Session to prepare the draft text of the rules of procedure for the Conference of the States Parties to the UN Convention against Cybercrime of the Ad Hoc Committee, established by General Assembly resolution 74/247 [Meeting 9]

I hope you had some rest and that you're ready to work hard today. I will start with an announcement by the secretariats, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Secretary would like to inform that the following documents are available on the website of the ad hoc committee in all official languages. Firstly, the draft report, and secondly, the Chair's proposal for the draft rules of procedure as presented today. Okay, apologies, I'll just have to repeat that for the interpreters, just one moment. Just while we're waiting, this laptop was left in one of the side meeting rooms. So if this belongs to anyone, can they come forward and collect from the secretariat? It's in a Doha conference bag. Sorry, we're just waiting on the interpretation service. One moment.

Israel.

Good morning. Thank you. Just a short confirmation, next question. The document you are referring to is 291L18, right? This is the last version of the text that the Chair is offering?

It's back, thank you.

Correct. The two documents we're referring to are the draft report, which is L17 and L17 add/add one, and L18 is the chair's proposal for draft rules of procedure. They are both available on the website at the moment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. The committee went through the chair's proposal yesterday, which is now in all languages. We had two open-ended informal consultations in the afternoon and evening. An alternative proposal on Rule 17 was proposed and shared at the evening informal, and I would like to.

Present it as an attempt by the Chair, so I would ask.

The Secretary to project it on screen.

