reduce tension in times of crises, and which are critical for the success of each and every one that should involve the interested parties, the non-governmental parties as well, to be effective. Thank you.

Thank you. Costa Rica. France, to be followed by Brazil. France, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation would like to align itself with the statement by the EU. First, at the outset, we would like to thank you for the new draft document which you shared last week. My delegation overall considers it to be a sound foundation for continuing our work to establish a global intergovernmental point-of-contact directory. We would like to make the following comments on the contents of the document. First, I would like to focus on the section on purpose and principles in the directory. On this topic, we welcome the addition in paragraph 2 of a sentence according to which the directory could promote the adherence by states to the Responsible Behaviour Framework. Now, we have some questions about changes to paragraph 2bis, which could imply that political neutrality is a principle enshrined in the UN Charter, just like sovereignty. We propose the following language. I’m going to read it in English to be as close to the document as possible. The sentence that starts with “the directory is envisioned to be practical in nature and function in accordance.” We propose adding “principles of the UN Charter, including sovereign equality of member states and settlement of disputes by peaceful means.” Of course, we are ready to share this proposal in writing. In this same section, we also welcome the addition of paragraph 2ter, which clarifies that the directory will complement the networks of existing CSIRTs. Finally, we support the changes made now to paragraph 2quater, outlining the purposes of the directory. As for the section on modalities for the directory, on this topic, we support the amendments to paragraph 4 on the specifications of the directory. In paragraph 6, on the interaction between POCs, we can accept the addition of paragraph 6a, which mentions the possibility for POCs to use templates, as long as it is stipulated that this must remain optional and flexible. However, we have doubts about the addition of paragraph 6b. We have questions. It does not seem necessary to state here that states will work on developing these templates, because this is already mentioned in paragraph 10b in the last part of the document on future work. Thus, we propose deleting this paragraph. Still on the section on modalities, we also support changes to paragraph 8. It is key, in our view, to ensure that the global registry is structured around existing POC networks, particularly at the regional network. However, it is important for a possible harmonization system or update system for regularly updating information between directories to be operating with the agreement of contributors. As for capacity building and the section on this topic, we note the list of actions in paragraph 9, which are supposed to help states participate in the directory. The action-oriented approach that underpins this paragraph is welcomed by us. We particularly find it useful to organize, for example, during future sessions, discussions with relevant regional organizations about the establishment and use of existing directories in order to build on this experience and further develop these best practices. Nevertheless, we would like to underscore the importance of this list of actions. It is not meant to deprive the Secretariat and other states of the necessary resources and time to conduct in-depth work on other topics as part of the group framework. Finally, regarding further work, we can accept the incremental approach laid out in paragraphs 10 and 11. A recommendation of establishing the directory could be included in the group’s 2023 Annual Progress Report. At the same time, the Annual Report could also suggest continuing discussions on potentially developing or further enhancing the directory. Moreover, complementarily and separately from the Intergovernmental Directory, the Annual Report could also recommend discussions on how to develop information sharing with other non-governmental stakeholders, where applicable. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I assure you of the full support of my delegation in further work on developing this directory.

Thank you. France. Brazil, to be followed by China. Brazil, please.

Thank you, Chair. Brazil associates itself with the statement read by a few delegations in the name of a cross-regional group of countries working on CBMs. We would like to add a few comments in our national capacity, also in addition to our intervention from last Thursday, and we did make an effort to streamline this. Chair, we commend your successful efforts in moving us forward on this issue. Your revised non-paper on the elements of the PoA directory is a solid basis for us to reach consensus by July. My delegation believes that, as an important part of our incremental approach, lessons learned from other similar directories established under the auspices of the UN and of regional groups could be valuable for the success of this initiative. We should consider ways of making those lessons learned available to delegations before our next formal session, such as during formal online meetings, as mentioned by Colombia and others, or by submission of written thought inputs based on their first-hand experience. Chair, for Brazil, our work towards the establishment of the directory should not lose sight of a few essential elements: its voluntary and flexible nature, the necessity to continuously map challenges for states to participate in the mechanism, the need for confidentiality and strong protection of shared information, and the neutrality of the directory’s work. Last Thursday and today, a few delegations pointed out difficulties regarding the principle of political neutrality. My delegation believes that we can tackle these concerns and keep what is fundamental, which is to avoid politicization of the directory’s work, which should remain detached from geopolitical circumstances. Otherwise, we risk limiting the directory’s efficiency or even rendering it nonfunctional. Therefore, my delegation adds its voice to the requests that the principle of neutrality be preserved, with wording that would address concerns raised. Chair, delegations have been raising several valid, important points regarding what the directory should contain and how it should work. My delegation finds most of these elements to be useful. However, we invite colleagues to consider the best timing to introduce them in order to allow for an early establishment of the directory, as well as to avoid undue burden for participation, especially for developing countries. Chair, we look forward to hearing how you intend to continue keeping us moving in the right direction towards the approval of the directory by July this year. You can continue to count on our support. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil, for your intervention. China, to be followed by Indonesia. China, please.