(7th meeting) Plenary Session, Global Mechanism on ICTs in the Context of International Security (20-24 July)

Buenos días. Se declara abierta la—

Very good morning. I call to order the 7th meeting of the substantive plenary session of the Global Mechanism on ICT Security. The meeting is called to order. According to our program of work, and like I announced yesterday afternoon, we will be continuing with our list of speakers on the agenda item on confidence-building measures. I'd just like to underscore that we still have 22 requests for the floor. Let me just read the first 5 to speak this morning. We have Vanuatu, Chile, Israel, Côte d'Ivoire, And the last speaker, Ireland. I give the floor first to Vanuatu.

Madam Chair, Vanuatu aligns itself with the statement delivered by Tonga on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members and adds the following in its national capacity. Vanuatu approaches confidence-building measures with a specific concern. Coherence. The international community is rightly multiplying its channels of communication. The Global Points of Contact Directory under this mechanism, the 24/7 network under the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime, longstanding CERT-to-CERT relationships, and regional arrangements. Vanuatu participates in this expanding architecture and we support the directory wholeheartedly, but we speak from the standpoint of the administrations that must operate all of these channels at once, often through the same handful of officials. Our request to this mechanism is that the directory be developed in deliberate awareness of the wider ecosystem, clear guidance on which channels serves which purpose, consistency in points of contact, where national structures allow it, and no duplication of what already functions elsewhere. Confidence is not built by the number of channels that exist or the volume of requests within them, but by the certainty of what happens when one is used. Second, Vanuatu sees a dimension of confidence building that our own circumstances make vivid. When disaster strikes our islands, information flows between governments within hours— offers of assistance, coordination of relief, verification of facts on the ground. That habit of rapid, trusted state-to-state communication in physical emergencies is precisely the habit the CPM Agenda seeks to create for digital ones, and the two should reinforce each other. A region accustomed to cooperating through cyclones is well-placed to cooperate through cyber incidents, and Vanuatu will continue working with our Pacific partners to make that connection real in practice. Third, we emphasize transparency as a measure available to every state, regardless of size. Vanuatu has sought to be open about our national arrangements, our legislative development, including our data protection and Privacy Bill and our assessments of the threat environment. We encourage the structured exchange of such national information within this mechanism, not as a reporting burden, but as the routine— as the routine visibility that prevents misreading between states. Finally, Madam Chair, measures on paper acquire meaning through practice. Vanuatu supports regular communications exercises for the Directory, sustained training for designated officials with attention to continuity as personnel change, and the preservation of hybrid modalities so that distance never determines who participates in building confidence. We look forward to the dedicated thematic groups in December carrying this pillar forward in exactly that practical register. I thank you.

Muchísimas gracias. Doy ahora la palabra.

Thank you very much. I give the floor now to Chile, please.

Chile se suma a la declaración.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chile aligns itself with the statement made previously by the Dominican Republic on behalf of the interregional group of countries promoting confidence-building measures, and we wish to add the following observations in our national capacity. Chile reaffirms the importance of confidence-building measures as one of the most important pillars of the framework for the responsible behavior of states in the use of ICTs. During the process of the Open-Ended Working Group 2021 to 2025, the international community made significant progress in this regard, including the adoption of new global measures, the establishment of the Global Rules on Contact Points, the strengthening of the exchange of experience between states. To preventing escalations derived from the use of ICTs. We therefore believe that it is particularly important for the global mechanism to dedicate efforts to the exchange of national experiences in the implementation of these measures, and including the functioning of contact points, mechanisms for diplomatic and technical consultations, and the voluntary exchange of information on incidents. All of that's very important. For Chile, there is a lot of space to harness the experience that different regional organizations have in this regard also. In this regard, we believe that the exchange of good practices between regional mechanisms could make meaningful contributions to strengthening the implementation of the confidence-building measures globally, avoiding duplications and making the most of lessons learned in different contexts. Madam Chair, for Chile, the dedicated thematic groups offer up a valuable opportunity to go into further depth into discussions on the effective implementation of confidence-building measures. These groups in particular could be great spaces for exchanging national experiences and for exchanging good practices. And engaging in measures to work towards cooperation to strengthen these measures in specific areas such as coordinated responses to cyber incidents. In our opinion, confidence-building measures are also a cross-cutting part of the framework for responsible state behavior and are important for helping implement the other pillars. That's why we believe that the global mechanism must continue to engage in substantive discussions focused on identifying new opportunities to strengthen the implementation of these measures, including those geared towards protecting critical infrastructure and essential services, given the growing impact of cyber incidents on our societies. Finally, Chile reiterates its commitment to continue to make active commitments to strengthening this pillar and to working with all States to make headway in the effective implementation of the Framework for Responsible State Behavior with a view to opening up a safe, open, and accessible digital environment. Thank you very much.

The Chair thanks Chile and gives the floor to the delegation of Israel.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, distinguished delegates. Madam Chair, Israel aligns itself with the joint statement delivered by the distinguished representative of the Dominican Republic, on behalf of the Cross-Regional Group of Confidence Builders and wishes to add some brief remarks from our own national perspective. Developing sustainable international cooperation requires a solid foundation of trust, making confidence-building measures an indispensable pillar of this mechanism. CBMs allow states to build practical procedures during times of peace that can be directly utilized for de-escalation, communication, and risk reduction during a geopolitical crisis. Israel is proud to actively engage in the operationalization of global CBMs. The Global POC Directory— Israel actively participated in the ping test and other activities under the National Points of Contact Directory and And we look forward to actively working with designated global POCs to turn this directory into a meaningful, responsible— responsive tool for crisis communication. The cross-regional collaboration, together with an open cross-regional group of member states under the capable leadership of Germany, Israel continues to brainstorm and advance practical voluntary CBMs suggestions to reduce the chances of strategic misunderstanding. On the multilateral engagement beyond the UN, Israel continues to contribute its national experience to regional and inter-regional bodies, including the OECD, Council of Europe, the OSCE, in the framework of the Mediterranean Partnerships, as well as other formal and informal fora. The global mechanism work should prioritize harmonizing its work with other multilateral forums and regional forums and ensure that all outcomes are mutually reinforcing. Continuing to operationalize CBMs must be a priority for the Global Mechanism. CBMs hold great potential, in our view, for immediate positive impact and for generating beneficial momentum for the Global Mechanism. Accordingly, we believe that the DTGs must also prioritize further developing and operationalizing CBMs, including those we and other delegates highlighted this week. Thank you.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor now to the delegation of Côte d'Ivoire.

Madame la Présidente.

Madam Chair. And taking the floor for the first time, my delegation would like to extend to you its warm congratulations, and we thank you for your leadership as you lead our work, and you may remain assured of our full support. We endorse the statement delivered by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, and in our national capacity, we would like to offer the following comments on this agenda item. Madam Chair, Côte d'Ivoire considers confidence-building measures as an essential tool for prevention, cooperation, and for de-escalation in the area of information and communication technology. In cyberspace, uncertainty about the origin, the intention, or the scale of an incident can rapidly give rise to misunderstandings, and it can stoke tensions among states. The lack of reliable communication channels can transform a technical incident into a political crisis. Confidence-building measures need to precisely allow us to prevent that from happening. My delegation welcomes in this regard the establishment of the Global POC Directory. We encourage all states to participate in that directory and to regularly update their information and to appoint as quickly as possible diplomatic and technical points of contact that are able to intervene rapidly in the event of an incident. My country also supports the elaboration of voluntary communications models. These tools must, however, remain agile, easy to use, and well adapted to emergency situations without imposing any procedures that might slow down exchanges. Madam Chair, my delegation would like to set out the following 3 recommendations. First, regularly organize under the auspices of the UN simulation exercises that bring together points of contact, national teams for responding to incidents, and relevant authorities. Second, strengthen CBMs at the regional and sub-regional level. States must prioritize consultations, the exchange of information, and a rigorous establishment of the facts while avoiding any premature accusations that might fuel escalation. At the national level, Côte d'Ivoire is developing permanent cooperation frameworks and frameworks for sharing information among officials for security in the area of information systems. We intend to deepen this work with our regional and international partners. For my delegation, trust is not something that can be declared by fiat. It can be— it is built by dialogue, transparency, predictability, and results-based cooperation. The Global Mechanism must become the area where this trust is transformed into practice and partnerships and is made into tangible results for all states. Thank you.

Now I give the floor—

now I give the floor to Ireland, followed by Tonga, Uruguay, Argentina, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and Botswana.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ireland aligns with the intervention made on behalf of the European Union and makes the following comments in our national capacity. The voluntary global confidence-building measures are valuable tools to enhance transparency and predictability, as well as to reduce the risk of misunderstanding, escalation, and conflict. In this regard, there's a need to further develop and implement the CBMs and for further improvement of the functioning of states' engagements with the POC directory. As others have mentioned, the POC directory should be used in good faith and as a complement to existing channels of communication between states states. We are open to exploring further development of the POC directory as we learn more from its use. In addition to the POC directory, we also must move forward on implementation of the other CBMs, including by sharing national ICT-related actions, exchanging experience on protecting critical infrastructure, promoting information exchange and cooperation and partnerships between states to strengthen ICT security capacity and by organizing regular seminars, workshops, and training programs on ICT security. Our exchanges, particularly in the DTGs, should include discussions on how confidence-building measures can be operationalized effectively, as well as building trust and confidence among states. In this regard, and as many earlier interventions on the CBMs have make clear, capacity building is an essential prerequisite for successful implementation of the CBMs for many states. It is also important to learn from the experience of regional organizations and engage with them as we move forward in this process. It must also be said that the expertise and experience of stakeholders from academia, the technical community, civil society, and the private sector should also play a strong role In this process, practical tools, best practices, and examples should feed our engagement and allow us to reflect the CBMs into our national and regional structures. Madam Chair, let me once again assure you of Ireland's commitment to engaging with you and with the global mechanism to advance international security and stability for us all. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias. Yo había dado le.

Thank you. I had read out the list of countries that were going to take the floor in this segment. However, I've been notified that Nigeria will be speaking on behalf of the African Group, so I'll give Nigeria the floor right now to make that statement. Thank you.

Sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the African Group. On CBM, the African Group reaffirmed that confidence-building measures are indispensable for fostering trust, transparency, predictability, and cooperation among states, thereby contributing to international peace, security, and stability in cyberspace. African experience in conflict prevention and security cooperation, including through the African Peace and Security Architecture, demonstrates the value of sustained dialogue, effective communication channels, and cooperative approaches to addressing shared security challenges. These principles are equally relevant to strengthening confidence and reducing the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation in cyberspace. The group underscores the important role of regional and sub-regional organizations in advancing confidence-building through dialogue, information sharing, cyber diplomacy, and practical cooperation among member states. Strengthening synergies between regional and global initiatives will enhance coherence, inclusivity, and effective implementation of UN framework. Accordingly, the African Group encourages the global mechanism to, one, 1, strengthen coordination and complementarity between global and regional confidence-building initiatives. 2, promote linkages between regional point-of-contact network and the global point-of-contact directory. 3, support regional cyber exercise, capacity building, and other practical cooperation activities. And lastly, encourage the voluntary exchange of national experiences, good practices, and lessons learned in implementing confidence-building measures. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much.

I give the floor to the delegation of Tonga.

Madam Chair, Tonga aligns itself with the statement delivered by my colleague on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members and offers the following remarks in its national capacity. Capacity. For the Kingdom of Tonga, our confidence-building measures are where the framework of responsible state behavior becomes most immediately real. Small states do not maintain wide networks of diplomats tasked with cyber-related cooperation. When an incident strikes, trusted, predictable lines of communications between states are needed. Tonga therefore strongly supports the Global Points of Contact Directory as the flagship practical achievement of the OEWG, and we commend UNODA for its continued operationalization. Tonga is working to ensure our own participation in that directory is complete and current. Madam Chair, Tonga has been building confidence in practice for a decade. CERT Tonga was established by cabinet decision in 2016, among the first national CERTs in the Pacific, and has worked since then within the Pacific Cybersecurity Organizational Network, where our region's incident responders share information and build the personal trust on which crisis cooperation depends. When our health system was attacked last year, established relationships with partners enabled rapid assistance and ultimately a joint public attribution with Australia and New Zealand. This is what confidence-building measures look like when they work— relationships built before the crisis, exercised during it, and deepened after it. Tonga, accordingly, encourages this mechanism to keep the CBM agenda modest in rhetoric and ambitious in practice. A directory that works, point of contacts who are trained and exercised, regional experience feeding global learning, and hybrid participation so that officials from Nuku'alofa can engage as fully as those from capitals a train ride away. I thank you.

