(1st meeting) Plenary Session, Global Mechanism on ICTs in the Context of International Security (20-24 July)

Buenos días.

Good morning. The first meeting—

we're about to begin.

It's 10 o'clock.

Se declara abierta la primera sesión.

The first meeting of the 2026 substantive plenary session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the context of international security and advancing responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs as a call to order. Distinguished delegates, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all delegations attending this meeting in person, as well as those following this meeting via UN Web TV. I once again would like to express my deep gratitude to all of you for the trust placed in me Thank you, Mr. President, for inviting me to serve in El Salvador by naming me Chair of the first biennium of the Global Mechanism. I'm honored to serve in this position, which I will cherish with a high sense of responsibility, neutrality, and transparency, and I hope that this session will be highly, highly productive. Thank you, Mr. President. Before moving on to organizational matters, I would like to share a pre-recorded opening statement from Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, who regrettably cannot be with us today. I thank her and her team from the Science and Technology Unit of the Disarmament Affairs Office for the support and constant guidance offered. Let's watch the video, please.

Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to address the first substantive plenary meeting of the Global Mechanism on ICTs in the Context of International Security. The start of a new process holds tremendous promise, especially one that is permanent, single-track, and consensually agreed. There is anticipation and there is hope for progress. I share in that sense of optimism that the global mechanism can deliver concrete outcomes for a safer and more secure ICT domain. My confidence is rooted in the very solid foundation that has been built. Over the past 9 years as High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, I have witnessed steady, consistent progress in the area of ICT security. ICT security has stood out as one of the areas under my responsibility where states have regularly sought and found consensus solutions, even when the broader international security environment has been anything but conducive. I have often highlighted the many achievements of the past Open-Ended Working Group, from the Global Intergovernmental Points of Contact to confidence-building measures to common understandings on the ICT threat landscape, to a number of capacity-building initiatives. Each output could be unpacked and assessed on its own merits. But beyond these practical outcomes, the Working Group served as a platform that belonged to all States, one where inclusive conversation generated confidence and flexibility. It is this atmosphere of constructive engagement that must be maintained in the global mechanism. And I have every confidence that it will be under the leadership of Ambassador Ingrés Sáza López. I take this opportunity to again congratulate you, Chairwoman, on your election and offer you all the support of my office throughout your tenure. Madam Chair, Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, this substantive plenary meeting marks the start of a new phase in your work. There is much to accomplish and many substantive issues to tackle, such as assessing the evolving ICT threat landscape, including pressing challenges related to critical infrastructure, and the impact of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Considering implementation and potential further development of a normative framework for responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs. Unpacking the applicability of international law to the ICT domain, including key principles derived from the UN Charter. Enhancing capacity building and taking forward competence-building measures. The rich discussions on these and many other critical issues in the Open-Ended Working Group are expected both to continue and deepen. But the task at hand is also to set the Global Mechanism on a solid course for years to come. A key part of this is addressing the outstanding organisational matters. In this connection, I thank the Chair for her efforts related to the organisation of the work of the dedicated thematic groups, DTGs, and appeal to all delegations for maximum flexibility. The DTGs represent a key innovation of this process, completing— complementing the plenary meetings through in-depth expert discussions. Staying true to their action-oriented and focused nature, the DTGs would benefit greatly from a broad array of expert briefings to inform states' further deliberation. Such contributions will enrich and not detract from its state-led process. I reiterate my call for meaningful stakeholder engagement in the global mechanism. States have committed to engaging with other interested parties and stakeholders in a systematic, sustained, and substantive manner. It is important this commitment is actualized, which will ultimately benefit the process for the better. Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, I wish you all the very best for the start of this critically important process. The Office for Disarmament Affairs is here to support you. I thank you very much.