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for drafting and revising the elements paper, non-paper. China supports the idea of discussions based on this non-paper. China has already put forward our position paper on the non-paper, so I will focus on the editing proposals. First, Paragraph 2, we propose to change adherence to observation and implementation in Paragraph 2, because that was the consensus wording from last year’s first annual report. And then Paragraph 2.25, China believes that since Paragraph 2 has clearly indicated the purposes and principles of POC, Paragraph 2.25 is repeating the main purposes. This is not necessary. That said, China is flexible and would like to simplify and streamline this paragraph. In Paragraph 2.25C, preventing misunderstandings and misperceptions, we would like to move it to Paragraph A, and it will rid misunderstandings and misperceptions and increase confidence and predictability. And then we delete B and C. China believes that conflicts among states on cybersecurity should be resolved at national leaders or foreign minister level, and this should not be resolved at POC level, and will not be able to resolve those issues. Paragraph 9, capacity building. China proposes to delete the DEFG subparagraphs, and the reasons are as follows. In our view, as of now, POC directory is not yet established. If we talk about possible issues that might happen in the field of capacity building, this is like putting the cart before the horse. This is like when you build – before you build a house, you are saying that there will be defects. We believe that establishing POC is a gradual process, and the process should be practical. We should first determine the specific timing for countries to provide POC, for example, March of next year. Countries with abilities can propose POC, and then they can exchange information. And in that process, if issues come out, countries should work together to find a solution. In addition, capacity building is a comprehensive and complex issue. It cannot be done overnight. If we think that POC can help resolve all the issues in capacity building by one stroke, that is not realistic. And paragraph 10, China would like to clarify the meaning of operationalization, and then we want to – in 10B, to change measures into methods, and in paragraph 11, we hope to change review into discuss. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, China. Indonesia, to be followed by Malaysia, please. Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, Indonesia aligns itself with the statement of ASEAN, delivered by the Permanent Representative of Brunei Darussalam, on the issue of capacity building, including on the POC directory. Mr. Chair, before my delegation goes into details on the POC directory, if you allow me, Mr. Chair, to deliver some quick points on our priority areas of capacity building as we haven’t delivered a statement on this issue earlier. For our delegation, providing support and training for CSIRTs to mitigate cyber incidents should be one of the priorities. This includes establishing institutions, conducting specialized training and tailored curricula, including training the trainer programs and professional certification. Our delegation also views the importance of impact assessment and promoting principles of capacity building as elaborated in the OEWG report 2019-2021. Mr. Chair, on the revised non-paper on the POC directory, my delegation would like to thank the Chair and his team for circulating the revised non-paper. We commend the constructive efforts by the Chair to reflect different elements raised by many delegations during the inter-sessional meetings. We are of the view that the Chair’s proposal can be a good basis for discussion for the establishment of the POC directory as a possible concrete deliverable of the OEWG. In principle, Indonesia has been consistent in supporting the proposal to establish this POC directory. We appreciate the strong reference to the UN Charter and the practical nature of this initiative in strengthening CBMs and the mitigation of cyber incidents. Indonesia also supports the Chair’s proposal related to the designation of UNODA as the manager of the POC directory. We also support references aimed at strengthening practical operationalization, such as the development of protocol and use of standardized templates to be utilized by POCs in their interactions. Further to its operationalization to create an effective directory, my delegation is of the view that the development of a manual or technical guide for POCs can also be considered. Mr. Chair, Indonesia also supports interaction with regional and sub-regional organizations. We also support the Chair’s proposal related to the collaboration with regional organizations in the aspect of capacity building related to the implementation of the POC directory. ASEAN members, along with the ASEAN Dialogue Partners, have established a similar mechanism through the framework of the ASEAN Regional Forum on ICT Security. We believe that interactions with ASEAN can contribute positively, including through sharing best practices for further improving the implementation of the POC directory. To conclude, Mr. Chair, we wish to suggest that paragraph 4 regarding modalities could also provide brief clarifications on the expectations and the clarity of the role of the POC. We acknowledge that each country’s input to the directory will be unique and reflect their domestic circumstances. In this regard, we stand ready to engage constructively and hope that the OEWG can achieve mutually agreed parameters regarding this initiative. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Indonesia. Before we go with the rest of the speakers, I think there was a question with regard to the timeline for the establishment of the POC directory. And there was also a comment about sequencing some of the recommendations in terms of timeline with regard to capacity building. And there was also a comment by a delegation that we should not put the cart before the horse, which also relates in some sense to the timeline. So I wanted to just share with you what could be a conceivable timeline. And this is for members to then decide how best we proceed. Now, if, and this is a big if, we are able to agree in July on a set of modalities to take the next step on the POC directory, and that is not by any means a low-hanging fruit, because we are not sure what exactly is the fruit that we are talking about. Is it an apple or a pineapple? Now, if we are able to agree on a set of modalities, and it’s a consensus APR, annual progress report, that is the best of the best scenario, then what would happen is we would then take it to the first committee in October. The first committee would then send it to the fifth committee of the General Assembly in December, approving the program budget implications that will arise from the proposal to establish the POC directory. Because mind you, we are asking UNODA to be the manager of this directory. So there will be program budget implications. And if the fifth committee approves it in December, then the General Assembly will adopt the resolution that was adopted in the first committee. Then it becomes a decision or a resolution of the General Assembly. So that is the legislative roadmap that you need to keep in mind, which means that the POC directory can come into legal existence or formal existence as early as January 2024. But of course, after the resolution is adopted in December this year, it does not mean that UNODA will have the resources to immediately come into existence. They will have to mobilize and deploy themselves in order to start implementing it. And that will take some time, but it is conceivable that the POC could come into