Thank you very much. I give the floor now to the delegation of Uruguay, who will be followed by Uruguay and then the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Uruguay, please.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. For Uruguay, CBMs are an essential tool to strengthen international cooperation, reduce risks of escalation, and improve prevention and responses to ICT security incidents, particularly those that affect critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure. In this regard, we welcome progress made in the open-ended working group, in particular the development of the global directory of points of contact and the template for communication. Regional experience in the Organization of American States shows the practical value of CBMs. Since 2018, Uruguay has designated and updated its technical contact points in the framework of the OAS and is participating actively in cooperation mechanisms such as the CERTS of the Americas, where we are promoting the exchange of technical information including indicators, good practices, and strengthening of capacities of the states in the region. The experience of the OAS emphasizes the importance of combining transparency, communication between contact points, technical cooperation, and dialogue with the private sector, academia, and civil society, and the technical community. Given that a significant part of critical information infrastructure are operated by non-governmental actors or are part of the supply chain, Public-private partnerships are essential to strengthen prevention, early alerts, early warnings, and fighting malicious information. In this regard, we understand that this progress must serve as a basis to continue to operationalize CBM measures, strengthening the capacities of all states and promoting the exchange of regional experiences. Thank you very much.

The chair thanks Uruguay, gives the floor to Argentina, who will be followed by the Netherlands. Argentina.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My delegation aligns itself with the joint statement made by the Dominican Republic on behalf of a group of countries who are building confidence, and we wish to make this statement in our national capacity. CBMs are one of the most operational components of the framework for responsible state behavior. This new step in the global mechanism consists precisely in introducing these measures to bring about more confidence and exchange between states. Argentina believes that CBMs should constitute a cross-cutting element running through all of the work of the 2 dedicated thematic groups. The nature of these provides us an opportunity to respond to the different mandates and to identify common challenges, to compile good practices and regional experiences, to establish early warnings, and to adopt recommendations that are focused on making the already agreed measures operational. In particular, for us, the DTG1 could be an appropriate framework to examine the operationalization of CBMs by exchanging national experience and regional experiences, developing practical guidance for their use, strengthening interoperability between existing global, regional, and sub-regional mechanisms, and drafting recommendations on their use and early warnings on ICT incidents, in particular the ones that affect critical infrastructure. DTG2, in turn, could contribute to identifying the capacities required in order to support this operationalization effort, including proposals to strengthen the national capacities of the contact points, to promote voluntary exercises, to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and experience between states, and to support the development of the capacities required to effectively implement these measures, including participation in the Global Directory. And the Global Directory indeed could be used more effectively. Argentina underscores the points of contact directory, which is one of the most relevant milestones achieved in the open-ended working group. However, the success of this tool will not only depend on periodically carrying out connectivity tests or ping tests, but rather also states acquiring the confidence required to use it as an effective channel for communication when the circumstances require it. In this regard, we support continuing the voluntary exercises, gradually fine-tuning its modalities, and exchanging experiences that encourage its practical use. We believe that the global mechanism could benefit from the added experience in regional and sub-regional— at the regional and sub-regional levels. And in our region, we have the— group within the OAS as well as the Cybersecurity Working Group of Mercosur, which are examples of good practice of exchange of information. And these can contribute to strengthening confidence between states and can offer up useful lessons learned for the work of future— the future work of the global mechanism. Looking at the beginning of the DTGs, my delegation hopes that these spaces will establish themselves as spaces for technical work that are able to establish substantive recommendations and decisions on confidence-building measures for the consideration of this plenary. We trust that these recommendations will be able to be subsequently reviewed, fine-tuned, and negotiated by states in the framework of the plenary deliberations during the CBM pillar. This will allow the plenary meetings of this global mechanism to progressively work towards more interactive dialogue and results-focused dialogue where states can focus on our efforts on building consensus on concrete proposals. In my delegation's view, this dynamic will strengthen the operationalization of CBMs enabling us to translate the consensus reached into practical cooperation tools and concrete results focused on strengthening and boosting confidence between states. Thank you very much.

The chair thanks Argentina and gives the floor to the Netherlands, who will be followed by Botswana and Cuba. The Netherlands, please.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union. Furthermore, we have supported a cross-regional statement as delivered by the Dominican Republic. Please allow me to make some further comments in my national capacity. In a world where threats are rapidly becoming more sophisticated and lines between state and non-state threats are increasingly blurred, building trust between parties has never been more relevant. The non-exhaustive list of voluntary CBMs, along with other established regional instruments, certainly has an important role to play in building trust between member states. Please allow me to make 3 comments on how the implementation of the CBMs aids building trust between member states. First, the Kingdom of the Netherlands believes that the implementation and the use of CBMs should be well integrated in the work of the DTGs, where CBMs can be used as an effective lens to suggest pathways to build trust between states in the line of concrete cyber threats. In simulation exercises, we could, for example, see how public-private partnership, CBM8, could concretely benefit an open, free, and secure cyberspace and help prevent and address incidents taking place in cyberspace. In this manner, DTGs will offer the opportunity to discuss CBM operationalization. Horrible word always. Secondly, with regards to the implementation of the POC directory, it's important to underline that the strength and added value are found in establishing lines of contact where these previously were unavailable or unclear. We should look at it as a complementary tool to existing POC networks and channels of communication that already function appropriately, not as a replacement or a duplication. It is therefore that the voluntary nature of the instrument aids its functioning to strengthen and supplement existing member states' policies and initiatives. And finally, in line with CBN3, The Kingdom of the Netherlands encourages all member states and regional organizations to continue to develop the national positions on how international law applies in cyberspace and to make these views available to a wider public. By openly and clearly communicating on how we interpret international law in cyberspace, we avoid miscommunication and miscalculation. Leading to a more solid basis to establish trust over time. We recognize that not all States will have the resources available to embark on such an extensive procedure alone. The Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore stands ready to share its best practices with all Member States who are in the process of developing their position. Madam Chair, the 8 CBMs that we have established through the Open-Ended Working Group Provides us with a solid basis of continued efforts to break down the walls of misunderstanding that still exist between some of us. To make a success of the UN global mechanism means to adequately capitalize on this basis and ensure the full implementation of the instruments we so diligently designed. Thank you very much.

Muchísimas gracias por su intervención.

Thank you very much for your statement. Before I give the floor to the next speaker, I have been informed that this is the last day for Ambassador Snorman, and that's really significant. It's really significant of you serving as a special envoy for cyber issues of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and your long journey in this mechanism is coming to an end. So I'd like to wish you all the best with the future, and I'd like to ask for a loud round of applause for the ambassador from the room, please. Thank you very much. Very well, back to our list of speakers. I give the floor to Botswana, followed by Cuba, and then Australia.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Republic of Botswana aligns itself with the statement of the African Group as presented by the Federal Republic of Nigeria. We wish to make this statement in our national capacity. Chair, in an increasingly interconnected global landscape, confidence-building measures serve as an indispensable tool to foster transparency and build sustained trust among nations. For CBMs to deliver on their intent, the global mechanism must prioritize inclusive participation, ensure actionable implementation, and focus on the practical implementation of the normative framework for responsible state behavior in cyberspace. Botswana views the effective implementation of global CBMs through a functional perspective that ties digital security directly to sustainable socioeconomic development and national resilience. Botswana notes that global transparency initiatives must be paired with concrete technical assistance to address the digital divide. Furthermore, states should be leveraging the regional and sub-regional platforms to strengthen operational mechanisms, including direct set-to-set cooperation and critical infrastructure protection. This would provide the most effective pathway towards building global trust and incident response readiness the world over. Botswana continues to take active steps to implement the voluntary CBMs nationally. Botswana has operationalized its national cybersecurity strategy and established the Botswana Computer Incidents Response Team under the Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority to coordinate incident management, issue threat advisories, and safeguard national critical infrastructure. To strengthen international crisis communications, Botswana has undertaken the designation and submission of national POCs across both diplomatic and technical levels to populate the POC directory. Over and above the already stated legislative and policy initiatives, Botswana intends to expand its contributions to global CBM implementation through concrete actionable initiatives. Botswana engages in formal bilateral and sub-regional information sharing protocols among states within the SADC region, to improve real-time threat reporting and cross-border incident response. Additionally, Botswana participates as a continental partner under the African CERT umbrella to align its cyber defenses with the broader Pan-African threat sharing protocols and incident response metrics. Further, recent internal cybersecurity activities reflect the implementation of CBMs through the formal public-private partnerships threat intelligence sharing, and academic collaboration. These initiatives focus on transparency, incident response readiness, and workforce upskilling to collaboratively ensure the security of Botswana's critical infrastructure. The Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority has signed several memoranda of understanding with global cybersecurity firms, and these partnerships deliver real-time intelligence on emerging threats and share best practices in cyber defense capabilities. Additionally, several academic institutions and industry players regularly host cybersecurity symposiums and thought leadership sessions to forge coordinated responses to cyber threats. In conclusion, Chair, the Botswana delegation continues to reiterate that discussions at this global mechanism should include pairing confidence-building measures with targeted technical assistance initiatives that ensure that nations are not left behind due to resource constraints. This approach directly supports member states in protecting their critical frameworks while bridging existing capability gaps. Thank you, Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Cuba.

