(6th meeting) Open-ended working group on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) - Eleventh Substantive Session General Assembly Date: 10 July 2025 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/ar/asset/k1p/k1p9a3h4hd?lang=en Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- Singapore · Chair [0:02]: Good morning, distinguished delegates. The 6th meeting of the 11th substantive session of the Open-ended Working Group on Security of and in the Use of ICT Technologies is now called to order. Distinguished delegates, dear friends, we'll continue our discussion under Agenda Item 5, and in accordance with our program of work, We will begin the second reading of and negotiations on the draft final report. Now, before we proceed, I wanted to make some comments of a general nature. First of all, I want to extend my sincere apologies to all of you for having circulated The draft final report, much later than I had anticipated and hoped. I know that the email with my letter and the draft final report went out quite late, and I hope that this has not disrupted your normal sleep patterns. And I hope also that you've had some time to look at it, albeit very quickly given that we are meeting this morning. I don't intend to present you or explain to you in detail the draft final report. By explaining each and every revision that has been made, but I do want to make some general comments. First of all, having listened to all of you, many of you have said that it is important to streamline the report, and so that is what I've tried to do. We have cut down the draft final report from about 45 pages to 28 pages, which is a streamlining of more than one-third of the original Rev. 1 document, not only in terms of pages but also in terms of words and text. Second, the streamlining is just one aspect of this draft final report. The most important aspect is striking an overall balance of elements. This has been one of the most challenging reports to prepare, much more challenging than the previous annual progress reports because of, first of all, the differences of views, but also the differences in the levels of expectations of what each one of you wanted to see in the draft final report. I've done my best to capture as many different ideas as possible in a most factual way possible without prejudice to the position of any state. I've also tried to include all the elements needed in my view, to achieve an overall text that is balanced. Over the last few days, I've listened very carefully to the statements that have been made here, the inputs that have been submitted to me in writing and to the Secretariat. I've also spoken to many of you informally in the corridors over coffee, over sandwiches, informal consultations, and I've done my best to reflect as many elements as possible that you have given me while attempting to maintain an overall balance of elements. The third thing I wanted to say is that In looking at this final report, I would urge you to look at it in totality in the sense that this final report is not the ultimate outcome of this OEWG. This report builds on 3 annual progress reports which were adopted by consensus, so the 3 annual progress reports that we have adopted in the past 3 years also represent outcomes captured in different ways, and it's there. It's there for posterity. It's there as a package. So as we seek to make this smooth and seamless transition to the future Permanent Mechanism, we are not just moving forward with one final report, but we are moving forward with a package of reports. So that is my plea to you to also look at this final report in the totality of all the outcomes that has been achieved in this process. Now, having said that, this is my next point. I know that Quite a number of you will be disappointed that we have not gone far enough in certain areas. Let me say that I share your disappointment. As someone who has been involved in this process for some time, I too had hopes and aspirations for this process to go as far as possible. I did my best to push. And encourage each one of you to push each other but to collectively push forward. But we have to push in a balanced way. So I too have some disappointment that we could not go far in every aspect where I thought it was possible and feasible. But for the sake of balance and producing a balanced outcome, we have to streamline the text and we have to prioritize and we have to be pragmatic, knowing that this process will continue and knowing most importantly that the final outcome document will lay the foundation for a smooth smooth and seamless transition that opens the pathway ahead for all of us to continue this incredibly important process of conversation, building trust, building confidence. So this final report should not be seen as the end of a process. But rather as the beginning of a whole new process. And in order to begin a whole new process, we need this draft final report. So much as you may be disappointed, take heart in the fact that we have a long pathway ahead, but in order to walk that long pathway ahead, we need to take a single step forward. I remember when we had our first meeting, I think it was the distinguished representative of China who said that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. I'm not suggesting by And it means that we have made a journey of 1,000 miles, but what we have done is taken several steps, and each step takes us forward to that destination which we aspire to go to. And incidentally, I would say, this journey of 1,000 miles which began in San Francisco in 1945 when representatives of 50 countries gathered to sign a document called the UN Charter, is a journey that still goes on after 80 years. So the OEWG's process over the last 5 years is a very, very small journey. It's part of a larger journey that we make as nations, as we the people, to go to a better future, to a better place for our people and for our countries. So the point that I'm trying to make is that we have made some important steps. We may not have gone as far as we would like collectively, or we may not have gone as far as each of you would have liked to see, but we are making a step forward, and I think we will make a step forward if we are able to adopt a report this week. So look at this report as laying the foundation to continue this journey of 1,000 miles for which many more steps remain. The other important point that I think we need to keep in mind, as you look at the report and as you look at whether the report accords with your national positions, your instructions from capital, what your bosses have told you must be there, otherwise, you know, you cannot return to capital, for example, I mean, all those are important, but keep also in mind that everyone needs to go back to their capitals. Have empathy for your neighbors and friends in this process because they too have concerns, they too have aspirations, and everyone needs to have a sense of ownership a sense of collective ownership of the text. So if there are some things that you see that you do not like, perhaps what you do not like is possibly the element that is very critical for another delegation or group of delegation. So through this mosaic of paragraphs and texts, We are trying to give everyone a sense of ownership, a collective sense of ownership in the text and in the outcome document because ultimately this outcome document, draft final report, is something that has come out of this process, that needs to be owned by this process, and that needs to be taken forward by all of you. The next point I'll make is that this draft final report that I've prepared, in my assessment, offers us a pathway towards consensus adoption. And I think a consensus adoption of the draft final report is not only visible, it is possible, it is feasible, it is Eminently achievable. My intention is to listen to you today, hear your reactions to this draft final report, hear your views. I know you may not have had the time to have thorough internal discussions or cross-regional discussions or group coordinations, so I concede that. So any views expressed at this stage is probably preliminary in nature. That is entirely reasonable, but I will open the floor after my general remarks to hear any reactions there might be. Even if it is of a preliminary nature. But if your views are more than preliminary and you love the text and you would like