existence as early as the first half of 2024. But if we are not able to come to an agreement in July on the need for a set of modalities, then we will not be able to take the second step and we will have to wait another 12 months to go back into the same legislative process, but one year later. So in essence, it will delay the coming into existence of the POC directory. So that is what the potential timelines look like, and that is in your hands. My own sense is that it’s possible to make that extra step in July with regard to a set of modalities to make the POC operationalized and then go through the legislative cycle. But that would require that each one of us focus our minds on what would be the minimum needed to operationalize the directory. I think Brazil made that valid point that if we unduly burden the directory with many different elements, then we will upset the apple cart, or we could upset the apple cart, and no low-hanging fruit will be had. But then again, what constitutes the minimum needed is in itself a subject of discussion, because what is one person’s minimum is another person’s maximum. And therefore, we need to have a focused discussion and a pragmatic discussion, may I appeal to you on a Friday evening, to be very focused on what is needed. And I think it’s important to have a decision in July on a set of modalities, which will include not just the technical modalities, but also the aspect related to capacity building, which we obviously can hear from many interventions, which is part of the expectations of delegations. But then again, this is in your hands. I thought I will give that timeline check so that delegations can also have a better understanding of where we are headed, whether this is really a low-hanging fruit, and whether there is a determination, not on my part, but on your part, whether there is a determination to go and have that harvest in July. So with those comments, let’s continue with the speakers list. As I said, we will be able to continue beyond six, but without interpretation. And I’m prepared to do that, because I am not inclined to cut off any delegation, which I have not done this entire week. And it’s not fair that I do so. Because many delegations had come to me informally on different agenda items, expressing concern that there may not be enough time for their item, their item of interest. And we know why we are in this situation on Friday at 5:30 p.m., because some discussions had taken much longer than anyone had expected. We had 50 interventions on existing and potential threats, a similar number for norms, rules, and principles, a larger number for international law. But it’s not for me to start cutting off delegations at this point, because that would not be fair to delegations which had come prepared. So I leave that decision in your hands. If you wish to make a succinct intervention, or if you wish to submit your inputs in writing to me, I leave that in your hands. But I am prepared as chair to continue beyond 6 p.m., and we will stay here as long as everyone who wishes to speak has spoken. Thank you for your understanding. So we’ll go to Malaysia, followed by Thailand. Malaysia, please.

Mr. Chair, Malaysia joins other delegations in welcoming the Chair’s revised non-paper as a good basis for further discussions towards the establishment of a global POC directory under UN auspices. Malaysia reiterates our support for the operationalization of the POC directory as soon as possible. We appreciate that the revised non-paper rightly recognizes differences in national governmental structures by providing flexibility in terms of the information schema as well as interactions between States. We also support an incremental approach in implementing the POC. We support the Philippines on the proposal to add coordinations in paragraph two quarter A. We further support the suggestions for States to consider nominating the same POCs to the global directory if they have already submitted nominations at the regional or sub-regional levels. In principle, we support periodic ping testing to verify that information in the directory is up to date but would appreciate more details in this regard. Malaysia also welcomes the proposed convening of tabletop exercises and suggests that these could be conducted periodically so that Member States may identify gaps and continuously improve the workability of the POC. Finally, we welcome the sections in the Chair’s revised non-paper on capacity building, an essential element in enabling broad, inclusive, and sustainable participation in the POC directory. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Malaysia. Thailand to be followed by Canada. Thailand, please.

Mr. Chair, Thailand would like to reiterate our full support for the establishment of the POC Directory. We welcome the Elements Paper prepared by the Chair and would like to make the following points. First, the modalities of the POC Directory should remain flexible and voluntary in nature, while offering some form of standardization which States can adopt voluntarily. We are of the view that the proposal made by the Chair in the revised Elements Paper remains flexible and voluntary, especially regarding the nomination and interaction with other POCs as well as the sharing of information. At the same time, the paper also contains a proposal on standardized templates which States can voluntarily adopt for the exchange of information. Second, we believe that the global POC Directory should build upon the existing work at the regional level. We support the Elements on the interaction with other directories, including the POC Directory under the ASEAN Regional Forum Framework, as we believe that the global CBMs can be built upon regional CBMs. Third, we are also of the view that the Directory maintenance, continual dialogue on the operationalization, and review mechanism are important elements for improving the efficiency of the operation of the POC Directory. The establishment of the POC Directory is not a one-off work, but one that requires constant review to ensure that it remains relevant and up-to-date. Lastly, the Directory cannot function with efficiency without capacity building programs. As a host country of the ASEAN-Japan Cybersecurity Capacity Building Centre, Thailand attaches great importance to capacity building efforts, including the one for POCs, which we believe can help build a strong network among them and ensure that they maintain capabilities in addressing ICT incidents. Therefore, we support the proposal on the development of a dedicated action plan to support states’ effective participation in the POC Directory. We are of the view that a technical experts’ meeting will be useful for training of the POCs. At the same time, we would like to stress the importance of international cooperation and assistance for developing countries in this regard. Mr. Chair, it is our hope that the establishment of the Global POC Directory will assist in reducing the escalation of tension and the risk of conflict arising from misunderstanding and misperception of ICT security incidents. We also hope that the Directory would facilitate effective exchange of information and real-time communication in the event of potential security significance, hence serving as a global CBM, which we hope to be a concrete outcome of this OEWG. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Thailand. Canada, to be followed by South Africa. Canada, please.