Gracias, Presidente.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ensuring information exchange and dialogue on the use of ICTs and international security in the global mechanism is in itself a CBM. We hope that all delegations will be able to continue to develop on these dialogues within this framework with mutual respect, constructively, considering the diversity of positions and different understandings of each of the 5 pillars. These type of measures are important as a complementary way of promoting cooperation and transparency, as well as the exchange of good practices, reducing the risk of conflicts, and contributing to their peaceful settlement. On a domestic level, we have designated focal points to participate in the points of contact directory. And we call that the different phases for confidence building must respect sovereignty and the non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Confidence based on transparent and respectful exchange is important in respecting the rights of countries to establish in this sphere as well as in others bilateral cooperation. Whatever bilateral cooperation that they believe is relevant. The establishment of binding norms within the framework of the UN and complying with them subsequently is one of the pillars for international confidence building is important. The voluntary nature of confidence building measures must prevail. Each region or subregion has its unique characteristics, and that's why the measures implemented at these levels cannot be considered single global models or benchmarks. Closing the digital gap and ensuring universal access, inclusive and non-discriminatory access to information and knowledge through ICTs can contribute to building confidence. And this will help to achieve internet governance where states work in equal conditions to play their different roles and responsibilities in international public policy in this area. Another important confidence-building measures— measure is for states to abstain from engaging in any unilateral coercive measure that impedes universal access to the benefits of ICTs. By way of conclusion, we reiterate that CBMs on their own do not guarantee the strictly peaceful use of ICTs. Rather, they are just a useful tool in the absence of any legally binding instrument in this area. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, says the chair. I give the floor to Australia, who will be followed by the following 5 speakers: Ghana, Malawi, the Philippines, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Cameroon. Australia, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Australia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Kingdom of Tonga on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members, as well as by the Dominican Republic on behalf of the Cross-Regional Confidence Builders Group, and makes these additional remarks in our national capacity. Confidence-building measures, or CBMs, are practical tools for reducing the risk of misinterpretation, escalation, and conflict in cyberspace. They help states build relationships, establish procedures, and create channels of communication before a crisis occurs so that these channels can be used effectively during and after cyber incidents. The global mechanism should focus on making the agreed CBMs operational in national, regional, and global contexts. We should not simply continue describing CBMs in abstract terms. The task before us is to help states use them. Through capacity building, technical assistance, guidance, exercises, and sustained engagement. This is particularly important for states and regions with more limited capacity, where trusted relationships, clear communication pathways, and practical cooperation can make a significant difference. The mechanism should support practical operation before, during, and after cyber incidents. This includes incident management cooperation, mutual assistance, and stronger channels between national authorities, CERTs, and other relevant technical bodies. Regional arrangements, including initiatives such as Australia's Cyber Rapid Assistance for Pacific Incidents and Disasters, or Cyber Rapid program, have an important role to play in building trust and habits of cooperation before they are needed in a crisis. Discussions in the plenaries and NDTGs should help connect these regional experiences, share lessons learned, and support states to develop communication procedures that are practical, reliable, and appropriate to their national circumstances. The Global Points of Contact Directory is an important achievement and a valuable confidence-building tool, but the directory must be used in a way that builds trust rather than straining it. It is voluntary but not a replacement for diplomatic channels regional mechanisms, public communications, state-to-state engagement, or other forms of information exchange. States should always remain free to engage through channels most appropriate to the circumstances. For the POC directory to remain useful, it should be actively maintained, regularly tested, and supported by clear expectations of good faith use. Requests through the directory should be proportionate, purposeful, and and as already mentioned by our regional neighbors, made with due regard to the capacity constraints of smaller states. It should not be treated as a mechanism for overwhelming national points of contact, creating unreasonable expectations of response, or as a substitute for existing procedures where other channels are more appropriate. Carefully used and responsibly— used carefully and responsibly, the directory can help break down barriers and strengthen confidence between states. The global mechanism should also help states operationalize other practical CBMs that reduce risk and build resilience. This includes cooperation on vulnerability disclosure and mitigation, supply chain integrity, and national capacity building. For many states, the ability to participate meaningfully in CBMs depends on having the right technical, policy, and institutional foundations in place. Capacity building is not separate from confidence building. It enables states to use CBMs effectively, respond to incidents, share information, and engage with partners on a more equal footing. Australia also underlines the importance of stakeholder engagement here. Industry and the technical community, civil society, and academia are often closest to vulnerabilities, incidents, and emerging risks. Their expertise can help states understand threats, improve prevention and response, strengthen supply chain resilience, and translate CBMs into practical action while preserving the intergovernmental nature of decision-making. Chair, Australia wants the Global Mechanism to be a forum where CBMs are implemented, exercised, and improved over time. This forum should support the reasonable use and maintenance of the POC Directory, including through regular communication checks, and how the DTGs can help states operationalize CBMs in ways that are practical, voluntary, and responsive to capacity needs. Thank you.

Gracias.

Thank you. I give the floor now to Ghana.

Thank you, Chair. Ghana aligns itself with a statement delivered by the distinguished delegates of Nigeria on behalf of the African Group and will deliver the statement in its national capacity. Ghana recognizes confidence-building measures as practical tools for strengthening trust, transparency, and cooperation among states. As cyber threats increasingly target critical information infrastructure, CBMs play an important role in enhancing communication, reducing misunderstandings, and supporting coordinated responses. Ghana welcomes the establishment of the global mechanism as an important platform for advancing dialogue, cooperation, and the practical implementation of confidence-building measures. It provides an opportunity to strengthen trust among states and promote collective action in addressing existing and emerging ICT threats. Drawing on international good practices and adapting them to regional realities, ECOWAS has developed a regional framework on cyber ICT confidence-building measures with the active participation of Ghana. The ECOWAS directive establishes practical mechanisms, including national, diplomatic, and technical points of contact and information-sharing arrangements that strengthen cooperation and contribute to regional resilience. Ghana also affirms— reaffirms its support for the continued implementation of the Global Points of Contact Directory as a voluntary mechanism that facilitates timely communication, cooperation, and coordination among states in responding to ICT-related incidents. As tactile infrastructure becomes increasingly interconnected. No country can protect its critical information infrastructure alone. Regional initiatives such as those of ECOWAS provide valuable experience that can inform the implementation of the global mechanism on confidence-building measures and strengthen international cooperation. The side event co-sponsored by the Dominican Republic, Ghana, and Germany highlighted how regional organizations' implementation of CBMs provides a practical avenue for advancing the implementation of CBMs under the global mechanism. Madam Chair, Ghana remains committed to working with member states and all relevant stakeholders to support the operationalization of confidence-building measures as an integral component of the global mechanism. Thank you.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Malawi.

Madam Chair, Excellencies, and distinguished delegates, I thank you for giving my delegation the floor. As previously highlighted by our— by other member states, confidence-building measures remain among the most practical and effective means of strengthening international peace and security in the use of ICTs. By promoting transparency, predictability, and cooperation, they reduce misunderstandings and misperceptions while fostering the trust necessary for timely communication and coordinated responses to cyber incidents. We welcome the broad convergence of views expressed during our discussions We note the emphasis placed by several delegations, including the Dominican Republic, the European Union, and the statements delivered by Tonga on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum on operationalizing confidence-building measures through the dedicated thematic groups, strengthening the point of contact directory, promoting regular communication, and conducting simulation exercises. We also share the views expressed by Costa Rica and Kiribati that confidence-building measures should remain practical and technical, with trust being built through sustained cooperation and operational engagement. For the Republic of Malawi, confidence-building measures are already reflected in our national practice. Through the Malawi Computer Emergency Response Team, team, we continue to strengthen trusted channels for information sharing, vulnerability coordination, incident response, and technical cooperation with regional and international partners. At the regional level, Malawi is proud to serve as the vice chair of the SADC CSIRT, working alongside member states to strengthen trusted information sharing coordinated incident response, and regional cyber resilience. We also actively engage with the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, the Africa CERT, and the ITU, recognizing that sustained cooperation remains fundamental to building confidence among states. Madam Chair, as this global mechanism advances its work, Malawi believes that dedicated thematic groups should should focus on translating our commitments into practical action by strengthening the point of contact directory, promoting regular communication among national points of contact, supporting voluntary cyber exercises, facilitating exchanges of national experiences, and enhancing regional and international cooperation. Confidence is not built during a crisis. It is built beforehand through sustained cooperation, transparency, and trust. The Republic of Malawi remains committed to working with all member states to ensure that confidence-building measures are practical, inclusive, and implementation-oriented, therefore contributing to a stable, secure, peaceful, and accessible ICT environment for all. I thank you, Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

Doy a—

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the Philippines.

Madam Chair, confidence-building measures remain one of the most practical means of translating the agreed UN framework into concrete cooperation among member states. By strengthening transparency, timely communication, predictability, and trust, They'd reduce the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation while reinforcing the implementation of the broader framework for responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs. The Philippines strongly supports the operationalization of CBMs, particularly the continued operationalization of the Global Points of Contact Directory established under the UN framework. Regular Regular engagement among POCs, simulation and tabletop exercises, voluntary testing of communication procedures, and exchanges of operational experience can improve preparedness and enhance timely communication during ICT-related incidents. Practical implementation of the initial list of voluntary global confidence-building measures should remain a priority for this mechanism. The Philippines emphasizes that capacity building is indispensable for the effective implementation of confidence-building measures. Many member states continue to face institutional, technical, and resource constraints that affect their ability to operationalize national points of contact, participate in cyber exercises, exchange technical information, and respond effectively to ICT-related incidents. Continued support for demand-driven, nationally owned, and sustainable capacity building will therefore be foundational to confidence-building efforts across all regions. Madam Chair, regional organizations play an important role in translating CBMs into practical cooperation. As ASEAN Chair in 2026, the Philippines welcomed the progress in operationalizing the ASEAN Regional CERT, an important step toward raising the regional cybersecurity posture through timely information sharing, coordinated incident response, and exchange of best practices. Together with the implementation of the ASEAN Cybersecurity Cooperation Strategy 2026 to 2030, these initiatives reinforce trusted relationships among competent authorities, improve regional preparedness, and complement the work of the global mechanism and provide valuable lessons that can inform the development and implementation of CBMs at the global level. The Philippines also believes that confidence-building can benefit the expertise and operational experience of relevant stakeholders from the private sector, industry, academia, and the technical community. Their practical insights can support their implementation improve cyber resilience, and facilitate understanding of emerging technologies while fully respecting the state-led nature of this process. Madam Chair, ultimately, the success of confidence-building lies not in the number of measures we adopt, but in the trust, cooperation, and resilience they generate. The Philippines therefore remains committed to advancing practical implementation through improved communication, Thank you very much.

Now, I'd announced the other speakers. However, the Secretariat has told me that there's going to be more speakers on behalf of CARICOM, so I'm going to give CARICOM the floor now, and then we'll get back to our list of speakers. CARICOM, please. Microphone for the Bahamas, please.

Go ahead.

Madam Chair, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the 14 member states of the Caribbean Community, CARICOM. CARICOM welcomes the establishment of the thematic— dedicated thematic group and recognizes DTG 2 on capacity building as a cornerstone of evolving framework for responsible state behavior in cyberspace. As small island development states, CARICOM members are actively strengthening our national cybersecurity ecosystem through the development of institutional framework, technical experts and national capabilities. The 2025 OAS-IDB Cybersecurity Report, based on the Oxford Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model, confirms both our progress and our challenges. The region has improved across all 5 dimensions. of the model since 2020. Yet persistent gaps in resources, workforce development, and cross-sector coordination continue to expose us to an increasingly complex threat environment. These findings underscore a central truth— sorry, it underscores a central truth: resilience cannot be achieved by individual states alone. Effective capacity building requires sustained international— again, cooperation, coordination, and partnership that responds to the needs and the priorities of the recipient state. It is against this backdrop that CARICOM highlights 3 regional priorities. First, cyber law, modern legal and regulatory frameworks that enable our states to address cybercrime, protect data, and cooperate across broader— across borders. Second, sustained cyber capacity building that develops resilience, institution, technical expertise and a skilled workforce. Third, critical infrastructure for small states. The challenge begins with the very ability to define, identify, and classify critical infrastructure and extends to protecting it with limited resources. Targeted assistance in these areas would deliver the greatest impact to our region. CARICOM therefore supports capacity-building initiatives that are voluntary, demand-driven, sustainable, transparent, and based on national ownership, and is consistent with the principle endorsed by the Open Ending Working Group. Capacity-building is not one— a one-time activity, but a long-term investment that enables states to develop resilient institutions, strengthen technical expertise, establish effective legal and policy frameworks, and build a skilled cybersecurity workforce. Evidence-based tools such as Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model demonstrate the value of measuring maturity over time, allowing assistance to be targeted where nationally defined needs are the greatest. Madam Chair, CARICOM also emphasizes that capacity-building efforts must remain accessible to all developing countries, particularly those whose unique circumstances and resources constraints may be limited in their ability to respond effectively to evolving ICT threats. Enhanced cooperation among member states regional organizations, the UN Nations system, and other relevant stakeholders can promote the exchange of experts, best practice, and technical assistance. Finally, Madam Chair, CARICOM welcomes ongoing efforts to enhance coordination and coherent— and coherence among existing capacity-building initiatives. With a view to avoiding duplication, optimizing available resources, and ensuring that assistance reaches the most needed. We are also supporting the strengthening of mechanisms that force the dialogue between states seeking assistance and those able to provide it, in line with our nationally defined priorities. As we continue our work under the global mechanism, CARICOM remains committed to advancing focused, practical, action-oriented discussions that translate shared principles into concrete support of member states. In this spirit, we look forward to contributing constructively to efforts that promote a more secure, resilient, and peaceful ICT environment for all to benefit. I thank you.