I would request the delegation, the Mexican delegation, if he could explain the rationale of this compromise proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Good morning to you and to all colleagues. And with your permission, firstly, let me start by expressing two things. My utmost appreciation for the kind words that you delivered to myself, to my persona yesterday. And I take that as a recognition of what we try to convey by crafting and presenting and sharing this proposal. We're doing it with the best of intentions in order to have not only an agreement per se, but an agreement which is technically solid and viable. And an agreement that is taken into consideration and is safeguarding the main concerns expressed by delegations. Hence, we will move by stating, by sharing with all delegations here present that That phrase which is in bold and the objective in bold was simply to highlight the issues that are crucial for understanding this rule in its totality, the interaction between the different paragraphs which has to be considered in that manner and not individually or autonomously. So that paragraph, I'm sorry, that phrase, that reference to resolution 1996/31 is really not needed. is not needed because we're referring to NGOs with a consultative status. And in the UN, they get consultative status via the implementation of that resolution through the NGO committee. So it's a repetition. Hence, we could do without. Yet, for a number of delegations, it's important to have that clarity, even if it implied repeating concepts which otherwise would be implicit or making explicit concepts which would be, at least for me, perfectly clear in an implicit manner. So we can leave that reference to resolution 1996/31. And by doing so, there's an added value, another beauty. That resolution contains a number of issues, conditions, conditions, we can call it in different manners that are required for NGOs in order to obtain the consultative status. So they're setting a number of bars. So it's a good reference. Then we go to paragraph two. Paragraph two is basically reflecting two issues crucial and very clear. One issue is the issue of how we consider as states the applications, our requests of applications by NGOs which doesn't have a consultative status. Firstly, we reflect what is the role of the Bureau in this sense, and we have been as a delegation very clear on what is the actual role of the Bureau. And secondly, We don't need to reflect again as we were doing in your original proposal for OP3 some of those conditions set for in resolution 1996/31 because again we are mentioning what they are but most importantly because this conference of the parties will not become a new different alternative NGO committee and will not grant consultative status And most importantly, for those delegations or no, sorry for not for those delegations, for any delegation. We will maintain their ability prerogative to object to the participation for whatever reason that they will a an arbolate or will raise a for a objecting to the participation of one of these participants in these categories. It's something that if we make a small listing or not is actually secondary, not to say irrelevant. The relevancy is that the conference, the state parties will have the possibility to object and the conference will have to deal with that objection and to solve that objection. So delegations will recognize that normally it's a paragraphs A and B of paragraph two, appear in just one single big paragraph. If we leave just for clarity that those two paragraphs doesn't change anything other than making it more clear or bringing an attention to those two phrases on its own, so we can leave that separation that you proposed to us yesterday morning. We go down, please. I already mentioned, I will repeat that the purpose of or the sense of deleting OP3 And don't be three. My apologies. Paragraph three is because it's not really adding anything at all. It's already covered, but for what we are mentioning in both paragraphs one and paragraph two, and also will be reflected in how we proceed is the following on paragraph four and onwards. We go to paragraph four. I'm highlighting a proposal that you put to our consideration yesterday involved again to underline the importance of this sentence and the implications of it or the significance of this proposal. We of the confer the observer status. And this will be a not only for the sessions of the conference, but also of the subsidiary bodies because they are subsidiary to the conference. And we're respecting the proposal or the language that you submitted to us yesterday of saying that that will be valid for a subsequent session. The issue is very simple. The regular session of the conference take place in one week, but the session as a whole takes place during whatever we're going to decide two years, three years, a year, etc. not only one week. So whenever the conference will be in a position of pronouncing itself again, will be at the next conference. So that is not changing the reality, just simply expressing it in black and white. And most importantly, we are making it clear, explicit, even if it's a reiteration, but we're making it for the benefit and the tranquility of all delegations that the conference can revisit State parties to the conference can revisit their decision if they have a motivation, which we don't need to qualify, if they have a motivation to revisit their decision. That's also reality. We're expressing it explicitly black and white. Then we move down to paragraph five. So the issue of not neglecting, renouncing to the intergovernmental character of the conference or its subsidiary bodies is crystal clear by respecting the usual formulation for the chapeau of paragraph five. Decision taking is only for the parties. Decision taking is not for other categories, especially not for the category envisaged in Rule 17. And here by adding and its subsidiary bodies, we make that issue clear and we take care of the need of not needing to repeat an additional sub paragraph repeating basically the same prerogatives for the two meetings. We're clear that the prerogatives apply for both, but provided that that meeting is public, i.e. open, and not private, i.e. close for some for the participation of some categories of participants. And we do that a twofold bearing in mind if it's a public or private meeting, which actually could allow us not to repeat in accordance to rule 40, or we can say in accordance to rule 40 without speaking out loud what is actually the sense of rule 40, but we have decided to propose it twice to be absolutely clear and explicit, even though it's repeating itself twice, not only in relation to the rule that already exists, but by quoting the rule and then referring to the rule per se. So a lot of clarity and certainty for everyone. That's the purpose. Then in separate B, C, and D, we have simply changed the ordering to make it more to give a more logical sequence that participants are going to receive the documents of the conference. They may write submitting writing positions, views, etcetera, and then they may make oral statements. Of course, they will not be able to make oral statements if they are not participating in a meeting because that meeting is private and they are not included in that meeting a very simple example of these realities is basically what you put for the consideration of this meeting and was accepted this has been the whole week a public meeting we are here but you decided you realized that we needed and we agree that we needed to meet in private so yesterday afternoon we changed the nature of a public meeting for a private meeting with the participation only of those delegations that needed to be and could be accepted into a private meeting. So we're saying that in a clear manner, in an explicit, even reiterative manner, just to give certainties and clarities for every delegation involved. We go down, please. By doing what I mentioned in SAPARA A, and B, C and D reorder, we don't need the separate E. That's why we're striking it out. It's already covered. Then we go to paragraph C, six, and at the very end, we're including the phrase in bold. The issue here is that we're dealing with an issue, cybercrime, which A, requires cooperation from everyone involved, and B, it does have an enemy, it does have a counterpart. It's confrontational, but not among ourselves that we need to cooperate, but against the cyber criminals. The cyber criminals in this particular context or system that we're establishing are the others, not all of us. Hence, we have heard that abundantly from every single quarter, We are not looking for, we're not interested, and we don't seek to conduct a confrontational atmosphere in this new setting. And we're basically reflecting that black and white in writing at the very end in which we highlight what is the purpose of this new regime that we're establishing, which is basically to promote cooperation and hence the naming and shaming It's simply out of place for this new regime that we're establishing. That's the purpose and that's the suggestion. We're suggesting to delete paragraph seven simply because it's an organizational matter, not only for the conduct of the public sessions or the plenary meetings of the conference itself, but also an organizational matter for this category of participants themselves. If they want to organize in one way or the other, is their issue, is their prerogative. What the president of the conference will do will organize the list of speakers, the debates, the interactions on plenary meetings. So having this is adding nothing so we can do without. It's an organizational matter. And the last paragraph is an issue which in which if we leave it or not is of little added value. The president in the conduct of the regular meeting of the conference, the one week meeting, but also in the period that will go from that regular meeting to the next meeting of the conference can undertake different initiatives, approaches, possibilities, including this one. So if we put it or not doesn't change, but if we don't put it, we will have a cleaner, neater version of rule 17. I would say, but partly let me underline something. As I mentioned yesterday, this is a very honest proposal to try to build an agreement, an agreement that is inclusive of everyone, not just a couple of parties or players of everyone. Hence, if there's some fine tuning needed, more than welcome. Actually, That's an important issue to highlight. That fine tuning can happen and it would be actually going against the spirit of our proposal and the intention of giving this proposal, putting this proposal in your hands, Mr. Chairperson, and leave it to you to guide us under your leadership for finding that agreement. The second issue is that in our view, if we find an agreement on some of the formulations, for example, the reference to the nature of the meetings for this rule, then we can reflect the same for some other categories of participants, an issue raised abundantly yesterday by the Iranian delegation and some other days by some other delegations or groups. So We leave it in your hands, Mr. Chairperson, we leave the explanation here. Needless to say that we're available to be approached by any participants in this meeting for any further clarification, but especially not from yourself. Thank you very much for the trust and your kind words, Mr. Chairperson.