Thank you, Chair. I’ll be brief because I have already expressed Canada’s views on the POC directory last Thursday, and we all want to get to other priorities tonight. Canada associates with the statements of the Cross-Regional Working Group on CBMs, which we are proud to be part of. We would like to see perhaps a soft threshold of 50 or so states to join the directory before making it operational. This should be easy enough to achieve if we combine existing regional directories. For the capacity building part of the paper, we would suggest renaming the part that’s called Plan of Action to avoid any confusion with the Program of Action. Our basic view that I’ve expressed a few times before is that we would like to keep this directory simple, like the OSCE one. I would respectfully disagree with my Russian colleague on this, as we think that the OSCE directory is working very well. So we propose to keep it simple at least at first and then build it out rather than to try to do too much in the initial stages. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Canada, for your succinct comments. South Africa to be followed by the Republic of Korea. South Africa, please.

Thank you, Chairperson. South Africa believes that your revised non-paper is a good basis for further work on the establishment of a POC directory. The voluntary nature of the POC seems to be a point of broad agreement in the Open-Ended Working Group. With regard to the modalities in your paper, we agree that participation in the POC directory should be voluntary and that the directory should be managed by the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. States should be encouraged to submit contact details for diplomatic and technical-level officials. Our preference is that contact details be linked to positions within an institution rather than individuals so that staff rotation does not affect our ability to connect with each other. We support the use of all UN languages for the directory. We support the Chair’s proposal that the directory should be online and on a secure, password-protected website. The directory should be regularly updated to ensure that contact details are as accurate as possible, and in this regard, PIN tests are a good idea. We also recommend regular tabletop exercises, information, and knowledge exchange. We agree that the information exchanged will be in accordance with the respective domestic circumstances and requirements of the POCs involved. States should preferably use the same POC details in the global directory as they do for regional and sub-regional directories for clarity and to leverage their experiences. With regard to capacity building, capacitating the POCs is a key aspect in the operationalization of the directory. With states at different capacity levels, providing assistance to those who need it will be beneficial to all participants. I thank you.

Thank you very much, South Africa. Republic of Korea, followed by the Dominican Republic. Korea, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the outset, as a member of the Open and Former Cross-Regional Group to Advance CBMs in the framework of the OEWG, the Republic of Korea aligns with the joint consecutive statement made by Israel, Mexico, Singapore, Germany, and Czechia. We would like to make additional comments in our national capacity. The Republic of Korea would like to thank the Chair for the effort put into revising the non-paper on the elements for the development of the POC directory. Our national position paper submitted to the UNODA last November reflects our views on the global POC directory and we hope the other delegations make reference to it as we do not plan to make a statement elaborating our general views of the global POC directory. Today, my delegation would like to present our views on the non-paper. As stated in the purpose and principle sections of the non-paper, ROK concurs with the view that a global POC directory is a CBM in itself and is pivotal in enhancing transparency, predictability, and stability of cyberspace and preventing conflicts and escalation, thereby contributing to a more peaceful and stable international environment. We would also like to welcome the addition of paragraph 2, Ter, in the purpose and the principle section. It is clear that the role of a global POC directory should not duplicate existing networks but complement and connect them to create an inclusive global network. In this regard, we also welcome the non-paper’s emphasis on interaction with other directories in paragraph 8. As a current co-chair and long-standing active member of the ASEAN Regional Forum intersessional meetings on ICTs security, the ROK participated in the voluntary POC directory led by Australia and Malaysia and submitted the senior level and working level contact information. The ROK is of the view that the ARF POC directory can synergize with the future global POC directory by providing preceding references, sharing capacity-building resources, including the exchange of best practices, and promoting the participation of states in the Asia-Pacific region. ROK commends the Chair’s effort of comprehensively listing capacity-building activities in paragraph 9, though the details may prefer to be rewritten in a concise manner, as mentioned by the delegation of Switzerland. We share the view that capacity-building is imperative in the establishment of a globally inclusive operating POC directory. This is especially pertinent to the states that are not part of any regional POC directories. Capacity-building efforts indeed can support developing countries in building the required political, legal, and technical capacities to participate in the POC directory. To this end, ROK reiterates its commitment to play an active role in creating an inclusive, transparent, effective global POC directory. Thank you.

Thank you. Are we okay? Dominican Republic, followed by the UK. Dominican Republic.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Dominican Republic supports the development of a POC directory of global scope within the United Nations, which would attain both technical contacts as well as contacts to respond to incidents such as diplomats at the political level, since this is the first line of communication and exchange which makes it possible to work together to prevent cybernetic incidents from becoming international conflicts and to facilitate compliance with the responsibility of due diligence, among other things. In general, we agree with the revised law paper of the 28th of February, especially in paragraphs 2-8, that this directory must be complementary and should not duplicate or replace in any way the role of the CERTs or the CSIRT networks. The Dominican Republic believes that this directory should operate within an encrypted platform of restricted use, with a view to mitigating the risk of the misuse of information by unauthorized third parties or malicious actors. We would like to refer to the positive experience of networks of contact points within the framework of the investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes, namely the 24-7 networks of the G7, Interpol, the Committee of the Budapest Convention, and the Cyber Network of Fiscal Specialists on Cybercrime. We are first-hand witnesses of the usefulness of the use of these networks to preserve digital evidence, among other benefits. Obviously, there must be a separation between cybercrime and cybersecurity. We’re simply mentioning this as a good practice and a successful experience. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we support the proposal of Colombia to include, support, and strengthen the technical cyber capabilities of the developing states to respond to incidents related to the ICTs as one of the purposes of the directory. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Dominican Republic. United Kingdom, followed by Fiji. UK, please.