I thank Ms. Nakamitsu for her statement as well as the Secretariat for facilitating this prerecorded video statement. Now, my role as Chair is to open this meeting by starting with an initial statement before we move on to the organization of our work. Delegates, it is truly a pleasure to address you once again. Last time that we met in the UN was toward the end of March during the organizational session of the Global Mechanism, and I would like to begin by expressing my most sincere gratitude to all of those of you who have traveled a very long distance to be here, and it It is always a source of motivation to see the high level of commitment from all delegations and specifically small states— small states that continue to show that multilateralism is stronger when we all participate actively. And today we find ourselves at a historic juncture. For the first time, member states are meeting in the framework of a standing global mechanism dedicated to developments in the field of ICTs in the context of international security. And what we do this week will set the basis not just for this first biennium, but also for the way in which the U.N. will address these issues in upcoming years. And I would like to begin on a positive note by sharing some of the work that we have developed jointly since March. Both delegations as well as my team have productively and extensively used the period in between sessions, and we've held broad consultations, always seeking seeking out to build bridges, bilateral meetings to understand your concerns better and to explore possible solutions. We've also held meetings with groups of countries, which has also allowed us to understand the specific dynamics and realities of several regions. And I would like to express my gratitude to all delegations that responded to my request and sent proposals, ideas, and suggestions on how we should organize the work of the mechanism during its first biennium. I understand that many of you have worked in recent weeks and will be making joint statements during this session, and that commitment is also something that we highly value. I want you to know that my team And yours truly have carefully considered each one of your contributions, statements, as well as working documents. And although I was elected to lead the work of this first biennium, this mechanism is the result of over 2 decades of collective efforts coming from member states. When this biennium concludes, It will continue to be a process that belongs to all of you. My responsibility is contributing to setting us up so that we're on the right track, while our collective responsibility is to ensure that the mechanism can fully implement the mandate entrusted to it. This presidency, as well as my team, And the team that you all know very well, we are fully assuming our responsibility for leading this process. I've said it before and I'll repeat it once again today. El Salvador accepted this honor with humility, but also with the firm conviction that small states can significantly contribute to consensus building and to strengthening international peace and security. Our focus has been clear from the beginning, going from agreements to implementation and from commitments to tangible results. And that is not a minor task. The work of this mechanism continues to develop in a geopolitical context that is especially complex, characterized by the constant evolution of the threat landscape, inappropriate use of ICTs even in conflicts, and the growing interrelationship with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, whose impact continues to be evaluated in the context of cyber threats. And I am sure that during this week we will hear about these developments and their impacts, including attacks against critical infrastructures, interruptions in the digital supply chains, and new challenges for international stability. I am also aware of the fact that many of you have been working actively on a national and regional basis, and you've made progress in implementing the norms for responsible conduct, as well as by adopting legislation, and national and regional policies. You've crafted positions on how international law applies in cyberspace. You've strengthened trust-building measures. And of course, you've rolled out capacity-building initiatives. I myself have had the opportunity of participating in some of these activities in recent months. It's been particularly motivating to see how the technical and diplomatic community continue to learn from each other, to learn from their experiences and areas of expertise. And you can be fully sure that this mechanism should continue to be a space where we analyze these developments and we provide guidance on next steps. I am convinced that there is a true interest on behalf of States, as well as a broader community of stakeholders, in order to make progress and achieve tangible results that contribute to a cyberspace that is safer, more stable, accessible, peaceful, and interoperable. And this is why I am appealing to your spirit of collaboration and your willingness to find Points of convergence. Distinguished delegations, allow me now to move to more serious matters. The value of this mechanism will be measured in its capacity to create understandings, strengthen trust, and produce tangible results. As chair, I can facilitate those spaces for dialogue and I have the responsibility of leading the work of this mechanism. Nevertheless, ultimately, decisions rest upon member states, and consensus continues to be our basis. But consensus is not automatic. Consensus is built. It requires commitment, flexibility, and political will to bring us closer to those points of convergence. It also requires recognizing that in a context of growing mistrust, building bridges is in and of itself an achievement. My responsibility is also to submit to you proposals that are balanced and to ensure that all voices are heard. Each delegation has the responsibility to make sincere efforts in order to understand others' concerns and again find those points of convergence that allow us to make progress towards common consensus, common progress, and therefore we all share the collective responsibility of ensuring that this process is successful. It is no secret that