I thank Mexico and I'm very glad that you came up with this proposal, which I even put my Mexican tie today, this morning. But, and I would embrace it and make it the chair proposal. So I really encourage you to look into it with a spirit of openness. We have, there are two aspects that I want us to be aware of. First is that we're not going to have a vote on this issue. So consensus requires going the extra mile because that's the only way you get it. The second thing is the time frame. I mean deciding this now, having this draft concluded now will release energy to discuss other things that are equally relevant to this convention that was open to signature. So we have to put in the balance the fact that if we stick to our national positions and original positions and we don't reach a consensus, we will pay a price. Of course, If we have something that is very far from what our interests are, we also pay a price. So we have to meet in between. So I invite any reactions on this proposal. And we will have also at 12:15, we'll break into informal consultations in room Boardroom A. Boardroom A, but still now I would like to listen to you on this proposal.

Thank you.

UK, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I couldn't endorse or fully support what you've just said more. And I think that when it comes to these discussions, It is about just setting the bottom floor so that we can have more time to discuss tackling cybercrime. And I think that's what our distinguished colleague from Mexico also said in his statement. We're all here to try and tackle the issues that are in the convention, child sexual exploitation and abuse, global fraud. The UK is here to do those things and given that, We've got an excellent proposal, I think, here from our distinguished colleague from Mexico, which is fully aligned, I think, with the spirit of consensus that we all have to feel a little bit of pain. It's not a proposal that we're 100% happy with, but I don't think in my five years here in Vienna, I've ever been 100% happy with anything. So, I do think that there is great merit in this proposal. I think it's one that we can support and discuss and use as a basis going forward. So I really hope that everybody heeds your call to engage constructively with this because I think what we've heard in the last few days has been a lot of political discussions around turning Vienna into Geneva. We do not want to turn Vienna into Geneva. Vienna is a technical-based part of the UN where we can actually get stuff done in the real world, the world outside of this bubble. And whether that means bringing our law enforcement together or getting internet service providers together or anybody from industry with civil society. We heard from the Philippines yesterday about civil society groups dealing with victims of child sexual abuse. These are the meetings we need to have so that we can actually have a consequence in the real world, the world outside of these walls. So we think this is a very positive step forward and we hope that the rest of the room can at least come together to discuss it and try and not add too much that would break the fragile consensus that you talked about. So we're behind you and we welcome and thank the distinguished delegate from Mexico for bringing this forward. Thank you.