Thank you, Chair. I’ll be brief. We’re grateful to you for your dedicated efforts to bring us to coalesce around a proposal for a Points of Contact Directory. In short, our suggestion at this point is that we agree on a clearer scope and purpose. For now, we see an initial sole focus on communication between States in the event of an urgent cyber incident. We believe that engagement with the POC Directory should be on a voluntary basis. We see value in there being technical and diplomatic points of contact, as in our own region’s POC network, but we recognize that it should be up to States who they nominate. We would suggest, therefore, that language throughout, such as in Paragraph 9b, is amended so as not to presume a community of, quote, technical expert designated POCs. Regarding capacity building, we think Paragraph 9 is overall too detailed at this stage. There’s a balance between the importance of equipping States to participate, particularly developing States, and waiting to see what the needs of our POC community are. We endorse Switzerland’s proposals to condense the language in this paragraph. We endorse Germany’s proposals on basic CBMs for the POC network. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, UK. Fiji to be followed by Singapore. Fiji, please.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, Fiji acknowledges your leadership in your efforts and the Secretariat’s efforts on this important matter. We support the cross-regional group statement that was made earlier, as Fiji is also a member of the same. We recognize the vital role of the Points of Contact Directory when implemented correctly and maintained, and we welcome the revised non-paper, which is a leap in the right direction, particularly for Fiji and other states who do not have a formal POC network. We welcome this and hope that this is operationalized promptly as cyber threats continue to be on the rise. Chair, we are mindful that time is of the essence, and best or perfect is the enemy of good. Therefore, we support the incremental approach and the need for prompt establishment once the core requirements have been discussed and agreed on. These can always be built upon, and we note that this has been provided in the revised non-paper. Chair, we support Colombia’s proposed amendment to the Purposes and Principles section in paragraph 2, quarter, with one further amendment, and this would be stated as, and I quote, “support and strengthen the technical cyber capacities of developing states to preempt, respond to, and recover from ICT incidents.” This is because such information sharing between the POCs will result in the above. We also support the proposal by the Philippines in adding coordination. In that section, we strongly support the need for English translation as outlined in the revised non-paper, and for this to be mandatory to ensure that all states are in a position to effectively participate in the POC directory network. We agree with the directory maintenance provision in paragraph 5 and request clarification in the event a point of contact does not respond to the ping test. Could the directory manager reach out to an alternative focal point of that state, and we look forward to further understanding this. We welcome paragraph 8A of the revised non-paper regarding the non-duplication of efforts and the encouragement of nominating the same focal points in other existing regional directories or certs, especially for small island developing states, and this will enable greater seamless information sharing in the event of an ICT incident. We greatly appreciate the action-oriented amendments in the capacity building section and support the technical briefings and the information sharing sessions with the existing POC networks. This is identified in paragraph 9 sub B. The online programs identified in paragraph 9 sub C and F and the tabletop exercises stipulated in paragraph 9 sub D. Chair, just like different exercises, tones, or builds muscles in different parts of the body, all of these tools have unique target areas. However, collectively, they do enhance cybersecurity posture and contribute to resilience. Chair, in closing, we look forward to the background paper that will be submitted by the UN Secretariat that’s specified in paragraph 9 E and look forward to further concrete engagement in this regard. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Fiji, for your comments. I just want to point out that this background paper from the Secretariat on the PoA Directory is already available. So one background paper on the PoA Directory is already available. What you see in 9E, which Fiji referred to, is another background paper that is looking at capacities. But in order to have that background paper, we have to approve this in July. So if we don’t approve this, there will be no background paper. I just wanted to make that clarification in response to Fiji’s comments. Singapore to be followed by Estonia. Singapore, please.

Thank you, Chair. In addition to our earlier comments as part of the Cross-Regional Confidence Builders Group, allow me now to make the following remarks in our national capacity. Singapore supports the Chair’s efforts in implementing confidence-building measures, specifically the establishment of a global intergovernmental points of contact directory at the UN. Singapore believes that the elements contained in the non-paper provide a good base for the OEWG to develop such a directory on a consensus basis. As mentioned by my colleague from the Philippines, Singapore has helped run a regional tabletop exercise for over 17 years for the diverse countries in ASEAN, and we see the value of conducting capacity-building activities to onboard new countries to the POC’s directory. For countries with no prior experience in participating in POC directories, participating in this global intergovernmental POC directory would be a big step. It would thus be important to provide support for these countries and ensure that the POC directory succeeds. Singapore would like to offer three key elements on the modalities of the POC directory that would ensure the effective functioning and success of the POC’s directory. First, it is necessary to define the roles and responsibilities of POC’s. I believe that this has also been referred to by my colleague from Indonesia. This will allow states to identify the appropriate POC’s and provide clarity on the expectations of the POC’s. Second, there should be simple procedures to ensure effective communication between POC’s. This will facilitate more effective communications and quicker assistance when countries need to contact each other for support in managing and resolving ICT incidents. Additionally, it is important that policy and technical POC’s are coordinated over time and work together in a complementary manner to de-escalate conflicts. Third, the processes of handling and transferring of information should be defined. Doing so will ensure that POC’s know how they can handle information they receive in a secure manner, further building trust and confidence within countries. Finally, we wish to reiterate that capacity-building initiatives can help build up national POC’s requisite institutional strength to be effective members of the POC’s directory. These initiatives can help to level up our collective ability to improve processes specific to the roles of POC’s and sharing of information, as well as participate in cyber exercises and drills to test out the effectiveness of the directory. Singapore looks forward to working with all to develop and operationalize the POC’s directory. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Singapore. Thank you also for drawing our attention to the tabletop exercises. And I wanted to also say and clarify that this tabletop exercise, assuming it is agreed, will only take place if we adopt the modalities that include this element in July. And if we were to agree in July on a set of modalities and approve it at the First Committee around October, then having a tabletop exercise around December is not necessarily putting the cart before the horse, as China had said it would be. So I just wanted all of you to understand the sequencing so that you can then decide as to whether the different modalities identified here would fit into that sequencing in terms of building capacity and preparing states to be part of that POC directory. And a related point I also want all of you to reflect on. I think there was a proposal from Canada about a threshold of 50 states, which Canada had also made in the informal consultations. The question I want you to reflect on is, if you go for a threshold, what happens if that 50 states all come from one particular region? And are all countries who already have a POC directory, is that the kind of global POC directory that you wish to see? I don’t have an answer to that, but I’m posing that question for your reflection. We’ll continue with the speakers list. Estonia to be followed by Japan. Estonia, please.

