Session 5-7 Transcript
(OEWG 2021-25)

Good morning, distinguished delegates. The seventh meeting of the fifth substantive session of the Open-Ended Working Group on Security of and in the Use of ICTs is now called to order. Dear friends, distinguished delegates, I want to this morning make some opening remarks and present the document that was circulated yesterday evening. And I want to make two clusters of comments. The first would be a technical and administrative comment, and second, I will go into the substance of the revised document that was made available. With regard to the first cluster of comments, which are of a technical and perhaps administrative nature, I want to very clearly say at the outset I want to apologize for the delay in making the revised draft available yesterday evening. I’m sorry for that. There were two sets of issues that made the circulation very challenging. The first challenge was, of course, the fact that time was very limited, and I was not able to get started on the drafting process until after the stakeholders’ dialogue yesterday, which was about 5 p.m. in the evening. By the time I and my team finished drafting the revised document, it was almost about 11. And I know that last July we had made that revision available around 10. So it took us a little longer this time around simply because it was a much more challenging document to draft, a much more difficult exercise to find balance. So we did take a little longer than expected. And by the time we finalized the document, it was well past 11. And I know that I did keep delegations waiting because we did get messages from France. So I apologize for completely ruining your evening yesterday because many of you might have been waiting either in the office or checking your phones or the websites. It’s not the best way to work, but that is unfortunately the situation that comes when time is limited and one is expected to prepare a revised document, but also a revised document that does justice to all the views that have been expressed. And we also, because of the limited time, are not able to produce revisions after revisions because we have to conclude our work on Friday. So all that is a long-winded way of saying I’m sorry that we were late in making the document available much later than I had hoped. The second sort of issue that cropped up and that delayed the dissemination was an email issue. And perhaps I’d like to invite Secretary of the Working Group, Sonia, to shed some further light. If you could kindly just share with them the issue that we are still facing even today. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador. Good morning, distinguished delegates. The Secretary adjoins His Excellency in conveying our apologies to you for the technical difficulties we had with the e-delegate system overnight in terms of distributing the revised draft. So, our apologies in that regard. We are working very hard to resolve the issue; it has still not been resolved. To address the matter in the meantime, the draft has been updated to the OEWG website, and we have distributed in hard copy, desk-to-desk, the text for your consideration. Our apologies again for any inconvenience caused. It’s the first time this has actually happened to the system, and all hands are on deck in terms of addressing it.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Sonia. And I do want to acknowledge the efforts of the Secretariat in trying to resolve the technical email and e-delegates issue yesterday evening, because these IT-related issues are ones that even advanced technicians may not be able to fix immediately. But I think our Secretariat colleagues did try. I think an email was sent to all the missions. Catherine Preisman sent an email to all the generic email addresses of your respective missions because that’s what they had in the database. However, the email list with your specific email addresses had to go through the portal or the e-delegate system, and that’s where the technical difficulty arose. So, I do want to acknowledge that these kinds of ICT issues are in some ways unexpected, but they do occur often enough, and I think everyone on this side of the podium tried our best to get the document out as soon as possible. So, a collective apology to you, and you have every reason to be unhappy with the delay in the circulation of the document. So, that’s the first set of issues that I wanted to convey to you from the podium with regard to the circulation. Now, as a result of the delay in disseminating the document, I know that almost all of you are in the position of having only had just a few hours to look at the document, perhaps early this morning or perhaps very, very early in the morning, and it is quite clear that you will need more time to look through this document carefully. So, I accept that, and I understand that, and that is entirely a legitimate point of view. So, I want to say that right at the outset. This morning, what I would like to do is to start by giving you an overview of the revision that I have put forward, and then for those delegations that are in a position to make any comments, preliminary though they might be, I will be happy to give everyone the opportunity to make their remarks. So, having said that, let me then go through the document. Now, firstly, I want to say that it’s a very fragile document. It’s fragile not because of the quality of the paper. It’s fragile because it attempts to walk a fine line through thin