Thank you very much. I give the floor now to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Madam Chair, the Islamic Republic of Iran has actively promoted CBM initiatives on a bilateral, regional, and multilateral level. We have held consultations with broad range of partners, and we are expanding our bilateral cooperation in this field. At the regional level, these efforts have been advanced through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS cooperation, and various regional initiatives in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. These initiatives constitute an important foundation for strengthening confidence and transparency, and my delegation remains committed to further advancing such efforts. Madam Chair, paragraph 47 of the Open-Ended Working Group final report reaffirms the importance of continuing discussions on the development and implementation of confidence-building measures within the global mechanism. In this context, states took note of a proposal for a new confidence-building measure aimed at facilitating access by all states to ICT security products and tools. My delegation considers that this proposal is particularly valuable. The OEWG has already recognized by consensus that capacity-building programs are an important confidence-building measure since they provide an important avenue of collaboration that strengthens relationships, builds trust, and enhances confidence among states. Facilitating access to ICT security products and tools reflects precisely this understanding. The OEWG deliberately recognized that the 5 pillars are mutually reinforcing. And complementary to one another. Some measures naturally have implications across more than one pillar, and the proposal on access to ICT security products and tools is one such measure. It strengthens national capacities while simultaneously promoting cooperation, trust, and confidence among states. In addition, paragraph 52 of the final report encourages states on a voluntary basis to continue sharing their national views on technical ICT terms and terminology. And on the basis of this proposal, my delegation believes that the global mechanism could take a practical step forward by preparing a consolidated list of technical terms used in the consensus-based reports of the OEWG and subsequently undertake discussions to develop common understandings of key concepts such as ICTs, ICT infrastructure, ICT environment and malicious use of ICTs. We therefore believe that these 2 proposals of new approaches for CBMs reflected in the final report of the OEWG should be considered by the first dedicated thematic group and be incorporated into the existing set of 8 voluntary global confidence-building measures. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor now to Cameroon.

Madame la Présidente.

Madam Chair, this— we need to address crises, and confidence-building measures can prevent them. That's their fundamental value. No response can be based only on technical capacity. It is also based on transparency, dialogue, and ongoing cooperation among states.

Confidence-building measures provide one of the most direct avenues for translating political commitments into practical cooperation. By promoting communication, predictability, and information exchange, CBMs contribute to reducing misunderstandings, preventing misperceptions, and lowering the risk of unintended escalations arising from the use of ICTs. For developing countries, CBMs are not merely diplomatic instruments; they are practical tools that enable more inclusive participation in the international ICT security framework. They complement capacity-building efforts by creating the trust and predictability necessary for states to cooperate effectively, exchange information, and respond collectively to shared challenges. In this regard, Cameroon welcomes the establishment of the dedicated thematic group on confidence-building measures. We believe that this group should serve as an operational platform to strengthen cooperation, promote transparency, and support the effective implementation of the agreed CBMs. Madam Chair, Cameroon welcomes the progress achieved under this pillar, including the establishment of the Global Intergovernmental Points of Contact Directory and the 8 voluntary global confidence-building measures agreed upon in the Second Annual Progress Report. These achievements represent important milestones. However, their value will ultimately depend on their effective implementation. A mechanism is only effective when states have the capacity and confidence to use it. In this spirit, Cameroon wishes to propose 3 priorities. Firstly, strengthen the operational effectiveness of the Global POC Directory. The directory should continue to evolve from a repository of contacts into a dynamic instrument for cooperation. Its functionalities could be progressively enhanced to facilitate secure communication voluntary information exchange, consultations among points of contact, and the sharing of good practices. Over time, it should contribute to building a genuine community of practice among points of contact. Secondly, promoting regional and cross-regional cooperation. The global mechanism should facilitate exchanges of experience among member states and regional organizations through workshops and knowledge-sharing initiatives. Regional experiences, including those from Africa, who can provide valuable lessons and contribute to strengthening global cooperation while avoiding duplication. And lastly, supporting the practical implementation of CBMs. The global mechanism should encourage voluntary implementation guidance, practical communication tools, and capacity-building activities adapted to national circumstances. Continued dialogue on relationship between CBMs, international law, and the other pillars of the framework, which can further enhance transparency and predictability among states. Madame la Présidente, à l'heure où l'événement numérique—

Madam Chair, when the digital— at a time in which the digital world is becoming even more interconnected, responding to crises requires us to adopt the necessary measures, and CBMs really are an investment in the future. They develop cooperation habits, they strengthen institutional links, and they prepare states to act collectively in response to emerging challenges. For Cameroon, the success of the DTGs is a confidence-building measure given its capacity to bring states together, to strengthen exchanges, and to enable a lasting culture of cooperation in cyberspace to emerge. This approach is in line with the entrenched African conviction that collective security is based on the contribution of one and all and ensures the capacity of the international community to advance together in a spirit of solidarity and shared responsibility. Cameroon stands ready to work with all delegations So that the pillars of the CBMs can become a true instrument for practical cooperation, contributing to a more predictable, more inclusive, and more peaceful cyberspace for all states. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Merci beaucoup.

Thank you very much. I'll read the next 5 speakers. First, we have Norway, Thailand, Malaysia, the Russian Federation, and then North Macedonia. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Since this is the first time we're taking the floor, we would like to congratulate you on appointment and commend the Chair for the strong and clear leadership they have shown for and the guidance that provided for this session. Let me also express our appreciation for the support given by the Secretariat in this regard. Norway aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union. We would also like to make the following remarks in our national capacity. There is no doubt that the cyber threat landscape is evolving rapidly. Technology moves faster than policy, and it challenges our ability to have the best response. As we move from the Open-Ended Working Group to the GMAC, confidence-building measures have an important role to play in making the framework for responsible state behavior operational. We wanted to share 3 points with you in this regard. First, CBMs provide practical tools for implementing our agreed commitments. Mechanisms such as point of contact, dialogue, sharing of best practices, and information sharing help reduce risk, prevent misunderstandings, and contribute to stability and security in cyberspace. Second, CBMs enable practical cooperation between states. They create opportunity to exchange experiences, share best practices, and strengthen implementation of the framework, including with regard to resilience, incident response, and the protection of critical infrastructure. Third, effective implementation requires capacity and broad participation, including through the inclusion of women. Capacity building and confidence building are mutually reinforcing, and we should continue to draw on the expertise of stakeholders, including industry, academia, the technical community, and civil society, to support implementation and strengthen cyber resilience globally. Norway therefore echoes the concerns being raised with regards to the objection of the majority of stakeholders that apply applied within the procedure. For Norway, the priority is therefore to elaborate and strengthen implementations of the CBMs we have already agreed on. CBMs are practical means of translating the UN framework into concrete action, building trust, enhancing resilience, and contributing to international peace and security. Norway looks forward to further this work in the D2Ds. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Thailand.

Madam Chair, Thailand fully supports continued exchanges of views in the global mechanism on developing and implementing CBMs and sharing of national views to enhance transparency and mutual understanding among states. Thailand supports the implementation of the 8 CBMs adopted in the OEWG 2024 annual progress report as essential tools for mitigating ICT-related threats and reducing tension, misunderstandings, and miscalculations, as well as the Global Point of Contact Directory as a concrete contribution by the OEWG to build trust and confidence among states. Thailand emphasizes the importance of strengthening capacity-building efforts for POCs. Which enhances close coordination amongst them and encourages exchange of best practices between global and regional POCs to ensure effective and seamless response to cybersecurity challenges. Thailand considered the template for communication example provided by the Secretariat pursuant to A/79/14 as a useful tool to facilitate communication and assistance among POCs. We suggest incorporating elements such as urgency and confidentiality to better reflect operational needs, particularly in time-sensitive or critical situations. We also reaffirm the importance of flexibility for contact, particularly during emergencies. Thailand supports the role of regional bodies in implementing CBMs and sees great importance of cross-regional cooperation in exchanging information and good practices to strengthen collective regional cybersecurity. Last, Thailand also considers the substantive dialogue within the OEWG and the ongoing discussion in the global mechanism to be constructive CBMs in themselves and recognizes the vital role of the UN in supporting the global implementation of these measures. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Malaysia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Malaysia agrees that confidence-building measures remain an important pillar of the UN framework. As the cyber threat landscape continues to evolve, and our reliance on ICT grows, the value of CBMs in building trust and reducing the risk of misunderstanding among States becomes even more important. Having agreed on a strong set of CBMs through previous UN processes, our priority now should be to support their practical implementation. In this regard, DTG can provide a platform for States to exchange implementation experiences practical challenges, and lessons learned. It should also leverage on regional experiences, recognizing that regional mechanisms have accumulated valuable practical expertise in implementing CBMs. Regional initiatives such as the ASEAN Regional Forum Points of Contact Directory demonstrate how regional efforts can complement the implementation of CBMs. We encourage continued cross-regional exchanges through this DTG to further share practical experiences and lessons learned. Madam Chair, as many delegations have highlighted, effective implementation of agreed CBMs requires states to have the necessary capacities, knowledge, and resources to translate commitments into practical actions. Initiatives such as the Women in Cyber Fellowship, as well as the UN Singapore Cyber Fellowship Program, has enabled us to engage in dialogue such as OEWG and global mechanism, which itself serves in building confidence. Malaysia also sees the Women in Cyber Fellowship Program as CBMs in their own right, as they create professional networks and valuable channels for communication. And essentially building trust and confidence between states. Through these engagements, we learn from each other's experiences, gain a better understanding of the different challenges faced by countries, and strengthen relationships, which are more— which are important aspects of CBMs. In this regard, Malaysia sees DTG as an important platform for turning agreed confidence-building measures into practical action. By identifying states' capacity-building needs and facilitating access to relevant expertise and support, DTG can help ensure that capacity-building efforts are responsive to national needs and strengthen the implementation of the agreed CBMs. Madam Chair, Malaysia welcomes the continued operationalization of the UN Global Intergovernmental Points of Contact Directory and support UNODDLE's ongoing effort to ensure that it remains practical and operational. As cyber incidents continue to evolve in scale and complexity, timely communication between states becomes increasingly important. We therefore support regular communication checks, simulation exercises, and continued engagement to ensure that the directory remains effective when it is needed the most. Ultimately, we hope that our discussion will lead to practical outcome— outcomes. Malaysia looks forward to work with all delegations to ensure that our agreed CBMs are not only agreed upon but also implemented effectively. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I give the floor now to the Russian Federation.

Madam Chair, we are convinced, and this view is shared by the majority of member states, that the main practical outcome of the work of the Open-Ended Working Group has been the establishment, on Russia's initiative, of the Global Intergovernmental Points of Contact Directory. This was a consensus-based decision, and it enabled the implementation of the first universal confidence building measure in the field of international information security, establishing a mechanism for preventing interstate conflicts in the information space through exchanging information and identifying sources of malicious activity in the digital environment. Crucially, the POC Director is designed to foster professional, non-politicized contacts between specialists from member states as an alternative to the pernicious practice of making political attributions of unsubstantiated political attributions of computer attacks. By now, 125 States have joined the directory. That's a positive indicator, but we urge all remaining Member States to join the directory by designating appropriate diplomatic and technical points of contact. We extend our appreciation to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs for its sincere efforts to operationalize the POC directory, including through regular tests, exercises, and briefings. We also acknowledge the contribution of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research in raising awareness among developing countries of the goals and objectives of the POC Director— Directory by organizing, with the support of my country, a series of thematic seminars in 2025. It should be acknowledged that, as it is currently in its initial stages, the Directory faces a number of challenges. To the directory. Organizations or— instead of national technical response teams, organizations or individuals who are not authorized to engage in specialized cooperation are designated to the directory, who are unable to ensure the continuous availability of technical POCs, which produces problems in processing requests from other states. Obviously, we also encounter cases where certain capital simply ignore our requests for political reasons. Incidentally, that applies specifically to those countries that make unsubstantiated accusations regarding the supposed involvement of other states in various computer attacks. These issues can and should be addressed within the global mechanism, which is assuming oversight of the POC directory. The priority task is to finalize a standardized communication template. That step will simplify cooperation between POCs by clearly defining the information needed for the analysis of attacks and incidents. Colleagues from the UNODA have presented relevant considerations last year, but there wasn't enough time for a substantive discussion during the approval process for the OEWG's final report. Our position is that the draft could serve as a basis for a communications template between diplomatic POCs, but precise technical data is needed for for the needs of technical POCs. We're ready to join the discussion, and Russia has specific drafts in this regard. In our view, we need to resolve the issue of dead contacts by notifying states of the results of ping tests. What is also needed is something envisaged in the final report of the OEWG, the in-person meetings of representatives of POCs. Thank you. We plan to contribute to the development of the POC Directory by practicing POCs interaction under the Russian Capacity Building Initiative, which I'll introduce under the relevant agenda item. We're convinced that discussions on the full gamut of issues having to do with the POC Directory, that such discussions must be organized immediately, conducted with the participation of absolutely all states, and on the principle of consensus. We call upon the chair to include a separate item in the global mechanisms program of work for discussing issues related to supporting the work and improving the POC directory, or we recommend establishing an ad hoc group on the directory. Thank you.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the delegation of North Macedonia.