our work is being done under the lens of the effectiveness and efficiency of the United Nations, and this is the moment to show with results that the global mechanism is an inclusive, transparent, and effective intergovernmental platform to strengthen international cooperation when it comes to ICT safety. Delegations have placed their trust in El Salvador to lead this first biennium. And I will repeat it again, we have assumed this responsibility with a high sense of commitment and with the conviction that the UN's leadership should be exercised with impartiality, transparency, and inclusion. And this commitment continues to be the same, to facilitate a process that is orderly, action-oriented, led by member states, and also by the will to make progress. Listening to all member states as well as the broader community of stakeholders But also exercising the responsibilities that you have entrusted me with as your chair. Distinguished delegations, the history of multilateral processes is rarely written in great moments of unanimity. More frequently, it is built through small steps, difficult— Difficult compromises, And the willingness to keep talking even when there are differences. So I'm convinced that we have all of the necessary elements, all of them, so that this first biennium is a success. You have a chair that is not just committed to this process, but a chair that is accessible. And you know my team very well. That is supporting me in this process. And also an excellent secretariat, an excellent secretary. So I would like to invite you to make the most out of this week to show that multilateralism continues to be able to offer specific responses to the challenges of our time. The work that we begin here will not end this Friday. On the contrary, it will be the starting point of a new phase for international cooperation when it comes to security in the field of ICTs. And I hope that in some years when we look back and we remember this first biennium, we hope that we don't just say that we had just another meeting at the UN. I hope that we remember that it was here where member states decided to transform decades of work into permanent cooperation, that it was here where we showed that even in times of profound differences, dialogue continues to be stronger than mistrust, and cooperation is more powerful than confrontation. This week we now have the responsibility and the opportunity of writing the first chapter of this story. Let's make sure that it is a chapter that we can all feel proud of. I invite you to work with conviction, with openness, and with a true spirit of compromise, because ultimately the success of this first biennium will not be the achievement of a single chairmanship or presidency. It will be the achievement of all member states, of multilateralism, and above all, it will be a tangible contribution to a cyberspace that is safer, more stable, and peaceful. for current and future generations. I thank you. Well, and with that, we can now move on to pressing organizational and procedural matters. To start, I would like to recall the productive organizational session we held from 30th and 31st March, at which the Global Mechanism confirmed several understandings. In this connection, I would like to recall the following. On decision-making, the Global Mechanism affirmed the applicability mutatis mutandis of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly to this body, with the understanding that all Decisions by the Global Mechanism shall be taken on the basis of the principle of consensus. On the dates of the meetings for this year, the Global Mechanism took note that the 2026 substantive plenary session would take place from the 20th to the 24th of July here at UNHQ in New York. And the 2026 dedicated thematic groups would take place from the 7th to the 11th of December at UNHQ in New York. On the program of work for the substantive plenary session, member states will recall that I announced my intention to circulate this document in advance of the session to guide preparations. This was something that many of you requested with respect to predictability, and given that we have not yet been able to adopt a formal agenda, I've shared with delegations an indicative program of work as a conference room paper without prejudice to the formal adoption of the agenda. agenda by the Global Mechanism. This document was circulated on 29 June with the— under the signature A/2026/CRP.1. So that document is CRP.1, along with a letter from the chairmanship. And I trust that it has been helpful to delegations in order to prepare for this session. And its purpose is to guide debates and not limit the contributions of any delegation. And I trust that delegations will be able to support the use of this document as a guide during this week. In terms of modalities for the participation of other interested parties in Substantive plenary sessions and review conferences. The mechanism recalled in March the elements agreed by consensus in Annex 1 of Document A/80/257. The global mechanism agreed to apply these modalities to the accreditation process. And I will return to this issue with further updates Now we can turn to an important matter of our agenda. As I have recalled, in our organizational session in March, unfortunately, we were not in a position to adopt our agenda for the plenary session. And in this regard, I conducted intensive consultations with delegations concerned in order to find a resolution to this matter. I also announced during the 23 June informal consultations that I had worked on a proposal to present an agenda that would cover the 2026 and 2027 plenary sessions to allow future chairs the flexibility to make adjustments as necessary. I subsequently shared with delegations a revised agenda, which you can find in document A/AC.304/2026/CRP.2, along with a note from the chairmanship From the 19th of June, 2026. I believe that this agenda is a good compromise that can effectively help us to guide our substantive discussions, which is what we're all hoping for. May I consider that the global mechanism wishes to adopt. The provisional agenda for the 2026 and 2027 substantive plenary sessions as contained in the document A/AC.304/2026/CRP.2. Hearing no objections, it is so decided.