I thank you and I now give the floor to New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair. At the outset of this week, we spoke about New Zealand's priorities for these rules to ensure a conference can work in a way that is inclusive, transparent, consensus-based, as called for by paragraph 57.3 of the Convention. New Zealand seeks to secure the participation of stakeholders throughout the architecture of the conference, subsidiary bodies and mechanisms. Since then, we have listened closely to the priorities of member states. We have heard that for our friends from smaller countries, geographically isolated countries, that representation is important. Inclusion and proxy voting is important. We have heard the sensible calls by the vast majority of member states here seeking the inclusion of signatories and non-signatories in subsidiary bodies. This goes to the principle of the equality of member states here at the UN. We have also heard from some states their concerns around the perceived automatic accreditation of stakeholders and their concerns about the conduct of stakeholders. In this regard, we greatly appreciate the efforts of Mexico to provide a constructive proposal. We look now at the text presented by the Chair, and we understand and we support the rationale. We understand that some States need to see an accreditation process for non-EcoSoc stakeholders. But the specifics of the lengthy process that have been previously outlined by some states is a vast departure from New Zealand's expectation that those stakeholders already accredited to the ad hoc committee be permitted to participate in the conference and its bodies. We have, however, listened very carefully to what kind of process some states are seeking, and we are willing to work to find an outcome that can be acceptable such as presented here today. We also see constructive attempts to build parameters around the manner of stakeholder participation. We would need to consider further this language presented today, but we believe an agreeable solution is possible on this paragraph. We'll leave our comments there, but want to reaffirm New Zealand's support for you, Chair, and our willingness to find a consensus outcome. Thank you.

I thank New Zealand. Russian Federation?

Thank you, distinguished Chairperson. I will be speaking Russian, of course. Firstly, just like yesterday, we would like to express thanks to our energetic Mexican colleague for looking for compromises on an intractable issue. Like surgeons say, you can really address the root cause of a problem. And how can you do that? Well, quite easily. You can just delete rule 17 as a whole, just as surgeons would do. remove the appendicitis. But we don't want to do that, of course. In that connection, we listened carefully to the explanations from our Mexican colleague. Essentially, he explained to us everything that we already know. Nevertheless, we listened very attentively. Now allow me some brief comments on the text, very brief ones indeed. As we see it, the first four paragraphs, paragraph one, two, and then sub-paragraphs a and b, essentially these are the Chair's proposal. with the exception, as we constantly say, that in B, the reference to in accordance with Rule 60, that this is completely unacceptable. This is about the rights of states to make sovereign decisions. if they support the participation of an NGO or not. But the decision is made by the session. The session, whoever makes what decision, it notes that states are in agreement or that they're not in agreement, and that's it. We don't believe that it's necessary under this agenda item to hold voting of any kind that would trample on the rights of states. Therefore, we consistently propose the deletion of the reference to that rule, and we wonder why it's not done. Now, with respect to the other proposals from our distinguished Mexican colleague, be so kind as to scroll down, please. Thank you very much. If we look at paragraph five, subparagraph a, The main idea of our distinguished Mexican colleague here is built around Rule 40. Well, what is Rule 40? Rule 40 is general principles. In the current wording that is submitted by the distinguished Chairperson, we have serious reservations with respect to Rule 40. We just haven't got to that yet and we would like to discuss it further, but specifically in the text of the Chair it stated that plenary sessions of the Conference should as a rule, as a rule, I underscore that, be open and also those of the subsidiary bodies. unless the Conference decides otherwise. We have serious objections to the inclusion in paragraph 40, or rather Rule 40, of the wording 'and subsidiary bodies'. Thus, as we see it, the wording of Rule 40 just states that the plenary sessions of the Conference should, as a rule, be open So only the plenary sessions of the conference and no mention should be made of subsidiary bodies. On the other hand, today we heard an example provided by the distinguished Mexican delegate to the effect that, of course, at the decision of the chairperson, any session can be made open or closed. But we don't put that into the rule. Why should we put it into the rules? It's completely clear anyway, by definition. Scroll down, please, again. Further. With respect to, I think it's para eight, if you could go down to para eight, I think it is. Yes, so para eight. We find this proposal from the chair to be quite interesting. It seems to be based on the work of the AHC when intercessional meetings were held at the behest of the president for the benefit of participants that were not able to participate in the main sessions of business NGOs. And during those intercessional meetings, information could be provided to them, they could be briefed. This is very useful experience. With respect to the rest of the amendments, well, they're not so critical, but then we lose the value of the Mexican proposal and we would prefer anyway to work based on the chair's text. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well, the chair's text was discussed yesterday, so I'm very comfortable if we go back to the chair's text, but the attempt was made yesterday and after the informals, this proposal was made which would accommodate some of the concerns with the previous text. So, as I said, I'm open to solutions. We will have informals and I think we, I'm rather optimistic. I mean, I think we could get there. So, but let's see Chile, please.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to thank the proposal. We think it's a good basis for work. I have taken time to read all the submissions and notes from previous informals and we believe that this takes into consideration many of the concerns expressed by several delegations and it also asks flexibility of several delegations too. So we are willing, very happy to work on this basis. I would also like to point out that we have heard your appeal, that the important thing is to reach consensus, because these rules of procedure will be the rules of the conference. It's a UN conference. It's not just the rules of delegations. So we have to be ready to support whatever is necessary. Thank you.