Thank you so much. I will be extremely brief because we have provided our positions earlier in quite some detail. First of all, strong support for the step-by-step approach that you have also been guiding us on so far. Second, the point that has been raised on two bids, on political neutrality, is a bit problematic for us, and there have been several options tabled within this discussion. So I believe you can easily find a solution here as well. And third, a really valuable point for us is what we have heard from the member states, from ASEAN countries, OAS countries, OSCE members, that there is a lot for us to learn also from their experiences, and that is a value in itself. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Estonia, for your intervention. Japan to be followed by India.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to take this opportunity to appreciate the efforts of the Chair and his team to coordinate discussions through drafting the non-paper. Japan supports the establishment of the global POC directory based on last year’s annual progress report. As paragraph 2 stated, the POC would serve as a confidence-building measure in itself and also provide a framework for other CBMs, which we believe includes the future POA. Therefore, early operationalization of the POC is essential. Building on the momentum of last year’s agreement on the POC directory, we should start functioning the POC directory now rather than overloading it with new initiatives and functions at this stage. We should take a step-by-step approach. The global POC should avoid duplicating existing frameworks. From this perspective, we commend the non-paper’s paragraph 2, which notes that the POC directory will complement and not duplicate the functions undertaken by CIRT and CSIRT networks. International and regional CIRT networks are effective in addressing threats in cyberspace. We should make the most out of these existing frameworks. We would like to associate with Indonesia in appreciating UNODC’s efforts regarding the POC directory management, including its initiative to improve its effectiveness, such as semi-annual ping tests. We believe the global POC should seek synergies with regional organizations’ POC directories, such as that of the ASEAN Regional Forum, as the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and ROK have stated. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Japan. India, to be followed by the Syrian Arab Republic. India, please.

Mr. Chair, let me begin by expressing India’s support for your leadership of this OEWG with an action-oriented approach and for facilitating discussions during this substantive session of the OEWG over various initiatives, including the development and operationalization of a global intergovernmental point of contact directory. Mr. Chair, I would like to make the following three brief points on the elements paper while we will submit the full statement in writing. First, we welcome the language included in the capacity building section of the elements paper. The revised draft paper provides details of capacity building of POCs on how to cooperate, interact effectively, and make the directory more useful by sharing experiences related to participation in other POC directories. We also welcome the idea of convening tabletop exercises in cooperation with UNIDIR. We understand that operationalization of the POC directory is a priority and therefore capacity building of POCs is important, and we support the progress on a step-by-step basis. Mr. Chair, as we have mentioned earlier, we see the POC directory as a component or module of a larger, holistic, and comprehensive approach that includes capacity building of member states as one of the major objectives. Thus, the capacity building of POCs is a welcome first step, but this cannot be an end in itself. This needs to be suitably complemented with supporting capacity building structures such as the Global Cyber Security Cooperation Portal that India has presented to the working group. The POC directory can be one of the important modules that gives full play to the operationalization of the portal. We propose that this aspect should be reflected in the purpose of the POC directory elements paper. Second, the elements paper envisages the nomination of diplomatic and technical POCs. In our view, we need here a more practical and flexible approach, keeping in view the need for operationalizing a comprehensive cybersecurity portal. While we can agree on having a common diplomatic POC, we should remain flexible on having multiple technical or operational POCs based on the practical needs of the other modules of the portal. Lastly, the integration of the POC directory module with the Global Cyber Security Cooperation Portal would lead to increased information exchange, as the portal may be incorporated with an option of broadcasting information to a larger number of member states and regional groupings. I thank you.