ice in choppy waters, and we are all seated in a small canoe, and we are trying to navigate this document to the other side. It’s also been a much harder document to revise than I thought because the range of views expressed this week made clear that there was a diversity of expectations, a diversity of positions, and some of these positions continue to be strongly held, and therefore the gaps remain on a number of issues. There’s no way to finesse a gap in substantive positions, and so we had to think carefully about how to put together a document that overall attempts to preserve a balance. So that is why we took a bit longer as well. It’s a fragile product, as I said, but it is also in some ways a streamlined document, as streamlined as it could be, but certainly more streamlined than REV1. We did delete parts of the sections of the REV1 in our search to find balance, in our search to accommodate the positions of all of you, in our search to navigate the red lines of delegations. Now there are, in a sense, 193 red lines because everyone has a right to say they don’t like this document, but that’s why even streamlining or removing one word or removing one paragraph becomes a challenge. But we did our best to streamline the document. A third thing I want to say on the document, I mean I did say it’s a fragile document, that’s the first point. It streamlines, that’s the second point. The third point I want to say is that do look at the document from a holistic perspective. Do look at the forest in its entirety and not just the trees that make up this forest. Do look at the overall picture and the direction of this document. I hope also that you will not be looking at the semantics and the actual words that might be present or absent from this document, but do look at it holistically. So that is my request to you, my plea to you to take a holistic approach. The other point that I want to make is that this document also offers a work program for next year, so it does lay out a series of activities for next year. So that too is one of the value additions of this revised document, and in the revision, I have tried to keep the work plan intact so that next year we have the basis to continue our work, even if we are not able to resolve or address or bridge all the gaps at this point in time. So very clearly we need to work in a step-by-step way, and our work will have to continue next year. Our discussions will have to continue to build understanding, to find solutions to the gaps, differences in positions, and these differences are deeply held. Some of the differences have been held not just this week, not just this past 12 months, but for the last 20 years or more. So it is challenging to try and bridge differences over an overnight drafting process for issues that have eluded consensus for the last 25 years, and I think you have a sense of what are the issues that I’m talking about. The other point that I want to reiterate, which I made yesterday, is that this is not the final annual progress report. This is not the final report of the working group. We are at the midway point. This is the second annual progress report, and hopefully we’ll have two more annual progress reports before we actually conclude the work. So the work will continue in accordance with the work program that is set out in this revised document, and even if your particular proposal is not reflected in the way you wanted it to be reflected, the important thing is that this document allows for discussions on all issues and all proposals. If you wanted an explicit reference to the wording of your proposal or the reference explicitly to the specific proposals that you have submitted and you find that missing, then my plea to you is do not be discouraged. What is important is that this document allows for all proposals to continue to be discussed and to be raised in this working group. As to whether we build consensus around the different proposals and ideas, that depends on you. That depends on you reaching an understanding, but I have tried in the revision to make sure that all proposals can continue to be discussed in this working group. Now those are some general remarks that I wanted to make. Now in terms of the document in its various sections, the overview I have kept it largely untouched except for a reference to paragraph five on the important role of capacity building and its potential contribution as an important confidence-building measure, which is a point that many of you brought. It is a point that many of you brought to the discussion not just this week but also over the last several months. So that is included as a way to strengthen the overview because it does provide an overarching sense of confidence and trust to do the many, many things that we all want to do. The section on the threat landscape has also been streamlined in some ways, but it acknowledges the evolution of technology and how it could potentially impact the emergence of existing and potential threats. And of course, we certainly would need to continue to have focused discussions in this particular section. The section on rules and norms here, I think the section is drafted in a way that the discussions will continue, and the section has also been drafted in a way that acknowledges the fact that the implementation of existing rules and norms and the development of any potential new norms are in so many ways interrelated, and that a discussion on implementation will naturally also offer