Vanuatu, please.

Thank you, Chair. We are so appreciative of all your work to help us reach consensus. And we have also seen all the work that has been going on inside negotiating rooms and corridors between groups of states to help us move towards a compromise. The esteemed delegate of Mexico received a well-earned applause last night at the informal, and their proposal for a compromise is a genuine step forward. I hope my Pacific brothers and sisters from Tonga don't mind, but I want to borrow one of the phrases that is in use in their beautiful kingdom, "spread the mat so the family could talk." Mexico and you, Chair, have spread the mat. We believe the proposal is offered in a spirit to create space for all of us to see ourselves reflected in the outcome. And we urge all delegations to approach this mat with the same generosity of spirit as Mexico demonstrated offering it. If there is a genuine wish to find a consensus outcome today, and I believe the majority of States have expressed that, we don't see a better basis to move forward on. Thank you.

Thank you, Vanuatu, and thank you for mentioning Tonga, a country that I had the privilege to visit.

Norway.

Thank you, Chair. We thank Mexico for their proposal and for their efforts to help us moving toward consensus. We consider this proposal as a good basis for further discussion and can support it with some adjustment. We are ready to work with it and we hope that other delegations also can be flexible for the sake of consensus. Thank you.

Thank you. Norway? Colombia, por favor.

Colombia has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to begin by thanking the distinguished delegate of Mexico who sat down and listened to us and other states who participated in these discussions and as as the delegate of Vanuatu so elegantly said, this opens up the way to a solution. This proposal opens the doors for my country to be able to accede to the capacity we need to talk to the stakeholders we need, and whilst keeping authority in states and in the conference. So we will continue with our deliberations, but we feel that this proposal is yours, Chair, and we think it is a great basis for continuing our deliberations. Thank you.

Uruguay has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation would also like to thank the distinguished delegate of Mexico. for this extremely valuable contribution and to you, Chair. Uruguay believes that with changes in the digital environment, the threats from cybercrime, we need the contributions of a broad sector of stakeholders. We have worked with local partners within UNTOK and we think that this convention needs that approach too. Therefore, we fully support the text of the proposal for rule 17 as presented by Mexico and now taken by the Chair as his too. Thank you.

Thank you to Uruguay.

Egypt.

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Chair, before taking the floor on behalf of the African Group, I would like to thank the distinguished representative of Mexico. for his genuine trial to bridge the gap. We appreciate his endeavors, which we trust, we are confident that it is done in good faith. Mr. Chair, on behalf of the African group, and since now, Mr. Chair, you had said that it is now the Chair's proposal, so allow me to introduce the African group's proposals for amending the text. So on paragraph one, we can go along with paragraph one. Paragraph two, in the third, fourth line, please add after status, for each session of the conference. Paragraph A is okay and paragraph B is okay. We would like to introduce paragraph 2 bis in the resolution establishing any subsidiary body in accordance with Article 57, paragraph 8 of the Convention, the Conference shall expressly determine whether observers referred to in this rule may participate. And this, Mr. Chair, is in line with the three main concerns that the African group had expressed in the formal session. And one of these main concerns is the automatic participation in the subsidiary bodies that we don't know any information yet regarding their scope and mandate. On paragraph, the deleted paragraph three, we would like to retain A, B, C. So please reflect our request for the retention of paragraph three in its entirety. And please reflect that this is the African group proposal. And I think also for all the previous.

-- Sorry, just one -- I think we're going -- at this stage, I don't want to put the name of countries or group of countries. What we'll do here is we'll just put that here, and then we'll see how -- what are the reactions.