to proceed to adoption, let me know too. Don't conceal your affection for what you see. And of course, if you don't like what you see, then say so as well. Don't suppress your feelings. Speaker 2 [13:52]: Yes. Singapore · Chair [13:53]: Either, because we are looking for something that is collectively owned, collectively understood, understood in terms of its imperfections, but also understood in terms of what gives each one of you the sense that perhaps you can live with this. Now, after having heard from you this morning, we will of course resume this afternoon at 3:00 PM to continue hearing views, but we need to keep in mind the fact that our schedule of work will have to be completed tomorrow. That is not in doubt. And because of the financial austerity measures taken by the UN, there will be no possibility to meet beyond 6 PM. So the curtain will have to come down tomorrow. In fact, this week we had to cut down meeting times. One session had to be given up. Because of financial austerity measures. So I wanted to make that also clear that the reality of not just the microphone being cut off but also the meeting as a whole being cut off by Friday 6 PM is a very real one. But my own sense is that we don't need to go to the wire, I hope. But that depends on you. And so my intention is to put forward a CRP, Conference Room Paper. That's the UN terminology for a document that is circulated for the purposes of a specific meeting. So what I have circulated yesterday evening is a draft final report issued by me in my capacity as chair with a cover letter from me. But this evening it is my intention to transform that document, that revised draft, into a conference room paper and This evening, and then tomorrow morning it's my intention to put forward the CRP for adoption at the meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group, and then we'll take it from there. So, my friends, thank you very much for your time. I wanted to make these general remarks at this stage, and if delegations are ready to speak at this point, fine, but I don't want to coerce anyone into making statements. If you think you're not ready to speak yet, fine, we can adjourn and we can meet again this afternoon. Thank you. Egypt [17:26]: Thank you, Chairperson. We're not taking the floor yet to comment on the report. We will do that later this morning or in the afternoon. It's rather a point of clarification than a point of order. We know that you had a busier and more eventful night than anyone in this room. We commend you for the efforts you do. Our trust in your leadership continues to be unwavering, and for these reasons, we never took the liberty to discuss any aspects related to the organization of work. However, since we are at the beginning of the final stretch and particularly due to the austerity considerations that Your Excellency spoke about, that at 6 PM tomorrow the microphone will be cut off on both the Chair and the member states. We are wondering whether the Chair has the intention or the openness to shift into a more informal and/or closed mood of discussion. In our view, we believe that this would be very useful at this stage. while we continue to have trust in your wise discretion. Thank you, Chair. Singapore · Chair [18:47]: Thank you very much, Egypt. Your comments are pertinent but premature. It's premature in the sense that we have more than a day ahead of us. And this Working Group has, over the last 3 years, adopted a report within the allocated time. In the first year, we adopted the Annual Progress Report in the morning at 11 AM on a Friday. The afternoon was free for delegations to experience the joys of New York City. So it's entirely possible and feasible. So my intention is very clear. I intend to put forward the document for adoption tomorrow morning and we'll take it from there. We have the time needed to complete our work, in my view. Egypt [19:54]: Thank you. Singapore · Chair [19:55]: Thank you, Egypt. I give the floor to Malaysia, to be followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Malaysia [20:04]: Mr. Chair, Malaysia's statement will focus on the revised version of Annex 1. We are grateful for the Chair's tireless efforts to ensure a permanent mechanism that is fit for purpose, seeking to reconcile divergent views on particular issues. While we are still reviewing the draft, allow us to share some preliminary views. With regard to the new proposed dedicated thematic group, DTG1, we would like to better understand the scope of the specific challenges referred to and how such challenges would be determined by states ahead of the DTG's meetings. This will be important in facilitating states' substantive preparations, including the designation of relevant officials and experts. As to DTG2, we appreciate the focus of this group on the important subject of capacity building, which many delegations have stressed as a cross-cutting element in ensuring the effective implementation of the framework of responsible state behavior, as well as appropriate balance in the overall structure of the Permanent Mechanism. We welcome the retention of language on the preparation of guiding questions for the DTGs in paragraph 8. It may, however, be helpful to state that this would be done by the Chair of the Global or Permanent Mechanism so as to avoid ambiguity vis-à-vis the facilitators of the DTGs. Further, we recognize the value of the earlier paragraph 9, which has now been deleted. In our view, the previous formulation provided a useful measure of clarity with regard to the selection and role of the facilitators of the DTGs. In addition, as the terms Global Mechanism and Permanent Mechanism are used interchangeably in different sections of the Annex. We would recommend standardization in this regard. Mr. Chair, at this critical phase in our process, rest assured that Malaysia will continue to engage constructively with all delegations to achieve our shared goal of a single-track Permanent Mechanism. Thank you. Singapore · Chair [22:11]: Thank you very much, Malaysia, for your statement. I won't respond to the very specific questions addressed by each of the speakers. Perhaps I'll listen to a few and then respond at a later stage. I give the floor now to the Islamic Republic of Iran, to be followed by China. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [22:32]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to express our sincere appreciation to you, your team, and the Secretariat for your efforts in preparing of the final report. We welcome the positive improvements introduced in various parts of the draft and recognize the progress made. In the interest of time, I will not elaborate on the positive points for now and concentrate on the main concerns of my delegation, which we believe should be reflected in the final report. The document is under consideration in my capital, and these are our preliminary comments on REV 2. And, Mr. Chair, I would like to mention that my delegation aligns itself with the statement that will be delivered later in the session on behalf of LMG. On the trade section, we are concerned that the current trade section does not fully capture the entire range of the trade landscape, as it overlooks a number of threats identified by a group of countries during the OEWG deliberations, the threat currently reflects— relates primarily to one aspect of the group mandate, namely the security of ICT, while largely omitting the equally important dimension of security in the use of ICTs. In order to address this significant gap and to ensure a more balanced and comprehensive reflection of the OEWG mandate, our delegation has put forward a specific proposal, which is, I quote, to compile a list of threats identified by states during the OEWG process which could serve as a useful reference for the work of the future permanent mechanism, end of quote. We strongly encourage that this proposal and the broader concern it seeks to address be appropriately reflected in the final report. With regard to paragraph 25 and 34F, we recommend the deletion of the reference to safeguards and oversight related to ICT intrusion capabilities. These specific measures have not been the subject of focused or inclusive discussion within the OEWG, and their inclusion at the— at this stage may therefore be considered premature. We believe that any such references should be based on thorough deliberation