delegations the opportunity to express their views on the need to develop new norms as appropriate. So I think there is a balance within this section, and I hope that delegations will look at it very carefully. Now on the threat section, I also wanted to say that this recognition of the important place of critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure, and I think that is an area on which this revised report adds some value from my point of view. Now turning to the next section on international law, here we did make – we did certainly have a deeper discussion on this topic over the last 12 months. And I think a discussion on international law certainly needs to continue, and I’ve tried to capture that again in a balanced way, including with the addition of a new paragraph 32, which refers to the possibility of future elaboration of additional binding obligations. Now on confidence-building measures, all of you would know that the draft has a very substantive package of potential outcomes. First, in terms of the POC directory annexed to the revised document, but also by consolidating the list of previously agreed CBMs, which are now consolidated and ready and ripe for implementation, for mainstreaming, for strengthening international cooperation on the issue of ICT security. So I would say that it’s a very substantive potential chunk of outcomes here waiting to be harvested, and it’s on the table. On capacity building, I want to draw the attention of all countries to the fact that we have a very robust framework in this document that has been developed over the last 12 months of discussions and even earlier, prior to this working group. We had a discussion also in the previous open-ended working group. So it does bring the different threads together, the principles of capacity building, how it’s important to mainstream it, how it’s important to operationalize the capacity building so that it is not just mere talk about building capacity but that we are beginning to do something and make a difference to the many developing countries who have very high expectations of capacity building. But beyond expectations, it is also fundamentally about enabling countries to do the things that they want to do themselves but also the kind of things that we need to do collectively as an international community if we are to achieve peace and security in the ICT sphere. So I would say it’s a very substantive chunk of issues on the capacity building section, again, waiting for your agreement to proceed. Now, on regular institutional dialogue, I know we had a very intense discussion yesterday, and I’ve streamlined this section. And in streamlining it, I think I have done my best to give all delegations the opportunity to participate and also advance their own ideas with regard to regular institutional dialogue. The Program of Action is acknowledged, but there’s also an acknowledgment that there have been other options. But the recommended next steps for regular institutional dialogue do put forward some very concrete elements in terms of the importance of our work for next year, but also in terms of providing a pathway to build consensus on regular institutional dialogue. And as I said yesterday, the debate on regular institutional dialogue is, in a sense, a debate about the future of this process or what comes after 2025. But the debate about the future should not jeopardize the present, should not prevent us from harvesting in a step-by-step manner what can be harvested now. So there too, there is a balance to be struck here in this section. And of course, it is not individual sections that have been put together and stapled to produce this revised outcome or annual progress report. I have also tried to look at the document in a more holistic way and to develop that overall balance. Now there were many, many, many proposals of amendments and additions and suggestions and ideas that many of you had put forward and wanted to be included. And I know that many of you would be disappointed because your specific proposals and ideas and references may not be visible to you or even present in the document in the way you would like to see it. But what is important is that the revised document, because of the structure which follows the mandate of the working group, and because of the way it has been drafted, allows all of you to continue your discussions on the issues that are dear to you, on the issues on which we all need to build consensus, and also on the issues on which we are ready, potentially ready, to take a step forward. So, friends, this is what I wanted to say at this point. And I know that many of you are still analyzing, digesting the document, not to mention that you would also need to consult capitals and relevant experts. And this, of course, will take some time. I can understand that. Once again, let me acknowledge that, so I’m not pressing you to give me your response this morning. But if there are delegations which are able to share initial impressions or preliminary reactions or views, or if delegations would like to express their unhappiness with the chair or with the process or with the document that has been circulated, I would encourage you to not hold your views back. Share it with me. Share it in the open. This is the open-ended working group. And that’s why I’ve always believed in the need for transparency. So, the floor is open. And I wanted to give the floor to Kenya to be followed by South Africa. Kenya, please.