Madam Chair, North Macedonia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union on this. Agenda item, and in our national capacity, would like to add additional remarks. Confidence-building measures are among the most valuable outcomes of the OEWG process. They demonstrate that even in a complex and rapidly evolving cyber environment, states can agree on practical measures and strengthen trust, improve communication, and contribute to international peace and security. For my country, confidence-building measures are practical tools that help reduce misunderstanding, strengthen cooperation, and lower the risk of unintended escalation, practically during significant ICT incidents when timely communication between states is essential. Coming from a region where cooperation and dialogue have been essential for building confidence, We have seen the value of regular communication, information sharing, and practical cooperation. Trusted relationships developed over time become especially valuable when quick coordination is needed. This experience reinforces our belief that regional and global efforts should complement one another. As we move from agreeing on these measures to implementing them, Our focus should be on making them work in practice. We also welcome the continued development of the Global Point of Contact Directory as an important practical tool for timely communication and coordination among States. We look forward to seeing confidence-building measures reflecting in the work of the thematic groups through the sharing of national experience, practical implementation approaches, and good practices. while avoiding duplication of discussions taking place in the plenary session. Such exchanges can help translate our common commitment into effective action. North Macedonia remains committed to work with all partners to future strengthening trust, transparency, and stability in cyberspace. I thank you.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. Let me just read the next 5 speakers. We have Tuvalu, Germany, Mozambique, the DRC, and the Dominican Republic. Tuvalu, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, Tuvalu aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Kingdom of Tonga on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum. As a Pacific Ocean state, our approach to regional security is firmly anchored in the Boyd Declaration. The declaration guides us to look at security in a comprehensive way, integrating human well-being, climate resilience, and digital sovereignty. For Tuvalu, cybersecurity is not just a theoretical concern. It is fundamental to our development as a digital nation. Through our Devaka Subsea Cable, we are establishing the infrastructure that connects our island to the global community. Protecting this digital lifeline is therefore a core national priority. However, this lifeline requires a robust security posture to match We are bridging the gap between policy and practice by finalizing our computer crime and cybercrime bill and laying the foundational groundwork for our national CERT. For a small island developing state, this transition is complex. It requires moving beyond general dialogue to actionable technical support. As a practical contribution to this global effort, I am pleased to announce that Tuvalu will host the 19th Asia-Pacific Telecommunication Policy and Regulation Forum from 4th to 6th August this year. We view this forum as a tangible confidence-building measure in itself, a platform for transparency, information exchange, and capacity building that this mechanism advocates for. We see the 3 clear areas where this global mechanism can help us move from dialogue to implementation. First, we must operationalize the Global Intergovernmental Points of Contact Directory. For states currently building their technical capacity, this directory is vital. We need this tool to prioritize and advise incident notification protocol, allowing us to integrate into regional security networks and enable a reciprocal exchange of threat intelligence. Second, we need to focus on capacity sovereignty. International cooperation must shift away from short-term external consulting and towards a tangible long-term training of our local— of our own local technical teams, true confidence is established where every state, regardless of its size, possesses the sovereign ability to manage its own digital system independently. Finally, there is the issue of critical assets protection. Our Devaka subsea cable is a vital digital artery for Tuvalu. We urge this mechanism to establish clear international guidance for the protection of subsea infrastructure. We seek an explicit CBM, a commitment from all member states and stakeholders to share best practice to safeguard this essential digital lifeline from both natural hazards and malicious cyber threats. Madam Chair, To Valois doing the heavy lifting at home, we are building the laws and the framework of our institutions. We invite this mechanism to provide the practical operational framework that supports these efforts, ensuring that no Pacific Ocean state is left behind. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias y doy a Thank you very much.

I give the floor to the delegation of Germany.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Germany aligns itself with the statement of the EU and of the informal open Cross-Regional Group of Confidence Builders, and we will make the following remarks in our national capacity. Confidence-building measures are action-oriented, voluntary cyber diplomacy tools at the discretion of states that can help reduce tensions and the risk of miscalculation. The last open-ended working group has established 8 global confidence-building measures building on the work of the informal open cross-regional group of confidence builders. It is our view that now we should dedicate our resources build a common understanding and identify best practices in their implementation. The global mechanism, especially the DTGs, provide an opportunity to develop ways to operationalize this key pillar of the framework in a practical way and can act as a forum for cross-regional learning. I'd like to echo Ghana's remarks on the side event Ghana, the Dominican Republic, and Germany co-hosted yesterday on regional best practices for the implementation of CBMs. It highlighted the practical, concrete value that confidence-building measures can add in solving real-world policy challenges. It also underlined the value of cross-regional exchanges, partnerships, and capacity building for CBM implementation. It is clear that CBMs cannot be considered in isolation of other pillars. The exercise of confidence-building measures requires capacity building to enable all states meaningful and inclusive participation in their implementation. Germany attaches great value to the implementation of confidence-building measures that are tailored to the regional contexts and needs. Through our regional partnerships, we are working together and are exchanging experiences with different regional organizations in the development, adoption, and implementation of CBMs. For example, over the past years, Germany has worked closely together with ECOWAS member states in the ECOWAS Commission in their journey towards the adoption of a first set of CBMs in Africa. Germany has been a consistent supporter of discussing and adopting CBMs that are concrete, action-oriented, and voluntary in nature, that build on consensus, and that are focused on building transparency, cooperation, and stability between states. At a minimum, any CBM, existing or reproposed, should fulfill these criteria and avoid entering the field of expectations, or even obligations. Finally, a few remarks on the POC directory. It is designed as a voluntary practical tool at the discretion of states. In addition, and in complementarity to it, there are established channels such as FIRST, the Network of CERTs, CERT2CERT, or Law Enforcement Cooperation, as well as relevant and existing regional POC networks in accordance with their respective specific setups. These are practical and tested channels, and the POC network is not intended to, and in our view should not replace those channels. Neither should it replace other diplomatic channels that are appropriate to address strategic security concerns. It has, however, great potential, and in our view that is the main purpose of the directory, to facilitate the voluntary coordination and communication between states and to enhance cooperation and build mutual trust on the basis of good faith engagement. Germany is and has always been open to engaging in a good faith spirit in the directory. Our Federal Foreign Office serves as the diplomatic POC. Germany's Cybersecurity Agency serves as the technical POC. We reported last year that we have received repetitive, identical messages from a certain state, to which we have initially replied in good faith. Our Cybersecurity Agency confirmed receipt and recommended an appropriate course of action involving a second authority to address the content of the request. However, despite these indications, our technical POC continued receiving repeated identical requests from the same sender who has not taken into account our replies. This is clearly not in line with the purpose of the UN POC directory and does not present a responsible or sincere use of the directory. Germany continues to engage with all interested parties on good faith requests through the POC directory and also on the wider topic of confidence-building measures. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Mozambique.

Madam Chair, Mozambique aligns itself with the statement delivered by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group and wishes to convey the following remarks in its national capacity. Mozambique considers confidence-building measures to be one of the most practical pillars of the global mechanism. For developing countries, confidence-building measures should move beyond political commitments and translate into concrete mechanisms that strengthen confidence, reduce the risk of misunderstanding, and miscalculation and improve collective resilience against cyber threats. Mozambique therefore supports the development of practical confidence-building measures, including strengthened cooperation among national CSRTs, effective point of contact, voluntary information sharing, joint cyber exercises, early warning mechanisms, and a regular exchange of good practices. These measures should be implemented in a manner that respects national sovereignty, national priorities, and the different levels of capacity. Mozambique encourages the mechanism to facilitate cooperation across the global, regional, and national levels, ensuring that confidence-building measures remain practical, inclusive, and accessible to all states, particularly developing countries.

Ultimately, effective confidence-building measures are essential instruments for preventing conflict, enhancing transparency, promoting stability and strengthening international peace and security in cyberspace.

Madam Chair, confidence cannot be declared. It must be earned through consistent cooperation. Mozambique stands ready to work with all member states to make confidence-building measures a practical reality that strengthens peace, security, and stability in cyberspace. Muchas gracias.

Muito obrigada a você. Agora, la palabra.

Muito obrigada. I now give the floor to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Como se la prometió.

Madam Chair, this is the first time my delegation is taking the floor, so we sincerely congratulate you on your appointment. And you may be assured of our full support. The Democratic Republic of the Congo aligns itself with the statement delivered by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, and we would like to add the following in our national capacity. My delegation believes that confidence-building measures are a crucial tool to prevent misunderstandings, reduce the risk of misunderstandings, and establish stability and cyberspace. In a digital environment marked with growing interdependence and rapid development— rapid developments, trust among states is indispensable to international cooperation that is effective. My delegation believes that confidence-building measures must be enacted in a practical, transparent, and inclusive manner. Taking account of the priorities of every state. This must ensure a climate of predictability, dialogue, and comprehension. In this regard, my delegation encourages the strengthening of communications mechanisms among states, and we welcome the establishment and the effective implementation of the Global POC Directory. Such a mechanism will facilitate the exchange of information and the rapid management of cyber incidents, and they will curb the risk of escalation resulting from a misinterpretation or a lack of communications. Madam Chair, my delegation also supports the development of the voluntary cyber simulations. And capacity building as well, aiming to improve the preparation of states to cybersecurity incidents. These incidents foster the sharing of best practices, but also the development of common framework and confidence-building measures. To ensure the success of these measures, that will depend on how the different participants take ownership of them. To ensure this effectiveness and inclusivity, my delegation joins the call sounded by Colombia and Mexico to promote multilingualism. Multilingualism is a guarantor of inclusivity and spaces for negotiation, and it has ensured the effective participation by everyone and the best results and the involvement of everyone. My delegation also encourages states to share on a voluntary basis their national experience in terms of cybersecurity strategies, the protection of essential infrastructure, risk management, and response to incidents. When we can foster mutual trust and understanding among states, The DRC also underscores the importance of regional cooperation. Regional and sub-regional organizations play a decisive role in the implementation of CBMs by facilitating the sharing of experience, coordinating responses to threats, developing capacity that is in line with local realities. In Africa, the AU initiatives and sub-regional initiatives are the invaluable framework, which needs to be strengthened and aligned with global efforts. The Democratic Republic of the Congo remains convinced that CBMs need to be tightly linked to other measures. They will be more effective when they are coupled with sound national capacity and the norms of responsible behavior by States and in line with international law and with strengthened operational capacity. Finally, my delegation believes that the Global Permanent Mechanism is a unique opportunity to promote and evaluate regularly CBMs and which CBMs are the most effective to meet the needs of all States, in particular developing States. The Democratic Republic of the Congo reaffirms its commitment to actively contribute to the development and the implementation of CBMs and fostering cooperation, stability, and preserving a cyberspace that is open, secure, safe, stable, and peaceful. Thank you.