and broad consensus. On norms section, the development of new norms was explicitly identified as a priority in the mandate of the Open-Ended Working Group, as set out in the resolution establishing the OEWG. In this context, the deletion of paragraphs 34 and 36 represents, in our view, a departure from the group's agreed mandate. This is a matter of serious concern for our delegation We therefore strongly urge that these 2 paragraphs be retained in the final report to ensure alignment with the OEWG mandate. On international law, since the outset of the open-ended working group, a group of countries and stakeholders have consistently advocated for the broad participation of stakeholders in both the OEWG and the future permanent mechanism, often underscoring that stakeholders are the owners and operators of the ICT environment. If stakeholders are to play such a central role in this space, it is important that their responsibilities also match the role. In this regard, our delegation has over the years repeatedly highlighted the lack of clarity regarding stakeholders' responsibility and has called for consideration for their role. The zero draft contained language addressing this point, and we strongly encourage its inclusion once again in the final report. On capacity building, Mr. Chair, we are concerned about the revision to the capacity building section and request the retention of the language used in Rev. 1 regarding the sponsorship program and UN Voluntary Fund. On future permanent mechanism, you rightly emphasized this week that the elements of the future mechanism should be determined by consensus within the OEWG by the end of this week. And that deferring these decisions to the future mechanism itself is not an option. We share this view and therefore believe that the decision-making process, being the most critical element of the future mechanism, should not be left vague, as this could significantly undermine its effectiveness. In this regard, we strongly encourage that Annex 1 explicitly specify that decisions within the future mechanism will be taken by consensus. The principle is especially important concerning the establishment of the ad hoc thematic groups referenced in paragraph 11. Accordingly, we urge that the final report as reflected in REM 1 clearly state that such groups will be established by consensus. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Singapore · Chair [27:34]: Thank you, Islamic Republic of Iran. China, to be followed by Vietnam. China [27:41]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you and your team for the hard work for preparing the latest version of the text. To be honest, we received the text way earlier than I expected. So, Mr. Chair, your work is hard, but also your work has been very efficient. I have noticed that your team are wearing very nice traditional costume. You know, in China, the color of red represents Party elements, happiness. I thought probably you would be in such costume tomorrow, but you are wearing this costume today. That shows to me your confidence about the prospect of the process in the future. I hope that optimism manifested on the podium Can also be reflected and also encouraging all the participants in the meeting room. Our negotiation is in the last stretch. Right now, I only want to focus on the most critical topics to China. First of all— Paragraph 17 of the current text. The last sentence— China recommends to delete this sentence. If you took part in the meeting in February this year, and if you listened to the conversation— very intensive conversation between me and the representative from the U.S.— then you would understand how much this matters to China. Sure. As you said that if this sentence exists in the text, then it's very difficult for me to go back and report to my capital. So my recommendation is to delete this sentence. And the second topic, which is my priority for today, is about the modalities for the participation of NGOs. When we discuss— or rather, before that, before we discuss about that, we have to clarify some very basic but very important facts. First of all, NGO participation to us is an important supplement, but it is not something necessary or it is not a must. History has proven that even without NGO participation, we can still achieve important results. Previous GGE sessions did not have the participation of NGOs, but because of the collective efforts of the member states, we achieved the well-known 11 norms, and they have shaped the current framework for responsible behavior. Secondly, besides the OEWG, NGOs have many platforms to discuss cyber and digital issues, such as the UN IGF. However, for member states, we only have OEWG. Using the issue of multi-stakeholder participation to hijack or even obstruct OEWG discussions is extremely unfair to member states. Thirdly, we believe that the vast majority of NGOs or multi-stakeholder groups are non-political professional organizations. However, it is regrettable that we have noticed that some NGOs actually have become tools for governments in spreading disinformation so as to achieve their geopolitical objectives. This year, news reports shown that some multistakeholder groups even have been receiving direct funding from foreign governments. And helping serve their political interests. And some of these NGOs have also applied to participate in OEWG discussions. So as a principle, China welcomes the participation of multistakeholder groups. However, such participation is not unconditional. It must be premised on not undermining the rights of member states and must adhere to the rules jointly agreed upon by member states. Treating NGO participation as a matter of political correctness is a baseless bubble. Now it is time for us to burst this bubble. Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear that China cannot support the procedure in the current text. The essence is that after expressing objection, member states are not obliged to participate in the subsequent informal consultations. At the same time, I want to reiterate that China is willing to discuss with all parties in good faith and on the basis of safeguarding the rights and interests of member states so as to make appropriate revisions to the text in order to have a fairer resolution— or rather, solution. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Singapore · Chair [34:00]: Thank you very much, China, for your statement. Let me hear the views from others before I respond to any particular comment, but thank you for noticing that I'm wearing something bright. I thought no one might notice. Yeah, I'll have to look for something brighter to wear tomorrow then. But yes, I do firmly believe that there's no reason to be pessimistic about an outcome, but we cannot be naively optimistic either. At the UN, and I say this from experience, and pardon the digression, we are all cautiously hopeful optimists. Because if we are not cautiously hopeful optimists, we have no business to be here at the UN, which is an enterprise in bringing together 193 countries with very divergent viewpoints and instructions. Not to mention officials in capitals sometimes not entirely understanding what we do here. So we deal with capitals, we deal with our colleagues, and we deal with other delegations. One has to be optimistic, but the deep Singapore DNA in me also has trained me to be pragmatic, To be realistic, to focus on priorities. So not everything can be done in a single leap and that probably is the reason for some of the streamlining, but we'll come to that at the end after hearing all the comments. Let's move to Vietnam to be followed by Thailand. Vietnam, please. Viet Nam [36:01]: Thank you, Mr. Cheh. We would like to express our deep appreciation for the tireless efforts of you and your team in producing RAP II. The current draft, in our view, does try to reflect the discussion we have had so far. We would like to reiterate that Vietnam supports the adoption of the final report by consensus. While we reserve the right to have further comments on other parts of the report, at this stage, we would like to focus on one of the priorities of the future permanent mechanisms, that is capacity building. Mr. Chair, as highlighted in the intervention by member states, capacity building is a fundamental pillar for achieving an open, safe, secure, stable, accessible, peaceful, and interoperable