Thank you.

I would just like to register my deep gratitude to delegations for their commitment and their spirit of cooperation throughout the intensive consultations that preceded this decision. The consensus that we have reached today is the result of good faith, a willingness to compromise, and dedication in order to reach the common objective of this mechanism. And once again, we're showing the value of multilateralism and our collective capacity for dialogue and understanding. Well, and now that we have approved our provisional agenda for the 2026 and 2027 substantive plenary sessions, I would like to point out to delegations another document that goes along with the note of the chairmanship from July 19th, 2026. The document is A/AC.304/2026/CRP3, which includes the provisional program of work for this plenary session. This program follows the fundamental elements of the version that I shared in document A/AC.304/2026/CRP1, with additional details in order to support delegations in preparing their statements. Therefore, as we complete the different elements in the program, I will move on to the next one in order to move through our sessions. May I consider that the global mechanism wishes to take note of this document?

No objections.

There being no objections, it is so decided. Both documents, the provisional agenda for the 2026 and 2027 substantive plenary sessions, as well as the provisional working program for this plenary, will be registered as official documents available in all official languages. The Secretariat will distribute documents to all delegations.

Thank you.

And once again, to speak to the matter of accreditation of interested non-governmental stakeholders to participate in the work of the substantive plenary sessions and review conferences of the Global Mechanism, I presented a briefing on this matter during the 23 June informal consultations with member states. And committed to providing further information on my efforts at this plenary session. Therefore, I would like to recall the following. The Secretariat opened the annual window for applications of accreditation on 7 April with a deadline to apply of 30 April. All requests for accreditation were circulated to Member States, including requests from non-governmental entities with and without ECOSOC consultative status. The requests were considered approved unless written communication to the contrary was received by 12 PM EDT on 20 May 2026. In accordance with the modalities agreed in Annex 1 of Document A/AD/257, I have provided all information received by the Chair on objections through a letter dated 1 June 2026, which is also posted to the Global Mechanism webpage. I also wish to recall That in this 1st June letter, I indicated my intention to conduct informal consultations with concerned states in line with the mandate given to the Chair, as appropriate, for a period not exceeding 3 months regarding the objections expressed, with a view to addressing concerns from member states and facilitating accreditation whenever possible. Following the conclusion of these consultations, the Chair is to provide an update to all Member States at the next substantive plenary session and will allow, if it is necessary, an exchange of points of view. Therefore, to this end, I wish to provide a general overview of the consultations carried out so far. On the basis of the mandate entrusted to me, I reached out to the 8 concerned states to offer the opportunity to better understand the concerns of their delegations and discuss possible ways forward. States participated constructively and informal consultations proved very useful in order to enhance our understanding and to allow States to further express their views with greater detail. The Chairmanship took due note of the reasons given and they were consulted about alternatives to reconsider their concerns, and this includes an invitation to speak with interested interested parties in order to find points of convergence. Nevertheless, concerned states reaffirmed their concerns. After exhaustive consultations, I have implemented the mandate entrusted by member states by this global mechanism, and something I would like to highlight is that what we seek is to ensure greater transparency when it comes to the modalities for stakeholder participation without prejudice to the final result, which is the prerogative of member states, bearing in mind the intergovernmental character of the global mechanism. This presidency, whenever possible, will continue to carry out consultations in order to address states' concerns with the purpose of collaborating with other stakeholders, including businesses, non-governmental organizations, and the academic world in a systematic, sustained, and substantive fashion, as it is enshrined in the mandate contemplated for modalities for stakeholder participation. While for the moment it has not been possible to facilitate additional accreditations, I will continue to use my good offices to support States in addressing outstanding concerns. Having provided this update, I would like to open the floor for an exchange of views on this matter as provided for in the agreed modalities. And before opening up the floor to delegations, I would like to recall the importance of being reasonable with our time management when we make statements in order to consider the need to listen to all delegations as well as our interest to effectively make progress in our work. If you would like to take the floor, you can press the button on your console so that the Secretariat may start to identify you. I give the floor to the delegation of Canada.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your efforts to conduct informal consultations regarding the objections raised by a few states on stakeholder plenary participation. We recall that these objectives were raised under the accreditation process set out in paragraph 15 of Annex 1 of the Final Report, which applies to formal meetings like the plenaries and review conferences, and not to informal meetings such as the DTGs. Therefore, and in line with established UN practice, stakeholders that are now facing plenary vetoes will be able to join us and participate in the December informal thematic groups. Madam Chair, we appreciate your update on informal consultations regarding the plenary vetoes. We also welcome today's exchange of views. Both informal consultations and this exchange of views are provided for under paragraph 15 of Annex 1 of the final report. They are an example of the transparency transparency-related improvements that we have secured for stakeholder plenary participation when compared to the modalities in the previous OEWG. However, in practice, and despite this positive spirit, we note with grave concern that the volume of objections is larger than in any recent UN cybersecurity discussions. More than 50% of stakeholders that applied to participate in plenaries have been blocked. Russia alone raised 43 objections. Canada does not consider that this approach to vetoes is in line with the letter or spirit of consensus in paragraph 15. Let me quote: States are encouraged to utilize the non-objective mechanism judiciously bearing in mind the spirit of inclusivity. While vetoes in general are problematic, especially when they are not justified publicly, the broad-brush approach of Russia is particularly detrimental to the quality of the work of our body. It deprives member states of expertise essential to meaningful cybersecurity discussions. Stakeholders contribute expertise expertise through training, simulations, research, public outreach, disseminating cyber hygiene practices, building cheap— cheap or free cyber solutions, sharing threat assessments, and raising awareness on human rights and gender matters related to cybersecurity. These vetoes prevent states from fully benefiting from stakeholder expertise and make it harder to secure the broad buy-in needed to address malicious cyber activity. In closing, we draw attention to the joint statement issued by the multi-stakeholder community. It is endorsed by 35 stakeholders that span every segment of the community and several regions. Canada supports the spirit of that statement and welcomes stakeholders' commitment to contribute substantively to this important process. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the distinguished representative of Canada for her statement, and I now give the floor to the EU.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, colleagues, it's my honor to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states, as well as the candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Georgia, and the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, as well as San Marino aligned themselves with this statement. Those are 37 states. Let me make a short statement about the participation of stakeholders. The participation of stakeholders is a vital element for our work under the global mechanism, notably under the DTGs, but also in our plenary engagements. And therefore, we reiterate our strong regret that the recent outcomes of the administration process have led to the objection of 50 stakeholders, which is the majority of the 70 entities that applied within the procedure. These objections demonstrate a concerning lack of transparency predictability, and consistency with the Open-Ended Working Group report consensus, where we all agreed that member states of the global mechanism are committed to engaging with stakeholders in a systematic, sustained, and substantive manner, and moreover, that member states should utilize the non-objection mechanism judiciously. We regret the lack of transparency why these entities have been objected to. As these entities objected have significant relevance to our work and would value to— and would have added value to our objectives under the global mechanism. Let me give you just one example. The EU Institute for Security Studies, with whom many of you in this room have actually worked with over recent years here in New York as well as on the ground, and who have contributed significantly to the discussions by organizing side events, publishing papers, and hosting training and capacity-building projects have been objected to. Therefore, we count on you, Chair, as well as also on the co-facilitators, to bring in those relevant stakeholders who add value to our discussion and that support states in their efforts to understand the cyber threat landscape and to implement the UN Framework of Responsible State Behavior into our discussions, into the DTG's discussions. And to ensure that their voices are heard. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of the EU for her statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of Portugal.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Portugal gives highly value to the comprehensive consultations which you undertook on objections to stakeholder participation in plenary meetings. We concur that the agreed objection mechanism applies only to formal meetings such as plenaries and review conferences, not to informal thematic groups where affected stakeholders will be able to participate. Those consultations and exchanges on objections are welcome improvements. In terms of both transparency and accountability in stakeholder plenary participation. We are concerned, however, that an unusually high number of stakeholder plenary accreditations have been blocked, contrary to the agreed spirit of inclusivity in the Open-Ended Working Group July 25 final report. Indeed, broad and unexplained vetoes undermine the participation of stakeholders that provide access and essential expertise, research, training, threat analysis, cyber capacity building, and perspectives on human rights. Excluding stakeholders in plenaries makes it much more difficult to build the broad cooperation needed to address cybersecurity challenges effectively. We therefore understand and sympathize with the joint multi-stakeholder statement on the objections to the participation of stakeholders in plenary meetings and review conferences and fully subscribe their recommendations. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal, and I will now read out the list of speakers that we have right now: Mexico, the Netherlands, Colombia, and Switzerland. If any delegation wishes to take the floor, I would be grateful if you could indicate that now so that we may have clarity on the list of speakers. I now give the floor to the distinguished delegation of Mexico.