Thank you very much, India. Syrian Arab Republic, followed by Australia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the outset, I would like to thank you for presenting this revised non-paper on the Global Directory, which has incorporated important enhancements. We’d like to appreciate your effort, and we stress the following on establishing the POC Directory. This Global Directory is considered an important tool for quick contact globally in cases of emergency to alleviate tension in cyberspace and address any threats or malicious uses of ICT, as well as promoting stability and curbing any misunderstanding or conflicts or unprecedented escalation of conflicts due to the use of ICT. Second, the Directory has to be technical in nature and pragmatic as a first stage. Then it can be developed through gradual steps, cumulative steps, under the auspices of the United Nations and in line with the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. Third, the nature and substance of the information exchanged in the Directory must be in line with the conditions of every country and their relevant standards and on a voluntary basis. Fourth, it’s important to reach a common pre-understanding and a very clear understanding of the objective formulation, structure, and modus operandi of this Directory and how we can interact with it. Sixth, turning to addressing other measures, we stress the need to have an objective assessment of regional experiences, taking into account the need to respect the central role of the United Nations in all efforts made to ensure the safe use of ICT, especially the specificities of every region that might not allow expanding its experience globally. Seventh, building capacity is an important element in the work of this Directory. It has to be our focus. Thus, we must build the capacity of developing countries to ensure the good operationalization of the Global Directory so that they can participate effectively and on equal footing with all. A large number of developing countries lack the technical expertise and the capacity that allow them to uphold the responsibilities and the need to respond and cooperate in any cases of accidents. Thus, we must not turn a blind eye to the negative impact of the coercive unilateral measures that are taken, which prevent countries subjected to such measures from reaching the necessary tools and equipment to ensure effective work in this Directory. To conclude, I would like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we are ready to cooperate constructively to reach the aspirations that would meet our needs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Syrian Arab Republic. Australia, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to very briefly take this opportunity to comment upon some of the ideas put forward this afternoon regarding the potential development of templates set out in paragraph 6 of the paper on behalf of a group of states promoting confidence building: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czechia, Fiji, Germany, Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Uruguay. We propose that form follow function. That is, we do not want to delay the establishment of the POC directory or its exercise. And Australia thanks you, Chair, for your outline of a potential timeline as well. Should the value of standardized templates become apparent as the use of the POC directory increases, this OEWG should then be able to develop and agree on standardized templates in the future. The OEWG could then set out to recommend the information to include in communications made via the POC network. This recommendation could, for example, advise that states should, when using the POC directory, include in their communications four basic things: the identity of the sender and the sender’s contact details, the intended recipient or recipients of the communication, the purpose of the communication (for example, for information sharing, a request for information, or something else), and fourthly, any expectations that the sender has in relation to how the communication should be treated by the recipient (for example, classification or requests not to share with third parties). Starting simple with flexible and minimal requirements and recommendations will assist us in developing a practical, useful, and effective directory. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Australia. I see no other requests for the floor on the POC directory. Is there anyone who wishes to speak and who has not been given the floor? Okay, I see none. Thank you very much. Now, on the POC directory, I think this has been a very useful discussion, and in some ways, it takes the conversation further than the one we had last week at the informal virtual meeting. So I thank you for that. What is clear is that in view of the timeline that I had outlined, we need to find the right balance that will enable us to take the next step in terms of having it approved, having a set of modalities approved. It is my hope and determination to do what I can to find the convergence necessary on a set of modalities for us to take the second step. Having made the decision to establish a POC directory at the global level, I think it is really important that we send a clear signal, not only to each other but also to the international community, that we as an international community and as a working group are able and capable of making that second step. Now, in order to achieve agreement on a set of modalities, we need to find a balance, a balance between the expectations of those who are already in POC directories and the expectations of those who may not be part of any regional POC directory or let alone even have a POC directory. So there is a balance of expectations and requirements. In that sense, there is a balance between the minimum amount of details that we need plus the minimum amount of political parameters we need and political assurances we need. And the third balance is with the question of capacity building. It is clear that there is an expectation that there must be some capacity building. But at the same time, if we had too much without actually having a sense of how this POC directory will be implemented, then for some, this may be too much of a good thing. And I think, as Fiji reminded us, I think it was Fiji, we should not let the good become the enemy of the best, or was it the other way around? I’m losing my proverbs and metaphors. But let’s not be in search of perfection that we miss harvesting what could be a good fruit and a fruitful outcome from this process to July. Now, I also want to say that on the POC directory, I’m not going to rush to prepare a second revision. My intention, having heard all of you today and also last week at the informal virtual meeting, and before I continue, let me thank the interpreters. They have given me five extra minutes, but my summing up will take more than five minutes. So my gratitude to the interpreters. Thank you very much. We’ll let you go when you’re ready to go. But it is my intention to continue with the summing up without interpretation. And if that is okay, I will proceed. Do I see any objections to proceeding without interpretation? I see none. So thank you, interpreters. When you’re ready to leave, please have a good weekend. Now, where was I? Yes, I said that I was not going to rush into producing a second revised version of the paper on the POC directory. My intention as the next step is to convene an informal virtual meeting at the end of April. And at this meeting, it is my intention to invite regional POC directories to share their experience and for them to give their views in terms of some of the issues that have been raised in this discussion. For example, differentiating the parameters and the roles of the technical and the diplomatic point of contact. How in reality the PING exercises are conducted. How information is updated. So in other words, I’d like all of us to hear from those who have some experience at the regional level on the operationalization of the POC directory. And after having had the benefit of that discussion or briefing followed by discussion, I will then make available a second revision of the POC directory. In the meantime, I will also continue with informal consultations on some of the aspects in the POC revised paper in order to present a second revision that hopefully will bring us closer to finding convergence. So that roughly is the work ahead as far as the POC paper