And then depending on the reactions, we can.

Include it as a chair again, or we can leave it for informals that we'll have in a while. Okay. So that, because if you put the African group, or if you put say European Union, it creates a sense of that we are back to where we were. So let's continue, please. I'm sorry, but let's leave it just with the.

-- Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are in your hands, but I think that to clearly stipulate that this is the African group position, it shows also that, you know, because many speakers before me had expressed their individual and I think that most of the African groups will not take the floor so that we do not repeat. This is our intention, Mr. Chair. But again, we are in your hands and you know that this is the African group position. And since we had added in paragraph two each session, so we are not supporting paragraph four. So please, reflect our opposition for this paragraph, bearing in mind the current practice in the UN. For paragraph 4a, we propose the deletion of the, of starting from and subsidiary till the end of the chapeau, because again, the first part is, it's subsidiary doesn't appreciate the main concern of the African group regarding the automatic participation. And regarding the issue of being public or private, I think that Article 40 is talking about the broadcasting or not broadcasting the meetings of the subsidiary bodies. So I think that it's -- and some of the other African groups are not in a position to accept adding the subsidiary bodies to Article 40. On the order, we have no problem with the order, Mr. Chair. Regarding paragraph, if we go down to paragraph six, the African Group thanks the distinguished representative of Mexico for addressing one of the three main concerns of the African Group, and we support paragraph six as introduced by Mexico. And we are okay with the deletion of paragraph seven, but for paragraph eight we are flexible, Mr. Chair. I thank you.

Thank you, Egypt. I will now invite Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And now, good afternoon to all the distinguished delegates. I had raised my flag to respond on what had been circulated last night and displayed and explained on the screen. for our reaction. And as such, I'm not going to speak on the amendments that were just made as we're just seeing them and we'll need to digest. So just going back to what we had presented this morning, first, just to start with expressing from our delegation our extreme gratitude to Mexico for their expertise, their clear-eyed and pragmatic approach in terms of how we need to think about what we're trying to achieve and how the rules actually work in practice. And just speaking personally, from my time here in Vienna, I've not met another delegate that has had such insight on the UN system and its rules as our esteemed colleague from Mexico. On what's been proposed, similar to a few other speakers, I would say that there's a few elements in here that we would be uncomfortable with and many elements that we had been wanting to see that aren't included. But Chair, as you've been reminding us, sticking only to our national positions or regional positions aren't going to get us anywhere. And we are now Friday afternoon. And so now, as you said, is the time to meet in between. And we did listen carefully and note the explanations and creative ideas that were made by Mexico, such as on the link to rule 40, which we think could be a good solution to provide the conference with that flexibility and to respond to some of the concerns made about whether everything by default becomes open and with everyone in the room. So, Chair, in the spirit of cooperation and pragmatism, we are ready to work towards consensus and an outcome today if we can work on the basis for agreement of what Mexico had proposed and now is taken up as the Chair's proposal. And we hope we can continue to work in that spirit. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Canada. European Union, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. The UN member states would like to extend their thanks for the delegation from Mexico for proposing and being constructive in our discussions. And also we would like to thank you, Chair, for providing an outlet for that. We would just in general like to say that this proposal is a good basis for discussion. We remain constructive and, to echo the words of the distinguished delegate from Canada, in the spirit of pragmatism and constructivity. We also hope that we can continue discussion based on this basis. I will leave it at that for now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. European Union. Guatemala, por favor.

Guatemala has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation is grateful to Mexico for all the efforts made to come up with a solution. We would like to express our support for the chair's proposal. We think it's a balanced compromise taking into account different opinions. The participation of civil society and other stakeholders is essential. Therefore, we find the proposal relevant. Thank you.

Costa Rica has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation would also like to thank our distinguished colleague from Mexico for this important text. which has also been taken by the Chair. We support this proposal because in general we believe it covers the concerns expressed this week by different delegations. It is an excellent basis for our work in general terms. We feel that It has taken everyone's comments on board. Chair, we are willing to work with you and everyone in the room to reach consensus in a constructive and respectful way so that we can have our rules of procedure. However, I would like to appeal to all colleagues to work constructively. It is in all of our interests and those of our citizens. And what we are pursuing here is the protection of everyone from children to older people to prevent them from being victims of cybercrime with the with technical participation with the stakeholders NGOs civil society well this can help have a safer more secure world for future generations so that Let's not lose sight of that main interest. Thank you.