Thank you very much, Chair. Mexico would like to congratulate El Salvador for assuming the chairmanship of this first session And we recognize the transparent, inclusive, and productive fashion in which you and your team have held informal consultations in recent months, and we wish you all the very best in this session. On the issue of stakeholders, while we do thank the consultations and the information shared by the chairmanship, my country would like to reiterate the importance of ensuring that the global mechanism promotes the systematic, substantive, and meaningful participation of stakeholders. ICTs are by nature a multi-sectorial field, and this forum should make the most out of that knowledge to strengthen states' capacity to implement the framework for responsible behavior that we have agreed upon. Experience in the last open-ended working groups shows the practical value of those contributions. Stakeholders have enriched our discussions through technical analysis on the issues in our agenda. Mexico recalls that the final report of the Working Group 2021-2025, which was adopted without a vote, recognizes the importance of stakeholder participation and incorporates a non-objection mechanism that, because it was the result of consensus, should be applied prudently and responsibly. The so-called consensus-based principle should not be interpreted as giving a state the capacity to block the participation of stakeholders that may contribute to implementing implementing the mechanisms mandated should be interpreted as solution-seeking in order to find the greatest level of support amongst member states. Using the non-objection mechanism with adequate moderation will strengthen the legitimacy, representativeness, and effectiveness of our work. Mexico regrets that a significant number of requesting organizations have been subject to objections, and this includes entities from regions that are underrepresented still. With each exclusion, we deprive the mechanism of knowledge and experiences that are potentially valuable. Mexico continues to work so that this forum reflects that spirit of cooperation and mutual trust that inspired its creation. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico, and now I give the floor to the