is concerned. Now, let me now address the rest of the other issues. Now, this week has probably been the most intense but also in many ways the most productive and most focused of discussions we have had possibly since we began this version of the open-ended working group. And as I said earlier in the week, I would not claim credit to have facilitated this focused discussion because it was you who made the focused discussions. And that to me already is a demonstration of some degree of comfort and confidence in the process and comfort and confidence between all of you. So one can say that this OEWG is a confidence-building measure that is live and that is working. And the result of that is that we have had some very candid comments and discussions and in-depth discussion. So I want to thank all of you for bringing that very positive and constructive tone into the discussion by your thoughtful interventions that were prepared, by your preparedness to address the range of issues under the mandate, although it is clear that some of you attach greater priority to maybe one agenda item, you were prepared to engage in discussing other issues. In that sense, there was a give and take, and I hope this sense of give and take continues. It must continue if we are to reach consensus outcomes. Secondly, it is clear that we need more time. Last year, we were able to conclude our meetings much earlier on Friday. We were able to have the Friday afternoon off. Obviously, this time around, you made plans for Friday evening, not knowing that these discussions were going to last much longer. So we certainly need more time, and I intend to make that time available because what is clear is that it’s not possible for us to go from here to July without doing anything in between. So I’ve already outlined my plans for the issue of the POC directory in April, followed by a revised paper in early May. For the other issues, I intend to convene an intersessional meeting around the end of May. End of May. Now, I don’t know the exact format of this, whether it will be hybrid, intersessional, or virtual, informal, intersessional. Much depends on room availability. I will discuss that with the Secretariat. But whatever the format, what is needed is for us to have another round of in-depth discussions on the range of issues that came up. And it seems to me that among the range of issues, we need to devote greater attention certainly to the cluster on international law, including the topics we had started a discussion, the initial cluster, how international law applies, the charter, how it applies, including, of course, considering the possibility of additional legally binding obligations. We had fairly detailed discussions on existing and potential threats. And I’ll give some thought as to whether we need some additional discussions on that. We will also need additional discussions on capacity building. And we will also need additional time to continue our discussions on regular institutional dialogue, including the question of the POA and the future mechanism, which we had a discussion. So at this point, I am not giving you an exact agenda for our intersessional meeting. Let me reflect on that. Please allow me some time to consider how best to organize our discussion. We may not have to go through every single item. It’s an informal intersessional. We can organize it in a way that brings some of the conversation we had this week into a deeper level with the aim of trying to have a consensus outcome in July. I’m very much focused on a consensus outcome in July. So I will make available a letter after I have consulted the Secretariat on room availability on the precise dates for the informal intersessional meetings, mid-May. Now, from mid-May, after that discussion, it is my intention to make available a zero draft of an annual progress report. Again, I do not want to rush into preparing a zero draft of an annual progress report. I want to wait for that informal intersessional meeting mid-May before I produce one. And if the intersessional goes well and gives me the confidence to prepare a decent zero draft, that would be available around early June. And from early June, I have a few weeks to do additional informal consultations, and then that leads us to July. And in July, prior to the formal meeting in the last week of July, I will again consider the possibility of organizing informal virtual meetings as I usually do prior to the convening of a formal substantive session, fifth substantive session, which would take place the last week of July. So distinguished delegates, this roughly is the sequence I have in mind. In essence, I do not wish to rush into producing documents for the sake of producing documents. I want to reflect on what you have said. In the meantime, if you have any additional comments or very specific proposals that you wish to submit to me, to the chair’s office, you’re welcome to do so. I’ve taken careful note of what has been said, me and my team, we will reflect on them as well over the next few days. And then based on the various meetings in the intersessional period, I will produce first the revised paper on the POC and then the zero draft for July. The last thing I will say is that as you prepare to go home, as our colleague from Germany said, we need to go home to someplace where we need to feel at home. As you prepare to do that, keep in mind also the gravity and the stakes that are in some ways involved in the process. I think we have had an excellent beginning, not just this week, but also since last year. We have come a long distance. I said on Monday that if this was a marathon, we have come a long distance, but we are not at the midway point. We have quite a distance to go, but we have done well, but there is no room for complacency. So while my eyes are focused on the fruits that are potentially within grasp, I think we should not be complacent because we are operating in challenging times. There has to be give and take. There have to be expressions of flexibility. There have to be expressions of understanding. There has to be a reaching out on your part. And as I said also at some point, I’m also concerned that many delegations continue to operate in their own bubble. It’s not a criticism, but I’d like you to work much harder to go beyond your comfort zone, not in terms of your positions, but beyond your neighborhood, beyond your homes. Go beyond your homes to reach out to the person sitting next to you. Beyond your region to understand what other people’s expectations are, what other people’s requirements are in order to reach convergence. I think, and this is my last point, I don’t want to detain you any longer. I think it is absolutely possible, feasible to have a substantive annual progress report in July with an outcome on the POC directory and other elements to constitute a balanced package that will enable us to take a second step in this step-by-step approach, which I very much agree. We have to take a second step in order to make this step-by-step approach a reality. Otherwise, a one step last year does not constitute a step-by-step approach. It’s a step approach. We can’t stop at having taken one single step last July and content ourselves for the next few years. We have to take a second step. That requires us to have a consensus report and that requires us to have elements for the POC directory to be operationalized. And that requires us to have a balanced package because the July annual progress report cannot just be about the POC directory. There have to be other elements put in there. And therein lies the balance that we need to find, a balance within the POC directory between the elements, a balance between the POC directory and other aspects of the agenda. And I am hopeful that we can get there because I know that there is a lot of enthusiasm and commitment and political will. What we will need as we get ready to get to July is flexibility, understanding, and open mind as well as reaching out to build bridges, to build confidence, and to strengthen the levels of trust that I sense is already germinating in this working group. So on that note, distinguished delegates, thank you very, very much for being indulgent with me with my mangled metaphors and my commentaries here and there and my constant appeals to you. Thank you for being indulgent and thank you for being constructive. I wish you all a pleasant weekend and a safe trip home, wherever that may be. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.