ICT environment. This priority has received broad support from all member states. In this context, We believe the report should continue to reference all proposals and initiatives put forward by member states on ICT capacity building. In particular, Vietnam would like to see the initiative co-sponsored by Latvia, Vietnam, and the Philippines on establishing a dedicated, impartial, and solution-oriented platform to conduct research and capacity-building activities on ICT security and resilience especially in support of UN members with limited ICT security capabilities, reintroduced in paragraph 35, subparagraph g) of the report. I thank you. Thank you. Singapore · Chair [37:55]: Thank you, Vietnam. I was just looking at the paragraph that you referred to, 35G. Are you suggesting a modification by including an addition to your proposal? Is that correct? Viet Nam [38:09]: Yes. Yes, Mr. Chair, basically we just reinstate this paragraph from the language that we have from the Rev. 1. Singapore · Chair [38:27]: Thank you, Vietnam. Thailand to be followed by Nigeria speaking on behalf of the African Group. Thailand, please. Thailand [38:37]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Thai delegation wishes to express our sincere appreciation to you and your team for the preparation of draft 2— of draft 2, and for your continued dedication throughout the OEDWG process. Thailand has consistently underscored the importance of establishing a new permanent mechanism that serves to foster trust and confidence among states, strengthen resilience against evolving cyber threats, and provide needs-based capacity building, particularly on the effective implementation of norms, and facilitate common understandings on how international law applies in cyberspace. We also believe that it is important to have dedicated thematic groups that will address our key priorities that require in-depth and inclusive dialogue. While we are pleased to see a focus on accelerating the delivery of ICT security, capacity building. The issue of international law, given its technical and specialized nature, clearly merits such focused discussion. Throughout the OEWG process, states have significantly deepened and developed their positions on the application of international law in cyberspace. We should continue our momentum to build common understandings in this area, which is essential for fostering trust confidence and for upholding international peace and security. Having said that, we recognize the complexity of achieving consensus on a text that reflects the diverse views held by member states. While we wish to include certain elements such as the areas of convergence of views on international law in paragraph 41 and threats for— from advanced persistent threats in paragraph 24, In the spirit of consensus, Chair, Thailand can exercise flexibility and is prepared to support the current draft. We hope that other member states will also exercise utmost flexibility for us to transition smoothly into the future permanent mechanism. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Singapore · Chair [40:46]: Thank you very much, Thailand, for your statement. And thank you very much for demonstrating flexibility as well. I appreciate your contribution. I give the floor now to Nigeria speaking for the African Group, to be followed by Tunisia speaking for the Arab Group. Nigeria, please. Nigeria · African Group [41:08]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to deliver this statement on behalf of the African Group. The African Group wishes to express its continued support for the ongoing process and keen interest to conclude within this— with the successful adoption of a 4th Annual Progress Report that would bring us closer to a seamless transition for the current open-ended working group to the future permanent mechanism. As for the Rev. 2 of the report, the African Group wishes to share the following observations. First, the group underscores the importance of addressing the risks and threats associated with the malicious use of ICT in a manner that equally treats the interests and national priorities of all involved states with the aim of securing a safe internet environment. safe, interoperable cyberspace, bearing in mind the trajectory of digitalization that several African states are pursuing in support of their sustainable development aspiration. We are concerned with the overemphasis of threats to CI— that's critical infrastructure and CIA— throughout the report and would like to Reiterate that the discussion on threats should be balanced to take into consideration other threats to ICT security as expressed by various delegations. Second, the group supports the proposed dedicated thematic group on capacity building. We wish to also express our support to paragraph 58 for the future permanent mechanism to continue discussions on the initial report prepared by the UN Secretariat outlining a proposal for the development and operationalization of a UN voluntary fund to support capacity building and we request concrete steps to be taken for its operationalization. Third, the position of African Group has been steadfast and clear on the priority it direct to the issue related to the application of international law on cyberspace. Accordingly, the group is truly disappointed from the removal of the dedicated thematic group on international law in the proposed structure of the future permanent mechanism. This not only risks the loss of more than 4 years of discussion on issues of such importance, but it also risks tampering with elements and pillars of uttermost importance for the African state, as sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs. Accordingly, the African Group steadfastly calls for the restitution of the Dedicated Thematic Group of International Law for the Future Permanent Mechanism to be faithfully reflective of the voices in this open-ended working group over the past years. Fourth, the African Group believes that input from various stakeholders, including civil society, academia, and the private sector, would no doubt add value to the discussion. As such, their engagement with the work of Future Permanent Mechanism will not only enhance the discussion, but provide additional impetus. That said, the African Group reiterates the intergovernmental and state-led nature of the current process as well as the prospective permanent mechanism, and thus cautions against the new proposal on REF II, which might be counterproductive and have a detrimental impetus on the proceedings of such an important mechanism. In conclusion, and accordingly, it is most advisable to continue applying the current modality based on the non-objection basis solely that have been successfully working on the open-ended working group process while continuing discussion on possible options to enhance the participation of stakeholders in our proceedings as well as on the sideline of the formal convening and during the international— I mean, intersessional periods. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Singapore · Chair [45:56]: Thank you very much, Nigeria, for your statement on behalf of the African Group, and please do share with me the text of your Very important statement. Tunisia, to be followed by Indonesia. Tunisia · Arab Group [46:16]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. At the outset, the Arab Group expresses its appreciation for your efforts and the efforts of your team during the previous years and specifically during the current session. We look forward to to a successful conclusion with consensus and the seamless transformation to the permanent future mechanism. This is because the Arab Group highly attaches high importance to ICT security and especially to achieve SDGs. In this context, we would like to mention the establishment of the Ministerial Council for Cybersecurity security in the Arab League and the current work to operationalize this council in full. With regards to Rev. 2, the Arab Group would like to mention the following points. First, the group supports the fact that the future mechanism would be a single-track under the umbrella of the United Nations, with the importance that the decision-making would be consensus-based and would be built on the work of the current OEWG. Second, the Arab Group appreciates the value of the participation of stakeholders in the discussions on ICT