I now give the floor to the Dominican Republic. followed by Bosnia-Herzegovina, the African Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. And with these speakers, that will bring us to the end of this agenda item. The DR, please.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Dominican Republic reiterates the fact that we align ourselves with the joint statement delivered by our delegation yesterday on behalf of our regional group. In our national capacity, we would like to expand on some of the concrete thoughts shared on confidence-building measures. As chair of the Working Group on CBMs in cyberspace of the Organization of American States during the 2024 to 2025 session, And as members of this same group since it was created in 2017, we have seen from experience and we have closely followed the establishment of a regional framework of CBMs and the full recognition of what has worked as well as what hasn't worked. The challenge is no longer a normative one, it's a practical one, because global CBMs benefit from very broad political backing. We're aware of that. However, what is lacking is translating these CBMs into established capacities. In practice, for example, in— from other directories, we've learned that a designated contact point on paper is not the same as a designated focal point that is in a position to respond 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. While it's true that the Global Directory of Points of Contact has periodic exercises, verification exercises, and ping tests. The metrics, response metrics, for us should be shared because this transparency would reflect, number one, the real results of implementation, and two, the real commitment of each and every one of the parties. When it comes to ransomware against essential public services in our region, just a few years ago, we saw something that must be recognized frankly, and that is that CBMs are preventive diplomacy tools. They're tools of preventive diplomacy. They are not necessarily mechanisms that are actionable in real time to respond to incidents. What this crisis in that state taught us was that bilateral technical direct cooperation was key. Without a doubt, CBMs helped to boost confidence and trust in order to engage in and host technical assistance and act rapidly. Significant, and there was the establishment of the common scale on the severity of incidents, and that allows all members to be able to understand and recognize just how serious the incident that another member state is dealing with is. Another important thing is the way this framework on measuring severity can help us to prioritize and scale cooperation between national CERTs. No CBM can be implemented in a void. In order to do that, we require a national mechanism and practical measures to be able to turn these tools into regulations and achieve institutional continuity when we have staff turnover. And this is particularly relevant in Latin American countries like ours. So we would be grateful if we could recognize in every state these regional CBM and specialized technical assistance measures such as the Cybersecurity Center for Latin America and the Caribbean that currently has its headquarters in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. That is an example of how point-to-point cooperation can sustain capacity building. Just to wrap up now, Madam Chair, we would like to reiterate the fact that we stand ready to share our regional experience experience with the global mechanism, and this including through the working document of the confidence builders that we prepared upstream from the December session. So with the December session in mind, this global mechanism— and this is the last thing I'm going to say— makes it clear that states can't build their capacities from zero. But rather they need to work through the regional mechanisms that already work, promoting in turn the efficient and effective use of resources, the limited resources that states have available to them. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, says the Chair, and I give the floor to the delegation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While we align with the statements of the European Union, I would like to add some comments in my national capacity. Confidence-building measures are essential to reducing the risk of misunderstandings and conflict in cyberspace. Mindful of their vital role, we strongly believe that the work of the Global Mechanism should focus on raising awareness of CBMs at national, regional, and global levels. Drawing in particular on the experiences and practices of regional organizations in this field. By offering valuable lessons and tested approaches, regional organizations play an important role in enhancing transparency, predictability, and cooperation among states. At this juncture, allow me to highlight that Bosnia and Herzegovina has, over the past years, increased its engagement in regular regional and cross-regional exchanges of experiences and good practices, including within Western Balkans, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as with European Union. Starting from our own region, we attach particular importance to strengthening joint efforts and mutual trust. In this spirit, we actively engage in initiatives such as the Berlin Process. A key milestone in this regard was the launch of the Western Balkan Cyber Diplomacy Network in 2025, an initiative supported by the German Federal Foreign Office. The network represents yet another example of the region's shared commitment to addressing cross-border cyber challenges through dialogue, and cooperation. Madam Chair, because cyber challenges are inherently borderless, Bosnia and Herzegovina will continue to engage in constructive manner and contribute with its utmost capacities to advancing the effective implementation of confidence-building measures. I thank you.

Muchísimas gracias. Doy ahora la palabra.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the African Union.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The African Union Commission endorses the statement of the African Group, and we would like to provide more information on what the African Union is currently doing in terms of confidence-building measures. From the standpoint of the Commission of the African Union, of the African position, the common African position on the application of international law to cyberspace, that position reaffirms the importance of the peaceful settlement of disputes in cyberspace. That priority guides our actions. In this regard, confidence-building measures are an essential pillar of our efforts seeking to strengthen cybersecurity and build digital trust and promote cooperation regionally and internationally. In this regard, the Continental Framework of the African Union offers a sound basis basis for fostering cooperation, sharing training, and strengthening collective resilience among member states, in particular in the context of the peace and security architecture. It is our conviction that trust cannot be established by responding urgently to a crisis. It needs to be built beforehand so as to prevent conflicts and to cultivate in the long term, including when they're— cultivate trust in the long term, including when there are disagreements. In this spirit, the African Union Commission has committed to thinking about measures the continent could take adapted to the regional realities of the continent. This process draws on experience gained in economic and regional committees, in particular ECOWAS, and it also draws on best practices developed by other international organizations. We have an ambition, and it's not to reproduce existing models, and it's not to multiply the number of confidence-building measures. Our ambition is to set out concrete adapted measures adapted to African realities, measures that can be effectively implemented in the various regions of our continent. By way of conclusion, we would like to set out three recommendations for the global mechanism to allow that mechanism. To support and strengthen the work done by the African Union. First, institutionalize a technical and regular dialogue between the Global Mechanism and regional organizations. Second, strengthen support provided to regional organizations for the development and the implementation of CBMs. Third and Finally, facilitate the integration of the regional points of contact with the global POC directorium. I thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

Merci, merci beaucoup. Vamos a darle ahora la palabra.

Okay, we'll give the floor to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. OSCE, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. And since it's the first time I'm speaking, I would like to congratulate you on— for your appointment to chair the Global Mechanism. Many delegations have mentioned the work done by regional organizations on CBMs, so please allow me to share some experiences from one of these regional organizations. I will present a shortened version but will share in writing the more detailed The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was the first regional organization to develop cyber confidence-building measures and has many years of experience in the practical implementation of its 16 CBMs. The OSCE has started to work on CBMs in the early 2010s on the initiative of some members of the GGE with the objective to complement the work in the United Nations. How does the OSCE implement CBMs? First and foremost, OSCE participating states have committed to regularly give updates on how they are implementing the CBMs on national level. In practice, this is done in the Informal Working Group on Cyber, the format to discuss cyber ICT security within the OSCE, meeting 4 times a year. Another form of implementation is the Adopt a CBM initiative when one state or a group of states is championing the implementation of a specific CBM. To this date, 26 OSC participating states have adopted 9 CBMs and significantly contributed to the meaningful implementation of those CBMs. A third form of implementation is capacity building activities namely trainings and workshops delivered by the Secretariat. These events usually involve a scenario-based exercise which helps understanding the practical application of the CBMs and is usually well received by the participants. The regional work on CBMs is not done in isolation but also in connection with the UN-level discussions. Last month, the OSC held the 6th annual meeting of technical and policy points of contact nominated in line with OSCE CBM number 8 in Vienna. This year we discussed, amongst others, the Global Mechanism with the aim of raising awareness on this first substantive session. I would like to express my gratitude to Ms. Julia Rodriguez of the chairs team and Ms. Catherine Priceman of UNODA for their valuable contributions and to our meeting. The latter brings me to the last point I would like to mention, namely inter-regional cooperation and the role of regional organizations in implementing the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace. The OSCE Secretariat has been advocating for the cooperation between regional organizations on cyber issues since a decade. The role regional organizations in implementing the UN-level recommendations has been highlighted in the GG and OEWG reports. I would like to recall a non-paper on inter-regional cooperation and the role of regional organizations, which was submitted by Switzerland to the 2nd Open-Ended Working Group in June 2025 and also mentioned yesterday by the Swiss representative in his intervention. The non-paper was prepared with contributions by 7 regional organizations, giving a brief snapshot of what their contributions to the implementation of the UN framework is, as well as recommendations how regional organizations could contribute to future discussions. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the OSCE Secretary's continued readiness and availability to share its regional experiences and lessons learned. Thank you.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. Very well. Before we move on to the next agenda item, I'd like to just recall the following established in Annex 1 of A/AT257. And I'll just quote, accredited parties can attend the substantive plenary sessions and the regional mechanisms and make oral statements during the dedicated sessions for stakeholders. They can also make oral statements after states if time is available. and at the discretion of the Chair. This is the case for review conferences and substantive plenary sessions. According to these modalities, and in a spirit of compromise with the interests of stakeholders who have a lot of experience in this area, I'd like to open the floor now for accredited entities. precisely on this agenda item, CBMs, and the floor will be given to them with a strict limit of 3 minutes each. I give the floor now to Discover MUN Foundation.

Thank you, Madam Chair, again for the floor. My name is Caleb Lee, and I take the floor on behalf of the Youth Publications and Socioeconomic Forum, a subsidiary program of the DMUN Foundation. While confidence-building measures are ultimately about reducing uncertainty and strengthening trust between states, confidence in cyberspace cannot exist solely between governments. It must extend to the people who use digital technologies every day, especially young people. Today's youth are the first generation to grow up in an environment where cyber incidents, online disinformation, and AI-generated content are part of everyday life. That despite being among the most affected stakeholders, young people are rarely included in discussions on how trust and confidence in cyberspace should be built. We therefore encourage member states to consider youth engagement as a practical confidence-building measure. This can include structured dialogue— structured dialogues between governments and youth, support for youth-led cyber awareness initiatives, and opportunities for young experts to participate in regional and international confidence-building activities. Young exchanges— youth exchanges across borders can also help foster mutual understanding, build professional networks among future cybersecurity leaders, and promote a shared culture of responsibility— responsible behavior in the use of ITCs. These people-to-people connections reinforce the trust that formal confidence-building measures seek to achieve. Finally, confidence-building efforts should ensure the meaningful participation of young people from developing countries and underrepresented communities. Cybersecurity is a shared global responsibility, and trust is built more effectively when large segments of the next generation are included in opportunities to contribute and help shape the future of cyberspace. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We have heard the last speaker under this item. I thank you for this very interesting exchange of views, as I've done for the other agenda items. I would like to briefly summarize our discussion.