Thank you, Costa Rica, for that appeal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, colleagues. Same like others, my delegation will not comment the amendments directly. Switzerland would like to join the other positive voices on this draft. And thank you, Mr. Chair, and also our distinguished colleague from Mexico for putting forward this draft. We stand ready to work on this draft in order to accommodate all views and we are ready to work towards consensus and an outcome maybe today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Switzerland, Australia, please.

Thank you, Chair. I think I would echo what Canada said before about there's no one really who understands these these rules or these documents better than Diego, so to have his crafty hand, have a go at this and attempt for this, it's evident that you can see that he's put a lot of thought and consideration into it, but also that he's based it in facts. And so that is what we should be working on, on facts of the convention and what we know. I also just wanted to say I think it's really beautiful this idea of spreading the mat. I think it's lovely to think about. And I suppose Australia will always try and come to the table and sit on the mat. And we're open and ready to do that. And there's no reason for us to want to not have anything other than a consensual document today. I won't go too much into detail because like others have said, there's new stuff to interpret on the screen. But just we're feeling quite positive about what Mexico has up on here. We think it's a good blend. It considers a lot of what others have raised. There are some things that we also have some concerns about. We still are not completely comfortable with the idea of limiting what can be said in meetings, but we definitely understand that this is something that we need to consider properly, so we are going to. Also the idea of some kind of steps or some kind of justification that might need to be provided, that is fine. We can have a look at what is appropriate from a resource perspective and also relevant for subsidiary bodies. Most importantly, however, one thing we are still not totally comfortable with is the idea of predetermining entry or exit into a subsidiary body at its creation. I think the same argument applies We don't know how these bodies will develop and grow over time. We don't know how cybercrime will develop and grow over time, and we shouldn't be prescriptive in their creation in any way. That would just limit us and that would take us backwards. Thank you.

Thank you, Australia.

China, please.

Thank you, Chair. We also would like to thank Mexican delegate for his proposal. Chinese delegation thinks that this proposal in some parts has taken into consideration of different concerns for which we would like to send gratitude. In some aspects, maybe has not fully considerate for example, entities like NGOs participating in the subsidiary bodies conferences. Now in paragraph 5A parts, it has provided that the participation of NGOs of the subsidiary bodies should apply with the rules of 40. Now we haven't reached consensus on this and our delegation thinks that this solution may have caused some legal uncertainties and bringing some new difficulties. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, China. Thank you for your specific comments, and we'll see how we can work.

To adjust this to meet your concerns and to meet -- and to try and reach consensus. Japan, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, let me extend Japan's heartfelt gratitude to Mexico for its tireless effort in presenting a new proposal. And I'll be very brief. Regarding Mexico's new proposal, Japan echoes the comments made by the delegation of Norway, Canada, and any other previous speakers. Japan also considers Mexico's proposal to be a very good basis for initiating negotiation to reach consensus, and Japan is ready to engage constructively to find common ground. Thank you.

Thank you, Japan.

Chile, por favor.

Shelly has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I apologize for taking the floor again. We would like to refer to the proposals made that are on the screen in paragraph two. We think this inclusion is acceptable for each session of the conference. It's a way of showing our flexibility too, and then with regards to the proposal in 2bis. We think this takes us back to the first day and does not take into consideration our concern, which we have expressed on numerous occasions. In order to reach consensus and a compromise, we think it's acceptable to reintroduce the requirements that are currently with a line through in paragraph three. This is a compromise. It's not something that we like, but we would keep that request in the paragraph three. Then further down, Paragraph four. We don't like, we like it, but we think it could be deleted because it could cause issues. Then in four A, the subsidiary bodies, that's the issue. That's what we're worried about. We do want the participation of subsidiary bodies. We want technical expertise and therefore we would totally disagree with deleting any and its subsidiary bodies. Then with rule 40 we can continue talking about that. We don't want to express our position on that right now. Thank you.

thank you Chile and thank you for this for the efforts you are making which bring us closer to acceptance but we all have to do that I see that there is a very interesting move and I would like to make Chile's proposal into the chair's proposal. I think it sounds good.