security because of their expertise in the, uh, in the realm of multilateralism. However, we find that it is appropriate to maintain the current modalities based on the no objection procedure, and we are cautious about the new proceedings proposed, and we should provide the space for the future chair of the mechanism to To allow stakeholders to participate in this connection, we reiterate the need to commit to only the no objection rule for the participation of stakeholders and to guarantee the participation of parties that enjoy consultative status with the ECOSOC. Next, we believe we should address the threats in a balanced manner and taking into consideration the different threats that face different regions and be equitable in this manner and give due consideration to threats facing critical infrastructure and address issues such as ransomware, and the attacks that target institutions and national bodies, as well as misinformation and targeting of individuals, etc. The group dedicated to this topic must be inclusive and must guarantee respect of states and their sovereignty and non-interference. Fourth, the priority of capacity building enjoys our endorsement and it must continue and must be cross-cutting with all other dedicated thematic groups and discuss knowledge transfer as well. And here we welcome the dedicated group for this manner within the future mechanism. However, we find it strange that there are no clear procedures to operationalize the trust fund, and we warn of the impact of this, and we call here to add specific text on this topic. the issue of the use of force. Fifth and finally, the issue of the applicability of international law in cyberspace enjoys importance and agreement in the Arab Group, especially in light of the developments in our region, which add an additional important dimension to the issue of the applicability of law in cyberspace, especially as regards to sovereignty and the applicability of the issue of the use of force and the non-interference in state domestic affairs and states' right to defend their territory against cyberattacks. In this connection, the Arab Group position is firm in this regard that an independent thematic group must be dedicated to the applicability of international law in cyberspace without committing to a specific product or predetermined results and, and to base such a group on the framework for state responsibility. And accordingly, the REV 2, as it currently has deleted this part, does not give due consideration to our group's position, and therefore we call for a return to the original text which has provided for 3 thematic groups. Thank you very much. Singapore · Chair [52:16]: Thank you very much, Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group. Thank you for your statement and I hope you can also share with Please give me the English text if you have one with my delegation. Indonesia, to be followed by Mexico. Indonesia [52:37]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First and foremost, Mr. Chair, Indonesia would like to extend our highest appreciation to you and your team for your hard work in producing the Rev. 2 within a very brief timeframe. For our delegation, the Rev 2 represents a constructive middle ground, one that serves as a solid basis for moving forward. Mr. Chair, in this regard, allow us to offer our brief reflections on Rev 2. First, Indonesia appreciates the retention of key elements that reinforce capacity building as a foundational pillar of our cooperation including but not limited to the recommendation to establish a dedicated global ICT security cooperation and capacity building portal, as outlined in paragraph 56. The standalone dedicated thematic group 2 on the 5 pillars of the framework to accelerate the delivery of ICT security capacity building will pave the way for fostering more tailored demand-driven, driven, and result-oriented capacity-building efforts, which in turn will bridge existing digital divides. Second, Indonesia welcomes further deliberations on international law, including the possibility of developing a legally binding instrument. We appreciate the Chair's wisdom in navigating various proposals to produce a balanced outcome, including on this matter. Guided by the spirit of consensus, our delegation is willing to exercise our flexibility to the proposed dedicated thematic groups as outlined in your Rev. 2. Third, the last one, Indonesia values stakeholders' participation in the future permanent mechanism. Their perspective can provide better insights on the current cyber landscape. In this regard, we are of the view that the participation of any stakeholders in the future permanent mechanism should be in conformity with existing established mechanism and the spirit, purposes, and the principles of the UN Charter. Mr. Chair, we feel that the Rev 2 is not an overnight work, but as a culmination of our collective dedication dialogue, and hard work over the past 5 years. Therefore, rest assured of Indonesia's continued commitment towards a consensus-based outcome that reflects our shared principles and aspirations. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Singapore · Chair [55:29]: Thank you very much, Indonesia, for your statement and also your willingness to look at the document in a constructive way. I give the floor to Mexico to be followed by Ghana. Mexico · group of countries of Latin America [55:47]: Thank you, Chair. This statement is being delivered on behalf of a group of countries of Latin America who are committed to a constructive outcome from this We appreciate this opportunity to present our considerations and reflections on the draft final report, and we reiterate our willingness to continue contributing to the negotiating process with a view to achieving a mechanism that reflects the interests and concerns of all member states. We are pleased to see the maintenance of Cluster 2 regarding accelerating delivery of ICT security capacity building. We believe that this approach should not be limited solely to delivery of capacity. Rather, it is essential that the approach be complete and comprehensive encompassing the stages of identification, planning, delivery, and operationalization of capacity building. Capacities. In this way, it will be possible to ensure that the assistance provided is sustainable and effective over the long term, tailored to the specific needs of the countries, and associated with continuous monitoring to ensure its real impact. In paragraph 8, section B, we consider it relevant not to limit the discussions focused on building capacities only to needs. The exercise must be broader than this and allow for a real process of matchmaking, which loops in not only the needs of the countries but also involves the countries' available capacity and available resources. This will ensure that assistance is better aligned with national and regional contexts enabling more effective and sustainable cooperation. As regards the modalities of the dedicated thematic groups that are mentioned in paragraph 10, and considering also the need to ensure the full inclusion of delegations not only to attend the deliberations but to actively participate in them, we reiterate that It should be specified that all meetings should have simultaneous interpretation services in all of the official languages of the United Nations. This is essential to ensure that all delegations can participate equitably regardless of their proficiency in the official languages of the United Nations. And at the end of the paragraph, it states states that hybrid meetings shall be considered informal meetings, and this actually could lead to a misinterpretation, namely the notion that the Secretariat does not need to include this requirement in program planning, but actually this would impact the inclusivity of the process. Finally, we reiterate our commitment to continue contributing to the process constructively In this regard, we will send a concrete language proposal to you shortly for consideration by your team chair. We thank you for your attention and we look forward to continuing to work together towards a truly effective and inclusive mechanism. Thank you. Singapore · Chair [59:23]: Thank you very much, Mexico, for your comments and your willingness to look at the text constructively. Ghana, to be followed by Egypt. Ghana [59:34]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would