Thank you, Chair.

Let me begin by commending you and your team for your extensive work throughout both the organizational session and the intersessional period. We are very grateful for your leadership in finding a way forward on the agenda for today's session, and we look forward to continue our work with you and assure you that you can count on our constructive support. Chair, the Kingdom of the Netherlands aligns itself with a statement delivered by the European Union and also by Canada, and please allow me to make some further comments by— in my national capacity on the multi-stakeholder participation. The Netherlands deeply regrets that 50 of the 92 multi-stakeholders that indicated their interest to participate in today's plenary discussion were objected by member states. As mentioned before, 43 were blocked by one member state without giving proper explanation. We feel this goes against the spirit of what was agreed during the Open-Ended Working Group and unnecessarily hinders the practical potential of the UN Global Mechanism. It is time for the UN Global Mechanism to deliver on its promise. And this will require the full effort of states and multistakeholders alike. To ensure that the UN Global Mechanism produces effective results aligned with the realities on the ground, the full and unimpeded participation of the multistakeholder community remains pivotal. This not only because the expertise that stakeholders will bring to enrich our discussion, but also because they are critical actors in ensuring an open, free, and secure cyberspace, and their input can help formulate realistic and effective recommendations. With regard to the DTGs, States should timely provide co-facilitators with their preferences on which experts should be considered for the pool of experts. In line with the open-ended working group agreements, these experts will brief States on scenario-based topics in the DTGs. Furthermore, given the informal nature of the DTGs, multistakeholders should be able to participate in a meaningful manner to the DTGs themselves and speak in their own capacity. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Netherlands and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia to be followed by Switzerland.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. Regarding this topic, Colombia notes with concern the high number of stakeholders whose participation was blocked in the framework of this plenary session, and we would like to thank the chairmanship for the consultations held on this matter. We recall that the objection mechanism and contemplated in the modalities for participation that were agreed by consensus in 2025 applies exclusively to formal plenary sessions and review conferences and not to thematic groups whose meetings are informal in nature. In this sense, my delegation calls for ensuring the broad representative and meaningful participation of experts nominated by states, as well as academia, civil society, and the private sector in thematic groups. The experience and technical knowledge of these stakeholders enrich member states' discussions and contribute to ensuring that adopted decisions effectively respond to the challenges Challenges and realities of the digital sphere. For Colombia, this mechanism will only reach its goal if it reflects the multidimensional nature of the digital sphere, which goes beyond the exclusive remit of member states. The legitimacy and clarity of whatever decisions we adopt depends in good measure on making sure that this process is open to the knowledge and experience of people who work on a daily basis on the protection of cyberspace. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Colombia, and I now give the floor to Switzerland, to be followed by New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you from Switzerland for all your efforts, to you and your team. And a big thank you for the consultations you held and the update you gave us on the issue of multistakeholder participation. Switzerland wishes to emphasize the importance of meaningful multistakeholder engagement. Governments cannot address today's complex cyber challenges alone. The private sector owns and operates much of the world's digital infrastructure. The technical community develops and secures it, and academia advances our collective understanding. Meanwhile, civil society contributes essential expertise on resilience, human rights, and capacity building. It is therefore regrettable that objections have been raised against such a large number of qualified stakeholders. We deeply regret this. Excluding qualified stakeholders hinders the effective implementation of our mandate, particularly in capacity building, where their expertise and experience are invaluable. This approach is also an unfortunate way to begin the work of a mechanism established to foster cooperation, confidence, and practical solutions. Thanks to Russia's initiative in establishing the open-ended working group, various stakeholder groups have gained access to ICT discussions at the United Nations. However, by vetoing almost half of the stakeholders that applied to participate in the new mechanism, including some that were able to participate in the open-ended working group's work, Russia is preventing states from accessing the expertise required to fulfill our mandate. Switzerland, as other delegations, would like to refer to the joint statement by 35 stakeholders and supports the recommendations in that statement. Switzerland encourages all delegations to support an open, inclusive, and predictable approach to stakeholder participation so that the mechanism can benefit fully from the knowledge and experience across the broader cyber community. Finally, it is important for Switzerland to emphasize that the veto against stakeholder participation does not apply to the DGT's work. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. And I will now read out the next 5 speakers: New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Thailand, Kiribati, and Italy. I now give the floor to the delegation of New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair, for your hard work, including on this issue of stakeholder participation. Like others, we are disappointed in the mass objection to dozens of stakeholders' participation in this plenary, with no meaningful attempt to transparently explain such an approach. The implications of this wholesale approach to barring stakeholders are troubling. First, it undermines the spirit of inclusivity that underpins the global mechanism, even as it continues to be a state-led process. Second, it risks defeating the purpose of the global mechanism. Given the critical role that non-governmental stakeholders play in operating, maintaining, and understanding cyberspace, their perspectives are vital to the global mechanism's mission of promoting an open, secure, stable, accessible, peaceful, and interoperable ICT environment. Finally, the approach has very practical consequences. For New Zealand, as a smaller and geographically isolated country, We do not always have ready access to the expertise and insights of international representatives from academia, civil society, and industry. Large-scale, non-transparent objections to stakeholders denies us the ability to benefit from their participation. Their involvement would support this state-led process by leveling the information playing field for smaller states like mine. Their input would support us in developing practical ethical, human rights-respecting, and technically viable solutions to global cybersecurity challenges. Chair, we highly value your effort to consult with those that have raised objections, although we regret that it did not prove possible to facilitate more stakeholder accreditations.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand, and I now give the floor to the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation be followed by Thailand.