You have reflected on the 8 global measures, which include information exchange measures, including sharing national strategies, legislation, good practices, collaboration between the public and private sector, and capacity building measures, which without a doubt is a cross-cutting topic. We heard about the value of the Points of contact delivery directory rather the global directory. Many delegations agree that this is an important confidence-building tool, a voluntary one that can strengthen cooperation and reduce misinterpretation and civility. And CBMs can strengthen cooperation. The risks from erroneous transactions, errors of calculation, and all of these measures can foster stability in the digital sector. I also welcome states' participation in this directory, and I hope that we'll eventually be able to achieve universal participation. Like in past practice, I would urge all of those who haven't yet done so to appoint and nominate diplomatic contact points and engage in the verifications to ensure that these contact points remain active and operational, given that the real value of them is precisely them being able to respond in a timely manner to ICT incidents. We also heard the value that member states attach to these measures that are vital for the implementation of the framework on responsible state behavior. So, thank you, all of you, for all of your statements. We've taken note of all of them, and they are important inputs for us, for us to be able to determine the way forward, specifically exactly how we'll structure the discussions in the DTGs. We'll now move on to our final agenda item, Which is developing and implementing capacity building. As you know, like for the other agenda items, there's no pre-established list of speakers, so I'd invite you all to press your microphone button— wow, that was quick— to express your intention to take the floor. I reiterate that there is no established Time limit for your statements, but I would be very grateful if you could consider delivering a shorter statement and send the full version of your statements to e-statements, to the Secretariat, and to the chair's team. That way we'll be able to hear from all delegations. For reference, um, and to help you, we'll display the Clock on the screen. I give the floor to Tonga on behalf of PIF, followed by the European Union, Chile speaking on behalf of a group of countries. And Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. Tonga, please.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the members of the Pacific Islands Forum with a presence at the United Nations, namely Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and my own country, Tonga. Chair, capacity building is the enabler that underpins all aspects of our work. It is foundational to responding to threats, implementing norms, engaging meaningfully in the discussion of international law, and to sustain confidence-building measures. It should not be siloed and should remain a cross-cutting thread through all of the mechanism's work. Our priorities remain practical and grounded in operational needs. They include critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure protection, cyber incident response, technical implementation, Legislative and policy development, workforce development, public awareness and cyber hygiene, legal capacity building, regional CBMs, and support to understand and manage AI-related cybersecurity risks. These are the issues that matter to countries and communities, and they should guide the work of the Global Mechanism. We are particularly hopeful that the dedicated thematic working groups, through their informal and action-oriented approach, can help address many of these issues. The DTGs should be used to identify needs, share practical experience, connect states with relevant expertise, and help match national and regional priorities with appropriate support. They should not become additional negotiating rooms that reproduce the same procedural disagreements, nor they should simply repeat plenary discussions. Their value will be measured by whether they help countries make progress. Stakeholder engagement is essential to this effort. Our member states, consistently find the technical expertise of the multi-stakeholder community— academia, civil society, the private sector, and the technical community— to be of real and practical value. Meaningful capacity building depends on access to that expertise. If we want capacity building, we need stakeholders. We therefore strongly support their substantive inclusion in both formal and informal settings, and we support the fullest possible use of expert briefings within the dedicated thematic groups. Such briefings are of genuine benefit to smaller delegations, and we trust they will be delivered in an appropriate manner. We continue to urge improvements To accreditation and participation modalities so that stakeholder participation is real rather than nominal. Accessibility is also a capacity-building issue. Hybrid modalities, travel support, regional workshops, and time zone-sensitive scheduling all affect whether small delegations can participate. We We welcome hybrid modalities for the DTGs, but again ask for meeting times to be rotated so Pacific delegations are not consistently asked to participate in the middle of the night. An inclusive global mechanism must be inclusive not only in principle but in the practical design of its work. In the Pacific, distance has never meant disconnection. Across our ocean, communities have navigated by knowing the winds, reading the currents, and keeping sight of the stars. That spirit should guide this global mechanism. We need a process that helps states find their course through a changing digital environment, not by adding complexity, but by building trust, sharing knowledge, and delivering practical support where it is needed most. Let this mechanism be more than a place where we describe the challenges before us. Let it become a way to move together with purpose towards stronger resilience, meaningful capacity, and a secure, stable, open, and peaceful ICT environment for all. Thank you, Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you. Before giving the floor to the following speaker, I'll inform you that we've received 43 requests for the floor. Thank you, therefore, for indicating if you would like to take the floor so that we, together with the Secretariat can decide the total number of delegations who wish to intervene. I now give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Chair, colleagues, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, as well as San Marino, aligned themselves with this statement. As set out in the final OEWG report, cyber capacity building is a priority of the international community and should continue to be a central issue under the global mechanism complementing the efforts at regional and bilateral level, as well as with the multi-stakeholder community. Currently, many developing and emerging economies lack the technical expertise and institutional policies, as well as frameworks necessary to address cyber threats effectively. This not only undermines their digital development, but also impacts international security and stability. Therefore, the work under the global mechanism should enable exchanges that allow for the identification of an evolving list of concrete gaps and needs for cyber capacity-building efforts, as well as facilitate recipients and donors, including from the multi-stakeholder community, to connect. The aim should be to translate the UN framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace into practical cybersecurity measures to enhance national resilience, and to implement cyber capacity-building projects on this basis on the ground. States can contribute to this by identifying gaps, seeking coordination and cooperation for effective delivery of capacity-building, and by sharing their national best practices on how they implement the UN framework of responsible state behavior in their regional and national frameworks. Such exchanges should take place in DTG II and could take into account the exchanges in DTG I on best practices and concrete cybersecurity measures needed at national level to address cyber threats, and on the application of international law, voluntary norms, and CBMs in the context of specific challenges. Further discussions could take place in the plenary and in DTG II, including on broader questions related to cyber capacity building as a policy. These discussions could include the further development of a digital tool to support states' implementation of the UN framework, building on the Voluntary Norms Implementation Checklist. The role of the multi-stakeholder community in the design and delivery of cyber capacity building, on the role of regional organizations in ensuring effective coordination, or on how to best mainstream the agreed ICT security capacity building guidelines as adopted in the 2021 OEWG report into relevant ICT security cyber capacity-building programming. Also, the Global Roundtable on Capacity Building could play a role in ensuring enhanced coordination and cooperation. For instance, by bringing together capacity-building implementers for exchange of information and best practices, feeding into the discussions in the plenary and DTG 2. The EU and its member states will aim to avoid duplication with discussions between the plenary, DTG 2, and the Global Roundtable, and pursue a streamlined approach. Moreover, the EU has significantly invested in cyber capacity building over recent years and will continue to do so in the coming years, working on cyber capacity building projects with partners in all regions globally. Currently, in addition to EU member states' individual projects and initiatives such as the Global Gateway, the EU is working with partners on 27 projects with a value of €100 million, and we will continue to invest, recognizing capacity building as an essential pillar of security and stability in cyberspace, as well as our partnerships. Furthermore, the EU and member states will continue to promote coordination and cooperation, including with international organizations and other stakeholders such as industry, civil society, and academia, to ensure meaningful allocation of scarce resources and to deliver capacity-building activities in an effective and sustainable manner.

manner.

Ultimately, the Global Mechanism is the unique opportunity to ensure we enhance global cyber resilience by translating, translating the UN framework into concrete national cybersecurity measures, and based on this, by delivering cyber capacity building that is inclusive, needs-based, and grounded in equal partnerships. Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the delegation of Chile speaking on behalf of a group of states.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's my honor to take the floor on behalf of the following delegations from the Latin American region: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay. Please allow us to begin by congratulating you, Madam Chair, for your leadership of this first substantive session of the Global Mechanism. We reiterate our full support to your work and our commitment to an inclusive, transparent, results-focused mechanism. Madam President, the creation of the Global Mechanism marks the beginning of a new step forward in the work of the United Nations on ICTs. After more than 2 decades of work engaged in by the open-ended working groups and the groups of governmental experts, what we need to do now is focus our efforts on the implementation of a constantly evolving framework for responsible state behavior. In this step, capacity building will continue to play an absolutely key role. As the final report of the open-ended working group from 2021 to 2025 states, capacity building is a cross-cutting part of the framework for responsible state behavior and one of the essential functions of the new global mechanism. It strengthens resilience. It's contributes to reducing digital gaps. It facilitates the effective implementation of the agreements reached and promotes international cooperation to preserve international peace and security. In this regard, we appreciate the establishment of the dedicated thematic group on capacity building, bearing in mind that this is a significant milestone and follows up on the work that our countries have been promoting constantly over the last few years through joint statements, working documents, and concrete proposals focused on strengthening the role of this dimension within the Permanent Mechanism. Capacity building is a key element that enables states to effectively implement the different components of the Framework for Responsible State Behavior. Their cross-cutting nature does not reduce but rather strengthens the needs and importance of having a dedicated thematic group that will enable a strategic, coherent, results-focused direction to be taken. In this regard, we believe that both DTGs play different roles, however also relevant complementary roles, um, and must be worked on together in a balanced way. The cross-cutting themes that run through both groups reflect the fact that the implementation of the framework requires a substantive analysis of emerging challenges as well as a systemic effort to strengthen the capacities of states. Madam Chair, we believe that the DTG on capacity building must be established as the main platform for dialogue on this issue within the framework of the global mechanism, playing a fundamental role as a space for strategic coordination to facilitate the exchange of information and experience, to articulate synergies between existing mechanisms, and to identify opportunities for cooperation that can respond to the needs expressed by states. What's more, we recognize the significant contribution that in line with the modalities agreed on, academia, civil society, the private sector, the technical community, and other stakeholders can play here. Madam Chair, in this new step in the global mechanism, for us, discussions on capacity building must be focused on the— on practical implementation because this is the link that enables us to turn political commitments made at the UN into concrete capacities on a domestic level. In this sense, the DTG can take as an initial basis the report on the analysis to study the panorama of programs and initiatives for capacity buildings within and outside the United Nations on a global and regional scale. That's in document 292/2020. 24/2, and this can contribute, among other things, to identifying national, regional, thematic needs for capacity building, to exchange experiences, good practices, and lessons learned, to promote the participation of women in capacity building activities, to promote associations and cooperation networks between countries to strengthen north-south, south-south, and triangular cooperation to improve coordination and complementarity between different international, regional, and sub-regional initiatives that already exist, and to identify opportunities for technical assistance and institutional strengthening to support the implementation of responsible state behavior, and to establish action-focused recommendations for the consideration of the plenary. In light of the above and in the spirit of contributing constructively to the deliberations of this DTG, we're delighted to announce that we will soon be presenting a working document with concrete proposals on the future functions, priorities, and modalities of the work of that group. We hope that the above-mentioned document will enrich the deliberations in the mechanism and will facilitate the development of an ambitious, inclusive, and flexible programme of work that is results-focused. Furthermore, we reiterate the fact that we stand fully ready to work with all delegations and other stakeholders to develop proposals and initiatives, and we invite those who are engaging in efforts in this area to join this process in order to build a common inclusive approach. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