first like to express our sincere appreciation to you and your team for your tireless efforts in preparing the second revised draft. Ghana aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of the African Group, and we wish to make the following remarks in our national capacity. Mr. Chair, We welcome and truly appreciate the inclusion of the concept of security by design, as highlighted in paragraph 23. We also take note of its further reinforcement in paragraph 34, which we view as a positive step in mainstreaming this approach. In addition, we commend the emphasis placed on strengthening cooperation between computer emergency response teams and computer security incidents response teams. Thank you. Response teams, as reflected in paragraph 29. With respect to Section D on international law, my delegation has observed that paragraph 43 does not include scenario-based discussions. We wish to reiterate the value of such exercises, which foster practical learning and promote the effective application of legal and normative frameworks. And in this regard, we propose the inclusion of scenario-based exercises exercises as a core element in capacity-building activities and encourage its reflection in paragraph 43, subparagraph . In paragraph 53, we also see merit in recognizing the Women in Cyber Fellowship as a meaningful initiative for capacity-building, and we would support its integration into the text to highlight the importance of inclusivity and gender-responsive approaches in our work. Mr. Chair, regarding the section on regular institutional dialogue, my delegation has noted with some concern the reduction in the number of dedicated thematic groupings. The current draft does not appear to provide sufficient clarity on how the various focus areas will be discussed and effectively distributed within the allocated timeframe, nor does it clearly outline how each thematic pillar would be given adequate attention and priority. As a possible way forward, and in the spirit of constructive engagement, we would propose considering either a clearer framework for the internal distribution of time among the focus areas or the restoration of the previously proposed groupings in the earlier drafts in order to ensure that all substantive pillars receive the depth of discussion they require. I thank you. Singapore · Chair [1:02:06]: Thank you very much. Before we go to the next speakers, I was just looking at the time. Yeah, but thank you very much, Ghana, for your statement. We have a few more speakers, and of course I intend to wrap up at 1 o'clock so that you can go back and continue your internal discussions, but I'm very happy to take preliminary views as they come. Egypt, to be followed by Türkiye. Egypt, please. Egypt [1:02:41]: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Egypt is taking the floor to share its reaction to Ref 2 of the draft final report as circulated last night, and we align with the African and Arab Group statements delivered earlier by Tunisia— by Nigeria and Tunisia. We recognize your efforts in producing the revised version, and we maintain our commendment of your constantly diligent and serious leadership. This delegation, similar to numerous other developing countries, has consistently been vocal in supporting your efforts and reiterating confidence in your leadership, and consequently has lent its brought support to your zero draft as well as the Rev. 1. On this basis, and with a spirit of mutual respect and candor, we will not shy away from expressing our serious disappointment with the number of alterations that were introduced to the version at hand. Chairperson, Egypt deeply regrets the omission of a dedicated thematic group for discussions on the application of international law. We were disconcerted by the proposal to block this avenue and disappointed by the favorable response to it. The removal of a dedicated space for international law application deepens our fears of the mindset with which some states and groups approach the future permanent mechanism with, and the interest to maintain and reinforce ambiguities and uncertainties that may make the cyber arena even less safe. Our experience with the systematic and repeated violations of international law including international humanitarian law, in the Middle East, including through the use of ICT capabilities, naturally informs our views in this domain. The Group on International Law, along with the Group on Alleviating Capacity Building, were the source of balance vis-à-vis DTG I and its everything, everywhere, all at once approach. With the balance tilted, we are deeply concerned that developing countries without reservoirs of guidance, consultants, advisors, partnerships, and working papers might be being drawn into a track where they are inherently disadvantaged and lagging behind, a situation where questioning any unfavorable aspects of the status quo or application of some of the most basic principles could be very challenging. The initial configuration adopted by the Chair and to which we contributed significantly, provided a balanced comfort zone and allowed us to deprioritize support to a pillars approach that mirrors the agenda items of the plenary. We urge you, Mr. Chairperson, to continue your efforts to address this gap. We are open to a reformulation of the dropped group to read: follow-up to matters related to Sections C and D of the 4th Report of the 2021-2025 Open-Ended Working Group as a possible compromise. Finally, on the modalities of stakeholders' engagement, we maintain our conviction of the sufficiency of the existing modalities under the current OEWG, and we do not see merits in the additional consultative layers that will overload the chairperson of the future payment mechanism without necessarily resolving any potential divergence Chairperson, moving to the report itself, this delegation had minimal observations on Rev. 1 and thanks you for partially accommodating the few suggestions we put forward, particularly in paragraphs 14 and 22. We welcome the useful clarification at paragraph 33 under Section C. Thank you. On the relationship between respective obligations and existing or future norms. On the other hand, there are a number of revisions in this version that we are not in a position to support. The pervasive deletions in paragraph 38, which dismiss the simple step of circulation of a non-exhaustive list of proposals comprised of 4 categories of proposals. The deletions in the chapeau of paragraph 42, as they suppress factual capturing of actual discussions that took place on matters including state responsibility, due diligence, international humanitarian law, and the possibility of additional legally binding obligations. The deletion of the former paragraph 43 that suggested that how international law applies in the use of ICTs as it's related to the specificities of the ICT environment could be discussed in the future permanent mechanism. Finally, under the recommendations portion of Section F on capacity building, we regret that the draft report is not taking concrete steps to operationalize the Voluntary Trust Fund. Without the UN Trust Fund and with their portal only confined to a modular approach that supports the FPM, developing countries are entering the post- OEWG era without meaningful and specific commitments to usher in transformative change in capacity building. The report needs, as a bare minimum, to recognize the need for a UN-led capacity building vehicle which is supported with sufficient, adequate, and predictable resources. In conclusion, we remain committed to constructively engage with a view of arriving at a reasonable, fair and balanced landing zone, a future permanent mechanism that does not lean against the less advantaged and inherently more vulnerable. Thank you, Chair. Singapore · Chair [1:08:31]: Thank you very much, Egypt, for your important statement and also for your very constructive approach. Please do share your statement not only with me but with all Turkey, to be followed by Republic of Korea. Türkiye [1:08:52]: Thank you for your tireless and dedicated work for the preparation of the revised text. I would like to briefly express our views on the new version. Chair, Turkey supports the establishment of dedicated thematic groups as outlined in the final draft. We recognize the value of such cross-cutting multi-actor mechanisms in advancing