Chair, I just need to respond to the unjustified attacks by some delegates on my country. I would recall that according to the agreed modalities for participation of NGOs in the work of the Global Mechanism, including Article— Paragraph 15, the outcome report of the OEWG, member states have every right to refuse the accreditation of any NGO who claim— who wishing to participate in the work of the global mechanism. And member states agreed to this approach. When we make decisions on allowing NGOs, my country was guided by 15, paragraph 15 of these modalities, saying that NGOs should participate in activities of this negotiation objectively and refrain from politicization. All of these organizations that our country refused accreditation for did not meet this criterion. Analysis of their work showed that these NGOs practiced and still practice unfounded political attribution of computer attacks. Or they carry out politicized propaganda to tarnish the reputation of these countries. The usefulness of their participation in the work of the global mechanism is something that we don't see at all because it's clear that they're not able to make a constructive and impartial contribution to the work of our body. On behalf of the Russian Federation, I'd also like to express our disappointment with the rejection of the accreditation of Russian NGOs who, in our view, meet the aforementioned criteria. We trust that we will have clarification provided for why they were blocked. And we'd recall, according to modalities for NGOs in the global mechanisms, member states are proposed to be cautious when using the mechanism— the no objection mechanism. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, and I now give the floor to the delegation of Thailand, to be followed by Kiribati.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As Thailand takes the floor for the first time at this meeting, my delegation wishes to express our appreciation to you and your team for the thorough your preparations leading up to today's meeting. We commend your sustained efforts to listen to all member states' views and proposals and build convergence, particularly through the June town hall consultations following the organizational session in March 2026. Thailand values your commitment to conducting our deliberations in an inclusive transparent, and predictable manner while upholding the principle of consensus in the decision-making. We welcome the provisional agenda for 2026 and 2027 substantive plenary sessions as well as the indicative program of work circulated to delegations yesterday. We look forward to advancing dialogue across the 5 pillars of the framework for responsible state behaviors in the use of ICTs, focusing on building trust and confidence, strengthening resilience against emerging technologies acting as threat multiplier and compatibility enabler, clarifying the application of international law, Sorry. In cyberspace, effectively implementing existing norms and delivering needs-based capacity building. With regard to the DTGs, Thailand congratulates the newly appointed co-facilitators from Australia, Egypt, Malaysia, and the Netherlands. We assure them of our full support in operationalizing DTGs on the basis of neutrality, impartiality, and geographical and gender balance. Thailand welcomes the Chair's non-paper on the organization of work of the DTGs. We echo the broad convergence that DTGs must complement the plenary through practical focus and action-oriented technical exchanges. We look forward to further consultation with delegations and additional information on the selection of technical experts and discussion topics anchored in the 5 pillars. Thailand reiterates the capacity building must remain the core of our cooperation and deliberation in both the plenary and the DTGs. Finally, Thailand proposed that The DTGs should discuss topics on capacity building on, first, addressing advanced cyber threats, including artificial intelligence security, quantum readiness, as well as post-quantum cryptography and operational technology security, and providing assistance with national legal and policy frameworks and the application of international law in cyberspace. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias por su intervención.