Good afternoon, Chair and delegates. We'd like to join others and thank you and your team and the secretariat for the immense efforts that you've put yesterday during the informals and during the plenary. And of course, I'd like to thank our Mexican colleague, the Mexican delegation for their offer and their hard work. We, as many others, would like to echo many others today and show support for this proposal. Again, it was mentioned in this kind of exercise, we never get to perfect, we never get to 100 percent of what we wish and what we want. We believe that the Mexican suggestion is is very reasonable, trying to bring all considerations into this offer. By dissecting it now or adding all kinds of elements, it will probably break the very delicate balance that it consists of. We would like to show support for the offer as it has been made, the original text, So please add us to these countries that have been showing support for this, and we see it as a very good basis for our continued discussion today. Hopefully, that will result with a consensual outcome. Thank you.

Thank you, Israel.

Algeria, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like at the outset to express my gratitude on behalf of the Arab Group for your efforts to bring closer the points of view of the various entities. We also appreciate the advancement, the progress in our work. We have reviewed carefully the proposals by various parties, including Mexico. In this context, the Arab Group believes that the proposal by the African Group will allow us to address the concerns of many countries, particularly the need to take into consideration the divergence in the expertise of the various entities to be allowed into the conference and the observers. Therefore, we support the amendments proposed by Egypt on behalf of the African group, particularly paragraph 2bis, and we also support deleting paragraph 4. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Algeria.

Ecuador.

Thank you, Chair. I had requested the floor for some general comments on the initial proposal and we agree with you in that consensus requires an extra effort and we have to consider that regarding Mexico's and the chair's proposal, we believe it is balanced and a great basis for continuing our work. We think it, we need clarity in the rules of procedure and the participation of stakeholders in the architecture of this conference and the hierarchy of states and the conference is maintained. That is important for my delegation. I would also like to appeal for flexibility and a constructive attitude as we remember the goals of this convention and how important it is for our peoples. And we have to think of the long journey to get here. And now it's the last day of our meeting.

Thank you, Ecuador.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. And also, Mr. Chair, we appreciate the distinguished delegates of Mexico for its hard and very detailed efforts to come up with this update. And as you hear and as my delegation have noticed, there is some concerns of related to the status of the non governmental organizations and this is reflected in several paragraphs. First, the paragraph, rule number 17, the paragraph two, of course, I'll be short and just mentioning the delegation of Egypt have also said on behalf of the African group and the distinct delegates of Algeria have also expressed on behalf of the Arab group. This delegation is fully agreed with the concerns expressed by these groups and distinct delegates. And especially in the paragraph two, in the bracket B, there is mentioning about in accordance with the rule 60. This rule 60 is forced within the purview of sovereign rights of state parties. And so we don't like having these expressions there. And also paragraph three, which is totally deleted from Mexico's updates. And we also wish My delegation echoes the delegation of the distinct delegates of Egypt to have to retain the full paragraph three for future informal discussion considerations. And also in the paragraph five, A, in the paragraph five, there is, it says about the paragraph five, paragraph five A, bracket A, attend any plenary meetings and blah, blah, blah, in accordance with rule 40. I think this paragraph A, the bracket A is very controversial at the moment, so we'd like to delete. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, DPRK. Now I give the floor to the last speaker before we move into the other room.

We move to the other room to have the informals and we'll take a break. But Turkey, you'll be the last speaker.

And sorry for the others that have asked.

Thank you very much. So we have seen that there's a merit in the preparation of this Mexican proposal, but we're still clashing views. So I think your chair proposal would be more better basis to advance because now we are flashing for like one hour. So but in your proposal chair, we can have the full, let's say elements of compilation number two. And we can say the chair co decides with the bureau. Then we can say instead of relevant meetings of relevant subsidiary body, we can say the relevant meeting of the subsidiary body. So that way we can find a bit more common ground. And so that will be all. I think your path is more clear, but a bit minor tweaks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Turkey. So now we suspend the session, right?

Or adjourn, suspend? What is the terminology? We suspend the session and we will be in about 15 minutes or half an hour. 15 minutes we go, we'll be 10 minutes. 10 minutes in boardroom A. Thank you.