structured cooperation across the 5 established pillars, namely international law, norms, confidence-building measures, capacity building, and regular institutional dialogue. However, Turkey underlines that the leadership and primacy of states must be preserved throughout these proceed— processes. Participation of non-governmental stakeholders should remain as appropriate on a voluntary and non-binding basis, and guided by principles of transparency and inclusivity, without compromising intergovernmental decision-making. We further stress that the thematic areas of focus for DTGs must remain aligned with the existing OEWG pillars. Thank you. Singapore · Chair [1:10:08]: Thank you very much, Cho Kye-ae, for your statement and important contribution. Republic of Korea, to be followed by Colombia. Republic of Korea [1:10:22]: Thank you, Chair. I would like to join other speakers in thanking you for your dedication Chair, I mean, I understand your job is very difficult. No one, I think, in this room would be— would envy your position right now. Chair, but regarding paragraph 16 of threat section, you know, we note that you added could potentially to revise 1. Chair, we've been very consistent in explaining the argument why we need, you know, the revised version 1 language at least. I am compelled to request that could potentially should be deleted. Chair, I must say that this threat section is a very important part. In fact, this is the substance of our negotiation, and this is the very reason why we are here and discussing the report. So, you know, as I said, we've been so consistent about rationale, and I don't see you and other member states want to hear the rationale again here. You know, we're such a— I mean, we do not have plenty of time for that. So I am just simply asking you to— you and other members to think about this part again because— I think we have plenty of time. Just one more thing. This part reads, you know, without could potentially, it only reads impact international peace and security. If I want the best for this part, it shouldn't be just impact. It's not just impacting, it is a threat to international security and peace. So I think impact has already various levels. Various degree of influence in it. So I think impact should at least, you know, reflect our government's position and other members that I remember argument as well. So I would like to politely request again that could potentially should be deleted and at least we should go back to revised revised version 1. Thank you, Chair. Singapore · Chair [1:13:12]: Thank you very much, Republic of Korea. Your comments are well noted. Let's continue to hear the views of other delegations as well, especially with regard to this specific point. Colombia, please. Colombia [1:13:31]: Thank you, Chair. In relation to the revised version of the final draft, we have the following remarks to share. In relation to this Section B, Existing and Potential Threats, we welcome the incorporation of security by design in paragraph 3. We note the elimination of the paragraph on AI security systems and on the importance of using ICTs in accordance With the Framework on Responsible Behavior, these are important references, and so we suggest the following constructive language. Use of ICTs by states in a manner consistent with the Framework of Responsible State Behavior in the Use of ICTs, which includes voluntary norms, obligations under international law, and CBMs, fosters international peace and security, trust, and stability between states. In relation to norms, rules, and principles, we regret the removal of the checklist. This was an important outcome of this working group. However, we can be flexible with your proposal of considering it under a future mechanism. On the section on international law, we welcome paragraph 42 and the working group document elements from the inter-regional working groups and their inclusion. On the section on capacity building, we note the removal of the paragraph on the mapping exercise on capacity building. We felt that this was fundamental and would contribute to the work of the future mechanism. We call for it to be reincorporated. In line with the proposal made yesterday by Brazil, we welcome the inclusion of the roundtable on capacity building. And finally, on the section on RID, Regular Institutional Dialogue, we note the elimination of the paragraph on the future mechanism and how this would facilitate operationalization and future development of all existing processes and previous processes. This— reincorporating this is essential to ensure the sustainability and an adequate and smooth transition between the OEWG and the future mechanism, we call for it to be reincorporated as well. Chair, as regards the annex on the future mechanism, we wish to make the following brief remarks. On the thematic groups, we especially highlight and welcome the group on capacity building. As we have said numerous times, this is a priority for us in the future mechanism, like the African and Arab groups and other delegations. We regret the removal of the group on international law. As we have stated, the applicability of international law to cyberspace considers to be a matter where we need to make progress in terms of common understanding. Including a group on this would help us apply the UN structure to these issues. As indicated by the delegation of Mexico on behalf of a group of countries, it's fundamental for the thematic groups meetings to have simultaneous interpretation to facilitate an inclusive service, and so we view this inclusion favorably. Also, the changes to the periodicity of the meetings and the plenaries is understanding, but we should also include the fact that the regional group Thank you very much, Colombia, for your contribution and also for your very constructive approach. Singapore · Chair [1:17:12]: Friends, it's almost 12:50 and I intend to adjourn at 1 o'clock so that we do not impose on the interpreters again. We might need their flexibility much later. And the speakers list has grown to about more than 10 speakers, which is a good sign that people are ready to take the floor. But before we adjourn for this morning, I wanted to share some comments and also give some comments by way of First of all, thank you all very much for your very constructive tone and your very constructive approach. As chair, I would say mea culpa. All the errors of sins of commission and omission are entirely mine. Everything that you have seen in the text That has been deleted but you wanted to retain it. Those are errors of my omission. I've added elements in order to attain a balance. Those are errors of my commission. So mea maxima culpa. But I did that, as I explained, in order for us collectively to achieve an overall balance that will get us to consensus tomorrow. We need to be focused, we need to be pragmatic, we need to prioritize. That's point number one. Number 2, I think the series of comments that have been made so far relate to Different specific paragraphs in the text. If it's a question of a minor tweak that we can make as a way to adjust the balance and maintain consensus, I think that's the kind of solutions we need to be looking at. Thank you. In the context of the text, some of you have also asked for reinstating what has been deleted, and the reasons for the deletion of some of these proposals or wordings or errors of omission on my part are the result of very specific objections that have been conveyed to So in my judgment, and I'm willing to explain these to the delegations concerned, as to why a reinstatement of some of these very specific elements in the main part of the final report will meet with objection and may hinder consensus. But if there are fixes and improvements we can make, I'm open to it. I am not fixated with any particular crafting or wording. What I'm fixated is a consensus outcome tomorrow. That's my single-minded focus at this point. So if you have solutions to suggest or fixes to suggest, better still if you're able to work out fixes that you think will not meet any objection, then please share them with me. Second cluster of comments relate to the annex, which is regular institution dialogue. And here the question of dedicated thematic groups has been mentioned by many of you. And of course, there's no perfect solution. We started with 5 dedicated thematic groups, then we went to 4, then