Thank you, Chair. I must commend you, Chair, for your able stewardship of the session and for giving us an overview of the draft second annual report in such a clear manner. I will limit my remarks to the deletion of paragraph 15 and the recommended next steps relating to Kenya’s proposal for a UN-run cyber-threat repository in the current version. While we fully understand and respect the decision made in efforts to reach a consensus, we wish to observe that Kenya’s proposal is in alignment with OP1 of resolution 75/240 that recommended the OEWG to continue, and I quote, “to study with a view to promoting common understanding of existing and potential threats in the sphere of information security inter alia, data security, and possible cooperative measures to prevent and counter such threats.” End of quote. A UN-run repository of cyber-related threats would serve as a useful, centralized, and voluntary information and best practices sharing platform to leverage and assist small and developing countries in preparedness and resilience building in the face of the constantly evolving and diversifying cyber threats. We acknowledge and deeply appreciate the support and positive engagement of the majority of states to this initiative during the deliberations in the last couple of days and during the fourth substantive session. As a dedicated member of the working group, Kenya firmly believes in the significance of consideration of initiatives aimed at building capacity of developing countries who are integral members and contributors to the stability and security of the international community, including in the ICT domain. At the same time, we recognize the value of having a consensual outcome of this session so that the OEWG can continue fulfilling its critical mandate. Therefore, in the spirit of cooperation and unity, we will join consensus on the amended text regarding this particular issue. Kenya stands ready to collaborate with all member states to further discuss implementation points to address the concerns and the related vulnerabilities stemming from the lack of awareness of existing and potential threats and lack of adequate capacities to detect, defend against, or respond to malicious ICT activities in light of the evolving landscape of threats in the use of ICTs as outlined in paragraphs 20, 21, and 43H of the current text. Similarly, we remain open to engage not only on this idea but also other proposals aimed at closing this gap within the context of the OEWG. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Kenya. I can understand, of course, your disappointment, and I’m very grateful for your remarks this morning because I think you have also demonstrated flexibility and acknowledged the fact that the discussions on threats can continue in the context of the revised document, taking into account the recommended next steps, paragraph 21, where we say that we will continue exchanging views, and also paragraph 43H that you referred to, which does refer to the need to enhance capacity building with regard to the detection and defense against malicious ICT activities. So there’s a lot of work to do with regard to dealing with these threats, and I know that you have put forward a proposal and also submitted a revision. I know that the proposal you have put forward has triggered a discussion, and that is a good thing, and that is Kenya’s contribution, for which I thank you, Kenya, you and your officials from capital. I know you have invested a lot of time in this proposal, and the virtue of your proposal is that it has made delegations focus on the issue and discuss the issue. That contribution is significant, and I hope that these discussions will continue and will hopefully lead to consensus in terms of small steps forward that we can take, not this week but in the future. Thank you once again, Kenya, for your understanding. South Africa, please, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairperson. Allow my delegation to make some general remarks at this point on the final second draft Annual Progress Report. We appreciate the hard work of the Chair and his team at this point. It should be acknowledged that it is a fine balance. To an extent, we have asked the Chair and his team to square the circle on many issues. But there’s a saying that the great square has no corners. That’s because it’s inclusive. We also acknowledge that there have been a number of intersessionals planned, which indicates the amount of work that is yet to be done, but also illustrates the keen interest and extensive participation in the process of the OEWG. We believe that the second Annual Progress Report should further facilitate the discussions in an inclusive manner. At this stage, we should not preclude the positions of others, as we have seen how initially nascent proposals have begun to gain momentum and can prove to be practical, concrete outcomes and beneficial outcomes of the process. And of course, at this stage, we also acknowledge the proposal by the Distinguished Delegation of Kenya, which we also hope can gain momentum in the future process. My delegation believes that it is clear that we need to build further confidence at this point, and we might have to, at this point, bank the positive outcomes such as a POC directory. This could prove an example of how to treat further practical proposals. We can also continue to be pleased with the pervasive treatment of the capacity-building aspects, which we are very happy to support, provided that we understand that capacity-building can also mean learning together as we approach the challenging and emerging ICT threats landscape. Finally, Chair, we will continue to engage positively on this document, and we hope that we can achieve a consensus outcome at this point. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, South Africa, for your remarks, and you’re right that this process is where ideas are put forward and they evolve. Over time, people understand the idea better, and people may then begin to look at the idea differently from when it was first proposed. That creates a certain understanding to take further discussions or deeper discussions, and the process evolves. Then the rest is up to members to build that consensus, facilitated, of course, by the Chair. So that’s what we are engaged in. We can’t do everything this week, but we can do some things this week, and I’m hopeful, indeed cautiously hopeful, that we can indeed do something this week. So I give the floor now to the Dominican Republic.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with the intent of contributing to our committee making more efficient use of time and considering that all our concerns and worries have been voiced by other states, as well as the joint declaration on capacity building, which we support, the Dominican Republic would like to refrain from taking the floor during the first reading of the Annual Progress Report. And although we’re still looking at the specific details in the new version of the document, this is why we would like to be able to speak later when we get further on. I just want to take the floor to congratulate you, Sir, and the whole of your team for the very hard and efficient work that you’ve been carrying out during the entire time this working group has been working, but also for having achieved such a well-balanced text which, as you have said on many occasions, could not in any way include all the elements that each of the delegations would like to see and exclude all those which don’t find our approval. We believe that this is a very good opportunity to arrive at a consensus-based report, and I urge my colleagues from other states to weigh the progress that we have achieved and not to lose sight of what you said, that this is not the final report. This is another annual report; we have two more of these before we arrive at a final report to include those elements we want to see and exclude those that shouldn’t be there, although we’re ready to see them there. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Dominican Republic. I appreciate very much your comments. I have no other speakers who are asking for the floor. Can I ask if there is any other interest in taking the floor? European Union, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, Chair, and indeed I join other delegations here by thanking you wholeheartedly for all of the efforts that you put into the process, into the discussions amongst yourselves, as well as into trying to find a consensus between all of us here this week and on other occasions. We really recognize the hard work that went into this draft and see many proposals by states made, unfortunately not all, and we’ve heard this morning the Kenyan colleague reflecting that, reflected in the document. In view of our wish for consensus, I, however, have to note that looking at the draft, we do see it had lost and gained particular language in different sections, and the forest that we see suddenly includes a lot more white birches. We are at this stage not fully convinced that the current draft does reflect the full discussions, for instance, on the importance of the implementation of the UN Framework for Responsible State Behavior that was recognized by many, many delegations here, or the reflections on how to proceed and decide on a future regular institutional dialogue. We are at this stage further reflecting on the draft, but I already wanted to flag to you our initial thinking. We will look forward to continuing our reflection, including with yourself, in view of a consensus document as an outcome of our discussions this week. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you so much, European Union, for your remarks. I give the floor now to the Russian Federation, please.

Distinguished Chair, thank you for your efforts to prepare the new version of the report. The Russian delegation sent a text to our capital last night for consideration. Given restrictions on time, we need time to receive final instructions from them. We think that many other delegations are in the same situation. In this respect, Chair, we think the best thing to ensure substantive discussions on the new version of the report would be to discuss in the evening. Right now, though, the document unfortunately will not receive consensus support. It has many systemic distortions that we and others have mentioned already. The report focuses exclusively on the implementation of norms, rules, and principles of the responsible behavior of states in the information space. We don’t understand this selective approach. The mandate of the OEWG, I recall, has a two-part formula: applying existing and developing new norms. We don’t understand why in the report the initiative has not been reflected, namely the initiative by Russia, Belarus, the DPRK, Syria, Nicaragua, and Venezuela on the concept for a convention on the UN, on international information security. This is a discriminatory approach with respect to reflecting proposals by states that have been discussed in the group, and this is unacceptable, categorically unacceptable. Mr. Chair, this is just a small part of our concerns. More detailed comments will be provided in addition. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Islamic Republic of Iran, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. At the outset, let me express our gratitude to you and your team, and to the Secretariat for the hard work in developing the text. Like other delegations, we have shared the text with the capital for further instructions. Right now, I don’t want to delve into substantive points, but we compared the latest version of the text with the previous one. We see a lot of differences, and we note that many points we supported have been deleted. In the meantime, we see very slight changes in favor of our proposals, and we note that those have been reflected in the discussion part, not in the recommendations. The recommendations are the most important part of the text. We have compared the latest version with the previous one, but I wonder, Mr. Chair, if it is possible to circulate a text with track changes. I noticed that many delegations are comparing these two texts, which has caused a lot of confusion. If it could be possible to have a revised text with track changes, that could be more helpful. We also need to compare it with last year’s annual report because we see some substantive contrasts with that report. Even some agreed language from that report has been deleted, which will definitely raise a lot of questions and concerns. We will share our assessment afterward. It is very important and necessary for all that if we are working in a consensus process to have a factual and balanced text. You mentioned, Mr. Chair, that this text allows consideration of all proposals. However, we see that even those proposals reflected in the red one are dropped in the latest version. This persuades us to consider another aspect of the possibilities. We definitely want to contribute and constructively engage in the discussions to help build consensus. Although consensus is usually said to make everyone unhappy, we cannot have some groups happy and others not happy at all. As you mentioned, there are some red lines, and we need to respect those red lines. This applies not only to additions but also to deleted parts. Some of those deleted parts were very dear to some groups of countries, and now we see that the text is losing those good points. We will insist on bringing our proposals, and we, of course, take care of all proposals. We can see that there are many even contradictory proposals. However, the formulation you have used in developing the report, especially in referring to states, has been a very fair reference to impartially reflect the proposals. Mr. Chair, I’d like to conclude by thanking you again. If possible, please share the revised text with track changes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Iran, for your comments and also for your request. Firstly, with regard to the request for track changes, I want to say that I did think about making such a text available to facilitate your work. And having thought about it carefully, I thought that it is best that I give you a clean version for two reasons. First, if I gave you a track changes version, it is very likely that I’m going to be making a lot of mistakes, because Microsoft is not represented here. It is not the most user-friendly software. With due respect to my friends from Microsoft and the eminent Mr. Bill Gates, but I did not want to inadvertently miss out any particular track changes or highlights, which will then raise the question as to why the Chair has highlighted some and not the other. And especially when working under time constraints, I did not want to take that risk of circulating a track changes version. So I do not have myself a complete track changes version that I’m able to share, partly because we reorganized Paris, moved languages, and streamlined the text. So I ask for your understanding, Yoram. It’s not that I have a track changes version in my pocket and I’m not sharing it. To produce a track changes version that is error-free will take a lot of time. And I am not able to do that. The second reason why I decided not to make a track changes version available is that I do request all of you to look at this text with a fresh pair of eyes on its own merit. The temptation to compare is there. I agree. But I’d like to ask all of you to look at this latest document and judge it on its own merit. If you compare it in terms of the deletions and additions, then everyone’s going to be unhappy because everyone’s proposals to some extent have been modified, deleted, rearranged, streamlined. And if you start comparing this year’s progress report with last year’s and then with the report from the first OEWG, then there’s no end to comparison. And the question then arises as the OEWG, do we repeat in every annual progress report everything that has been previously adopted? Can we take that as adopted? I mean, these are questions for which I don’t have the answer because as a process we are relatively new, just two and a half years into this edition of the open-ended working group. So I think it will also be helpful if each delegation looked at the document on its own merit and see how it looks like. Because already I’ve heard one delegation say that there’s not enough of norms implementation. Another delegation has said the focus is entirely on norms implementation. I’m not suggesting that these two delegations live in two alternate universes. I’m saying that these are entirely legitimate points of view and there will be 193 sort of perspectives, but the view from the podium is different. I can assure you of that. So that has been the predicament for the chair and that’s why I think it may perhaps be good to look at the text on its own merit and then see whether it allows you to continue the discussions of your own proposals, allows you to preserve your positions. And I should also say that even references to national proposals in itself is the subject of consensus in a consensus-driven process. If it’s not a consensus-driven process, we can have a paragraph voting and that would be an efficient way of organizing the work. And let me confess here that I did not design the mandate of this working group. So it was designed by all of you and this is the process we have. So in a consensus process, and all of you have also affirmed that a future process must be consensus-driven. Obviously, you like this very much. Obviously, people attach importance to a consensus-driven process and I can see why. But that means that it comes with all the additional challenges and so much as every delegation has the sovereign right to put forward its proposal, what goes into a consensus report in itself becomes the subject of consensus and it’s not an exact science as I mentioned the other day. So let’s continue with the speakers. United States to be followed by Costa Rica. US, please.