I give the floor to the delegation of Nigeria.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the African Group. The African Group welcomes the establishment of dedicated thematic group 2 on capacity building and considers it an important opportunity to consolidate and advance the significant progress achieved under the OEWG, where capacity building emerged as an essential part of international cooperation and assistance in the security of, and in the use of, information and communication technologies. For African countries, capacity building is not an auxiliary issue. It is a strategic enabler for achieving a secure, resilient, and inclusive digital future. As digital transformation accelerates across our continent, strengthening national and regional cyber capacity remains essential to enabling states to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from cyber threats while advancing sustainable development in line with African Union Agenda 2063, The Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa from 2020 to 2030. The African Group, therefore, believes that the work of Dedicated Thematic Group 2 should build upon, rather than duplicate, the valuable outcome of Open-Ended Working Group, the extensive valuable discussions, recommendations, and confidence built over successful OEWG sections provide a strong foundation for developing practical, coordinated, and action-oriented approaches to capacity building under global mechanism. The group welcomes proposals for a structured diagnostic assessment of the current capacity building landscape as an early DTG deliverable and encourages the co-facilitator to take this forward. African capacity building priorities remain clear: strengthening national cybersecurity strategies and governance framework, developing legislative and regulatory frameworks, enhancing technical and operational capabilities, including national and sectoral capacity mutual security incident response teams, building cyber diplomacy expertise, promoting cyber resilience for critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure, supporting digital forensic and cybercrime investigation, advancing cybersecurity education and workforce development, and fostering regional cooperation and information sharing. Madam Chair, we also underscored that effective capacity building must be demand-driven, nationally owned, sustainable, and tailored to the specific needs and priorities of countries. We must underscore regional perspectives and reality to capacity building. Capacity building should also promote inclusive approach Through the meaningful participation of women, youth, academia, the technical community, civil society, and private sector, recognizing that cybersecurity is a— recognizing that cybersecurity is a shared responsibility requiring all-of-society approaches. The African Group encourages all member states to complete their nomination to the Global Point of contact directory as an immediate concrete confidence-building step. The African Group further recognizes and appreciates the longstanding partnerships that have supported cybersecurity capacity building across the continent. We commend the continued cooperation assistance provided by a range of partner— a range of partner countries and regional and international organizations through technical assistance, training programs, institutional support, knowledge exchange, and financial resources. These partnerships have contributed significantly to strengthening cyber resilience across African states. As we move forward, the DigiG2 should serve as a platform for enhanced coordination, transparency, and coherence among existing capacity-building initiatives avoid duplication, maximize available resources, facilitate the sharing of good practices, and other match national and regional capacity building needs with available expertise and support. Digital tools should be allocated adequate time within the program of work commensurate with the centrality of capacity building to the mechanism mandate. Reporting and review arrangements should be proportionate to national capacity and designed to encourage rather than deter participation. Madam Chair, the African Group encourages progress on practical initiatives including the Global ICT Security Cooperation and Capacity Building Portal, the Point of Contact Directory, Cyber SSI, strengthen national settings, a voluntary UN ICT Security Capacity Building Fund, and programs to develop cybersecurity professionals. The African Group also reiterates its call for a United Nations ICT Security Fellowship Program for developing countries, with attention to least developed countries and small island developing states, Designed to ensure efficiency, transparency, and equitable access. Madam Chair, the African Group reiterates that sustained investments in cybersecurity capacity building is essential for the effective implementation of UN Framework of Responsible State Behavior in the security and use of ICT. DGT2 presents an important opportunity to translate commitment into practical outcome and ensure that all states, particularly developing countries, can participate fully and benefit from a secure, resilient, stable, and peaceful cyberspace. I thank you, Madam Chair, and I also seek your indulgence to call upon my colleague to deliver our national statement. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Of course. Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, Nigeria aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the African Group and wishes to make the following remarks in its national capacity. My delegation commends your leadership in guiding our work towards a practical, inclusive, and action-oriented global mechanism. Nigeria welcomes the establishment of the dedicated thematic group 2, or capacity building, and considers it as a vital platform for translating the substantial progress achieved under the open-ended working group into concrete and sustainable outcomes. For Nigeria, capacity building is a cornerstone of an open, secure, stable, accessible, and resilient cyberspace. It is essential for implementing the UN framework of responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs and enabling developing countries to address evolving cyber threats. Capacity-building efforts should be demand-driven, nationally owned, sustainable, and tailored to national priorities while strengthening institutions, human capital, and resilient cyber ecosystem. In this regard, Nigeria believes DTG2 should prioritize strengthening national cybersecurity strategies, legal and governance framework, technical capabilities including CSETs, and expertise in cyber diplomacy, digital forensic cybercrime investigations, and the promotion of critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure. As emerging technologies continue to evolve rapidly, our capacity building efforts should equally invest cybersecurity education, digital skill development, research and innovation, while promoting indigenous expertise that enables sustainable national ownership of cybersecurity capabilities. Nigeria attaches particular importance to practical cooperation. We support enhanced cooperation amongst governments, regional organizations, academia, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community to promote knowledge sharing, cyber exercises, threat intelligence exchange, vulnerability assessment, and dissemination of good practices. Such cooperation should complement the state-led nature of this mechanism while strengthening collective cyber resilience. Madam Chair, Nigeria supports practical initiatives that deliver tangible outcomes, including the Global ICT Cooperation Security Cooperation and Capacity Building Portal, the Global Points of Contact Directory, strengthened national SETCs and CSETCs, a voluntary UN ICT Security Capacity Building Fund, and a United Nations ICT Security Fellowship Program to expand opportunities to developing countries, particularly least developed countries and small island developing states. We further underscore the importance of ensuring the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women and youths in cybersecurity capacity-building programs. We commend initiatives such as UNIDEL and donor sponsorship of Women in International Security and Cyberspace Fellowship, which has made valuable contributions to broadening inclusive participation in international cyber discussions. Ultimately, Nigeria believes DTG2 should coordinate existing capacity-building initiatives, avoid duplication, match identified needs with valuable expertise and resources, and promote coherent implementation. Given its central role in advancing responsible state behavior in cyberspace, capacity building should receive adequate attention throughout the work of this mechanism. Nigeria remains committed to working constructively with all member states to ensure that capacity building delivers practical, equitable, and lasting benefit for all. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I will read the next delegations to speak, hoping that we can hear from all of these during this segment this morning. We have Vietnam, Iraq, Colombia, Morocco, Costa Rica, and Côte d'Ivoire. Vietnam, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Vietnam strongly believes that capacity building is essential to international cooperation in ICT security. Through capacity building, states may develop common understanding of voluntary non-binding norms of responsible state behavior, share experiences and best practices in applying these norms to protect critical infrastructure and supply chains to ensure cyber engine hygiene and security by design. The voluntary norms are to elaborate and not to replace the international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which are without doubt applicable to cyber domain. States need the capacity to understand how international law applies to cyberspace and if a gap exists. In the process, the United Nations shall play the central role and the discussion in the dedicated thematic groups should focus on the applicability of sovereignty equality, non-intervention in internal affairs, international humanitarian law, the clarification of cyber sovereignty, cyber warfare, and peaceful settlement of dispute in ICT context. With the conviction that every state has the right to development, Vietnam supports the flexible and inclusive capacity building to bridge the digital divide. It should incorporate the gender equality and awareness-raising, particularly for people vulnerable to cyber offenses. In this direction, Vietnam is taking the initiative to establish an Asia-Pacific Regional Cybercrime Center in Hanoi in cooperation with the UNODC as follow-up of the ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime. We would welcome the participation of other states and stakeholders as sponsors and partners in the center. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Iraq.

Thank you, Madam President. Building capacities is a basic pillar of responsible state behavior in ICT use and an indispensable demand to enable all states particularly developing countries, to effectively participate in promoting peace and stability in cyberspace and benefit from the opportunities made available by digital transformation. Capacity building must also be based on principles of universality, transparency, and sustainability. It should be anchored in national needs and priorities of states while respecting their sovereignty and their rights define their national and security demands in such a manner that guarantees preventing any further widening of the digital gap between developed and developing nations. We stress the importance of promoting international and regional cooperation through knowledge transfer, technical assistance, support for best institutional practices, and providing national support while supporting legislative frameworks and training national workforce, enabling them to prevent, respond, and recover from cyber threats. We also welcome initiatives aimed at improving our— coordinating our efforts for capacity building within the United Nations. We stress the importance of avoiding among different programs and guaranteeing the optimal use of available resources in a manner that leaves a sustainable and tangible benefit to states. It is important to say that building capacities should get financial and technical support so that equal opportunities be available to all states to benefit from international programs and initiatives. Special attention should be given to the needs of developing countries and countries emerging from conflict in a manner that enables such countries to implement the international framework of responsible state behavior. In conclusion, Iraq would like to renew its commitment to participate actively in international efforts aimed at promoting capacity building because we believe that promoting national capacities is the basis for a stable, comprehensive, and secure cyberspace that supports sustainable development and promoting international peace and security. Thank you, Madam.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the delegation of Colombia who will be followed by Morocco.

Madam Chair, Colombia aligns itself with the statement made by Chile on this agenda item. In our national capacity, we'd like to make the following remarks. As we stated during the session in March, my delegation welcomes the creation of the 2nd DTG, which we believe is fundamental to promote a boost to capacity building that is effective, sustainable, and tailored to the needs of the states that ask for assistance. Capacity building must be understood as an investment in the stability of the global digital environment and as a factor that can boost the implementation of the Framework for Responsible State Behavior. In this context, Based on this premise, it's essential to harness the comparative advantages and specialized experience of some states and regions to promote more effective cooperation that's tailored to the needs of the beneficiary countries. In this effort, modalities like South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation can play a particularly valuable role since they facilitate the exchange of knowledge and good practices, taking account of the local realities and priorities. Additionally, my delegation wishes to underscore some elements that could contribute to making the DTG2's work more practical and results-focused. And more dynamic. First of all, for us, it would be useful to include the analysis of specific real case studies as well as hypothetical ones that could help us to learn concrete lessons and make practical recommendations in areas like cooperation in response to cyber events, to develop guides on how to respond, and to engage in some simulation exercises. Secondly, my delegation underscores the value of exchanging experiences so that states can share good practices as well as challenges and lessons learned. This exercise could focus, among other things, on assessing the maturity of the infrastructure for responses to these events as well as identifying vulnerabilities and engaging in sectoral responses. Finally, for Colombia, it's a priority to avoid duplication of efforts and to maximize the resources we have available. The mechanism offers the right platform to identify initiatives that are currently ongoing, to generate complementarity between them, and to engage in more effective coordination based on the needs and priorities priorities of different states. Madam Chair, capacity building should not be thought of as an exercise that's focused only on complying with indicators or ticking boxes. For it to have sustainable results, it must begin with a rigorous diagnosis, establish a strategy with clear goals, and have mechanisms that enable us to measure the real impact in time. This is the only way we'll manage to turn this into an aspiration on paper into a tangible reality that is able to rise to the challenges that we face. Thank you.

Thank you, Colombia, says the chair. I now give the floor to the delegation of Morocco, followed by Costa Rica.

Madam Chair, capacity building is not a secondary issue. It is the guiding thread that runs through all the other pillars of responsible behavior. Consensus was reached during the last OAWG among member states. They rallied around a simple principle: strengthening capacity needs to be financially accessible, accessible and adapted to the needs of every state, inter alia. The credibility of the global mechanism largely hinges on our collective capacity to translate our ideas into projects and our projects into concrete results. The capacity-building pillar offers us in this regard a genuine opportunity to move forward swiftly and successfully. The initiatives already undertaken are in our regard However, when they are coupled with the efforts of every state. In this regard, Morocco has continued at the national level its capacity-building work, which is a separate part of its national cybersecurity strategy. We worked consistently with the international community to in order to improve our national task force. In terms of initial training, we have carried out cybersecurity training in close partnership with academia in order to ensure our markets have what they need. Our investments have borne fruit here. We've undertaken targeted programs and training cybersecurity professionals. And this is directly related to cooperation agreements that we have entered into. These international efforts are also put to the service of the region. We're also working in the National African Cybersecurity Network. In this context, we initiated the creation of CERTs, and they're headquartered in Morocco, and capacity building in Africa is their priority area of action. We hope this contribution will be useful for efforts in Africa. This CERT started its work last June, and there was a training cycle aimed at African security agencies. Other initiatives have already been scheduled for the coming months. Madam Chair, my delegation encourages multiple capacity-building initiatives to be set up in developing countries, and developing countries stand in particular need of them. In that regard, we'd like to share some thoughts about the fact that this remains a major challenge for many countries. This momentum will contribute to global resilience while limiting the need for national training. We think this dimension should be given particular attention in our debate, and it would be useful to consider it during the information sessions. Capacity building must contribute fully to bridging the gap among countries. Thank you.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Costa Rica, followed by Côte d'Ivoire.

Señora Presidente. Madam Chair, Costa Rica thanks you for this opportunity to take the floor. On this item, capacity building. We believe that this is perhaps the most relevant item in the global mechanism and an essential condition to implement the framework for responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs. First of all, capacity building is a bridge between consensus and action. Voluntary norms, international law, confidence-building measures, due diligence, and national resilience These can only be turned into policies and practical steps if states have technical, legal, and institutional capacities that are up to the mark. Without capacities, we run the risk of building a legally elegant infrastructure that is operationally useless. Second, Costa Rica supports this pillar being focused on specific prevention, detection, and response capacities, and this must include identifying threats and vulnerabilities, protecting critical infrastructure, and government systems, early detection of incidents, coordinated responses, recovering essential services, and bolstering institutional continuity. A lack of national capacities increases our collective vulnerability and can bring about cross-border and cross-regional impacts. Thirdly, the legal interpretation also requires specialized institutional capacities. States must be able to evaluate incidents, establish national positions on the application of international law to cyberspace, to understand the different legal thresholds to participate responsibly in debates and contribute to common understanding. That's why it's fundamental to develop cyber diplomacy strategies that articulate legal, technical, and political knowledge that enable us to coherently represent national interests in international fora and to facilitate the building of consensus, confidence-building measures, and cooperation mechanisms between states. Finally, perspectives on due diligence must be coupled with technical assistance and support if we want states to be able to adopt reasonable measures in line with their own capacities to prevent, halt or mitigate harmful cyber events. We must be able to develop legislation, CERTs, contact points, legal and judicial capacities, and inter-institutional coordination. Madam Chair, Costa Rica believes that capacity building must be sustainable, inclusive, regional, and focused on human rights with the participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community. Investing in national cyber resilience is also the same as contributing to international stability. That's why Costa Rica supports the initiatives being undertaken to build regional and global financing mechanisms for capacity building in countries. And this requires more cooperation between the public and private sectors. This work will contribute to building an open, safe, stable, accessible, peaceful, and interoperable cyberspace. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I take it that we've run out of time for this morning's meeting. We still have 49 requests for the floor under this agenda item. So we will hear from the other delegations this afternoon. in this same room at 3 PM. And what I'll do right now is just read out the first 10 delegations to speak this afternoon so that you can be ready to speak this afternoon. So we'll begin with Côte d'Ivoire, who will be followed by South Africa, then Malawi, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Brazil, Rwanda, Kiribati, Cambodia, and Mauritius. The meeting is adjourned.