we went to 3. Hmm. But there were so many different proposals and requests in terms of how we should slice and dice the dedicated thematic groups that the— that the 3 that are put forward in the Rev. 1, not Not last night, but before that. Out of the 3, there were very strong red line objections to one of them. What am I to do with that? So we ended up with 2, and for me too, that has been a source of disappointment. And so I hear Egypt very well. I think they articulated their points very well. African group as well made this point. But the fact that we now have 2 dedicated thematic groups, In the context of Annex C of the Future Permanent Mechanism, which would allow for a discussion on the different issues, gives us hope that all issues in the 5 pillars will be covered. I think there was a question from Malaysia right at the outset. With regard to the first dedicated thematic group, and I wanted to explain first that the 2 dedicated thematic groups are crafted to make sure that they are cross-cutting and policy-oriented. That idea of cross-cutting and policy-oriented comes from Annex C of the last report. And Malaysia's question was to address specific challenges, but what are these specific challenges? That's a very good question and a fair question. But I would humbly submit that this opens the door to another conversation for you, all members. And each one of you and groups within this process can say that, for me, this is my specific challenge. But the question is, is that something that we need to address now before Friday, or is this something that the new mechanism can take up, maybe at the organizational session? And so I would humbly submit that the idea of a specific challenge has a focusing element so that we are differentiating the dedicated thematic group from the substantive plenary sessions which will be of a general nature and the idea of the dedicated thematic group is to go deeper focusing on specific issues and specific challenges. So I see this as an opportunity for delegations to come before the new mechanism at the organizational session and to say, look, these are specific challenges for my group. It needs to be addressed. So it doesn't prejudice anyone's position, but it opens the door to a conversation. I welcome your desire for me to resolve all your problems, but I'm incapable of addressing all the issues that have been identified, let alone the issues that needs to be identified for us to attain consensus. So I'm trying to disentangle the issues such that we focus on what we need to do now this week on Friday to attain consensus. There are issues of sequencing, the number of meetings. All of that can be taken up in the new mechanism at the organizational session, and that will require some robust discussions as to how you sequence the discussions and what are the different issues or what might be the challenges, etc. So I wanted to keep that— I wanted you to keep that in mind. And there were also quite a number of comments about the integrated policy and cross-cutting dedicated thematic group on capacity building. Again, this is an overarching title, and my understanding is would be that every aspect of capacity building can be discussed in that dedicated thematic group. So if delegations feel that aspect A versus aspect X has not been addressed in this report, my sense is that the door is not closed to any issue. Likewise, for sequencing, whether it's held which time of the year, when, etc. These are organizational issues for the global mechanism to address. And then finally, the cluster of issues relating to capacity building. I think quite a number of you— African group, Arab group— again, I share the disappointment. There were a range of capacity building proposals, but also many have said that We need to proceed in an incremental and step-by-step manner. And for those of you who have followed this process, you know that from day one I've been the biggest advocate of capacity building, and I remain so. But we need to move in a way that brings everyone together. So from the main section, several aspects were deleted. Errors of omission on my part, but again with the aim to attain consensus. The last thing I wanted to address was NGO modalities, and perhaps at this point I'd like to ask the Secretariat to plead with the interpreters to give me 5 more minutes, even though I hadn't intended to do this. The NGO modalities is up to us to decide here in this working group, and I wanted to share with you that in the First Committee there are precedents where there are working groups with a range of modalities. on outer space put forward by the United Kingdom, Resolution 7820, which calls for a final decision to be made by the open-ended working group on participation. There was a Russian-proposed open-ended working group on outer space. Which was silent on the question of modalities, thereby adhering to existing mechanisms in the UN system. And then there was also a decision put forward by Egypt which convened a new Open-Ended Working Group in which the decision was made, consideration on a non-objection basis, and to bring the list to the attention of the working group for a final decision. So we have 3 different options for a working group that was set up by the First Committee. And in some instances in the past, delegations, but these decisions were adopted by a vote. So I share with you the frustrations that have been expressed by you. I think China mentioned this, African Group, Egypt, and a few others. I'm ready for anything that you can agree by consensus, and perhaps the delegations of Egypt, UK and Russia could come together and think of some creative proposals on these modalities, learning from the experience of the previous example. But the modalities in this final report, I wanted to say, was the middle-of-the-road attempt on my part given the views expressed expressed by 2 very different viewpoints. On the one hand, Canada actually had put forward a proposal essentially calling for decision by majority voting and rules of procedure of the General Assembly. This too has been adopted in different committees and by the General Assembly. On the other hand, we have the existing practice of the NGO Committee that takes its decisions. But the proposal that I had put forward in the draft final report retains the right of countries to express an objection. It retains that. It is a modification of the modalities we adopted in April 2022. But it provides for that additional step of consultations by the Chair, but the Chair is obliged to bring it back if there is no consensus. But then it comes back to the Working Group for— to the Future Permanent Mechanism for a decision, and we have decided on the decision-making modalities of the Future Permanent Mechanism. In Annex C, Decision-making in the Future Permanent Mechanism has been agreed as a modality. How that modality is going to be operationalized is something that has to be dealt with in the Future Permanent Mechanism. So, my dear friends, I appeal to you. The NGO issue or stakeholder issue has been on my shoulders for 5 years. And for 5 years I've been cracking my head. If there's a possibility to vote in this working group, let's do it. Let's vote on it. That has been the UN practice. But all of you and all of us have decided that we will work on a consensus basis. That's the mandate of this Working Group 75/240. Of this working group, of which I am the chair. So I have to abide by consensus basis. And precisely because we are trying to establish consensus around modalities for stakeholder participation, we have to accept a modality that everyone can accept. So for some of you, what I have proposed in the draft final report is not adequate because other working groups in the First Committee have gone further. So I'll just leave that with this— leave you with this thought. Think about it over lunch and if you can reach out to each other and maybe Canada and Chile can also contribute to the discussion by talking to Egypt as well as the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. And if you are able to suggest some very specific language, I'm happy to look at it, but I will need it this afternoon for the conference room paper. So thank you very much, my friends, for your patience. We have a list of speakers. We will continue with that. I wish you a pleasant lunch. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.