Chair, thank you for your efforts and the efforts of your team in compiling this revised draft. We see several improvements and welcome those. We also note a number of areas where the text needs to be revised in order to achieve consensus, most notably regarding the shift away from implementation of existing norms within the norms section, given the robust discussions on the topic over the last year, as well as some very challenging new language within the threats and regular institutional dialogue sections. We are committed to working with you, your team, and all member states towards a consensus final text, and appreciate your acknowledgement that states need some additional time to fully review this new text in detail. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement, United States. Costa Rica, please.

Mr. Chairman, Costa Rica would like to thank you and your distinguished team for what they’ve done in order to submit to us a document which can move us closer to consensus. For Costa Rica, the value of this working group relies on the possibility of our having dialogue, looking at our positions, discussing, and moving forward on common understandings regarding the security and use of ICTs. We particularly welcome the feeling of community and relevance that you have bestowed on this process, including the interested parties. The text isn’t perfect. The thing is, this is a process, and therefore, this is a text that is under construction. It has elements with which we agree, but others are missing. For example, we welcome the acknowledgment of the creation of capacity building as a confidence-building measure, which has a cross-cutting effect on all pillars of the working group. On the other hand, we would have preferred there to be stronger, more robust language acknowledging the threat to international peace and security from ransomware. As we’ve said, both in this group, in formal and in parallel sessions, the attack on Costa Rica shows that ransomware activities can go beyond the implications of criminal law and, in themselves, prove a threat to international peace and security. This is, therefore, why we proposed language. We would have preferred a more solid reference here. However, we know that you can’t be perfect without acting against what is possible. We want a document which is a tool that enables us to see where we’ve got to and to work in future sessions. So, we, therefore, call energetically on all delegations to look at this text, looking at its merits, and look at it in terms of our mandate, which is to advance in those processes which allow that. We would remind you, sir, that for Costa Rica, consensus is not unanimity. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Costa Rica, Ambassador Maritza Chan, for your comments and contribution. Very much appreciated. China, please.

China, I commend the Chair and your team for your tremendous efforts in preparing this audit. Like many delegations, we are waiting for instructions from our capital. Our preliminary view is that in balancing the positions, there’s a lot to be done. It’s not only about the balance between the sections; it also includes the balance between norms and international law. More importantly, the former OEWG and the GGE’s outcomes, the longstanding and well-established balance contained therein. We will continue to give you feedback. Thank you.

Thank you for your contribution, China. All feedback is welcome. Thank you. Jamaica, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning to you and to the team at the podium, and good morning to all colleagues. First of all, I want to thank you for the hard work that you have been doing along with your team in leading us through this process, through this discussion over the course of this year’s session, and certainly in preparing this final draft of the annual progress report. Like many other delegations, we’ve just started to study it as well, and on an initial reaction, note that it does appear to be going in the right direction. I have listened carefully as well to the reaction of quite a few delegations so far who have indicated that they don’t see some of their things and they see things that they don’t like. I do take note of various views, and I have come from across the spectrum explaining that same reaction, which seems to indicate to me that as a chair, you seem to be going in the right direction to try to thread an impossible needle. Mr. Chair, we do like some of the content that has been put in. We see good language on the capacity building, and we see how you have tried to also strike that middle ground with the institutional dialogue and the process going forward. Just on a preliminary basis, we think that we can move into this phase as we look to close the work of the group this year into more of a fine-tuning process rather than a rewriting process. Certainly, the approach that we would like to take is to go along that line and would encourage all delegations to take a similar approach, as we are trying to come to a conclusion at this point. I do know, as it would be the case for us, if there was a very specific proposal that we hold dearly for our national position or even on behalf of a group, that we would want to keep fighting for it. But I certainly take comfort from the point that you had re-emphasized that this is the annual progress report; it’s not the final and close-out report of the conference, and that a lot of scope has been left in the text as you have set it out for further work, further discussions, and further actions to be taken in the context of the Open-Ended Working Group in its future sessions. So I really would want to appeal for us to work on trying to fine-tune and close out the report in a way that we can have a consensus, noting, of course, that the issues that need to be addressed, as you have indicated, have been very long-standing, and we would not think that we are going to work magic and solve it this particular year, but we will continue in the progress towards doing so. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Jamaica, for your remarks and for your appeal to all delegations as well. Much appreciated. I see no further requests for the floor at this point, and I wanted to be sure that I am not excluding anyone who wishes to speak at this point. Very good. So I see no further requests for the floor, and I’d like to propose that, given that it is already late in the morning, 11:20, that we adjourn at this point to give all of you and your respective groups time to discuss and to reflect, reflect very deeply on where we are as a process, reflect on what’s on the table in terms of potential outcomes, and reflect on what is needed to take us across the finishing line. What is needed to take us across the finishing line and achieve consensus is not going to be a restating of your preferences and your wishes and your requests, and that applies to all of you, my dear friends. I have said previously, and I’d like to say this again, it’s going to be impossible for me or for any chair of any process in the United Nations to satisfy the requests, wishes, and preferences of the entirety of the UN membership. What we are trying to do is find a way forward that will bring everyone along. I don’t want to exclude anyone. This is dear to me. This is dear to me as a country. We believe in working in an inclusive, transparent way. And so it is not just going back into your respective groups and coming back with another list of requests and wishes, because I would not know what to do with such a list or request or a restating of your preferences. Then it comes back to us as to what we want to do. Are we able to cross the finishing line and bring across the finishing line what we already have on the table? The other point I would also appeal to you delegations is as much as you would like to negotiate with the chair, this process is not about negotiating with the chair. It’s about negotiating with each other. So if something is dear to you, you need to persuade others. You don’t need to persuade the chair. I listen to everyone, and I think all of you have a valid perspective. I want to make all of you happy. I want to make sure that everyone leaves this process satisfied. But I know also, as one of you put it, it’s an impossible needle to thread. So if you are in the mode of negotiating with the chair, I’m not sure how I can negotiate with you, because I’m not the one who needs to be persuaded. You need to persuade each other. So please also reflect on that. If you know that something is dear to you, approach your friends and partners who might have expressed a different view. And if you’re not able to do it in the limited time available this week, then this is a conversation that has to continue. So please reach out to each other, because that’s what the confidence-building process is all about. Because we often say the open-ended working group is a CBM in itself. It’s not a CBM if you talk to the chair. I will listen to everyone. But have you spoken to anyone you have not spoken to in the last two years in this working group? Think carefully about it. If there’s any proposal that is dear to your delegation, do you have a sense of who might have reservations about that proposal? Have you spoken directly to that delegation? Have you explained your proposal to them? Explain, let alone persuade. So friends, please help me. This is what the UN is about. We need to talk to each other. I’m ready to listen to you and to anyone at any point, as long as I’m in this position of being in the podium. But it’s not about persuading me. It’s about persuading each other. If you tell me you don’t like something, I take note of that. But I have to put together a draft document that will potentially command consensus. So if your proposals have been deleted, I want to make sure that you have the possibility to continue discussing that proposal, because I don’t want anyone’s options to be foreclosed and prejudged, because that’s not fair. But I cannot persuade other delegations to accept every proposal put forward by every other delegation, because each delegation then has to decide what it can accept and what it can’t. And that’s the beauty or utter ugliness of a consensus process. So you have to decide how, as you get back into your groups, how you want to achieve the consensus outcome. So at 3 p.m., when we adjourn, please help me, because if you came with a statement to restate what you would like to see, then we are in many ways back to a square one situation. So I’d like to also urge you in the interim between now and 3 p.m. to reach out to other delegations. And better still, if you come with an agreed drafting language to submit to me, then I will happily take that over and incorporate it into the draft document and acknowledge it as an effort by a group of countries to find solutions, because that’s also what we do. But the reality is that the level of trust within this working group is low. And so I’m also playing the role of conveying messages between delegations. I wish I didn’t have to do that, because if you all spoke with each other, you don’t need a chair. You just need a rapporteur who will put together your agreed conclusions, and we’ll just staple them together and gavel it in the podium. But this is a process where the levels of trust are low. It’s a fact, not just in this working group, but across many different processes at the UN. And that’s why talking to each other helps. So I do encourage you not just to be in your own regional or group coordination, but also to reach out and offer solutions at 3 p.m. when we return. The meeting is adjourned. I wish you a pleasant afternoon. Thank you.