Thank you for your intervention, and I now give the floor to Kiribati, to be followed by Italy and then China.

Madam Chair, at the outset, Kiribati wishes to thank you for your tireless work and dedication in steering this mechanism to its first substantive session. The consultations you have convened, the transparency you have shown, and the care you have taken to hear every delegation, large and small, have not gone unnoticed. For a small delegation like ours, that inclusive approach has made real participation possible, and we are grateful for it. Kiribati wishes to contribute and make an intervention on this important matter and provide Kiribati's position in this regard. Kiribati's own experience in that capacity in small societies is built and retained through inclusion. Our cybersecurity posture was not built by government alone. Our national strategy, our maturity assessment, our legal frameworks, and our operational capabilities were shaped with the support of technical partners, regional bodies, and the wider community. Stakeholders sharpened the quality of our deliberations, ground them in operational experience, and helped move this mechanism from description toward delivery. Kiribati fully respects that this is an intergovernmental intergovernmental process and that negotiation and decision-making remain the prerogative of member states. We also recognize that the modalities for stakeholder participation were agreed by consensus after long and careful negotiation, and we support applying them faithfully in the spirit of inclusivity inclusivity in which they were adopted. It is in the same spirit of inclusivity that Kiribati must speak candidly about the objections that have kept a number of stakeholders from this session. We fully acknowledge that any member states may raise an objection under the agreed modalities. That right is not in question, but those same modalities ask states to use the non-objection mechanism judicially, and they call on an objecting state to make the general basis of its objection so that the Chair may consult, address the concern, and facilitate accreditations wherever possible. That is the balance we all agreed to, and an objection was meant to open a conversation, not to quietly close a door. We would therefore respectively encourage every delegation that raises an objection to share its reasons to the fullest extent it can. Where reasons are given, concerns can be understood, and very often resolved. Whether or not a capable and willing partner is simply lost to us, and this mechanism has left the poor without ever knowing why. Transparency here costs the objecting state little. Silence costs the rest of us a great deal. For a small island state like Kiribati, this is not an abstract concern. We do not have deep benches of in-house expertise to fall back on. The stakeholders excluded from a room like this one are very often precisely the partners of whom states like ours most depend. Every capable voice kept out is a loss we feel more acutely than most. Kiribati raises this not to reproach any delegation, but because we believe this mechanism is stronger, its outcomes more credible when the widest possible expertise is in the room. We ask only the inclusivity we committed to on paper be honored in practice. Kiribati therefore encourages this mechanism to keep its engagement with stakeholders systematic, sustained and substantive as we committed. We stand ready to work with all delegations and with the stakeholder community to that end. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kiribati, and I will now read the entire list of speakers that we have for the moment. Italy, China, Japan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chile, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Poland, Estonia, the United States, Morocco, Nigeria, and Malawi. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Italy.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

From the UAWG. On the stakeholders point, as also the EU has stressed, stakeholders' participation in the global mechanism, notwithstanding the latter's state-led nature, represents a fundamental element in order for our collective work to be properly informed and inclusive. Against this backdrop, I'd like to renew Italy's deep disappointment for the very high number of objections against the accreditation of stakeholders from many countries, including mine. While we are grateful to you, Madam Chair, for your commitment in seeking consultations and balance with the objecting States, we are also concerned by the lack of transparency related to the actual reasons for the Russian objections against 4 Italian stakeholders whose contributions to this Plenary could have enriched the discussions. Let me also remind that stakeholders play a key role in capacity-building activities, and their exclusion from the plenary sessions and review conference do send outside a very negative message. In light of the said considerations, Italy supports the spirit of the joint statements that some group of stakeholders have circulated and sent to the Chair. A broad inclusion of stakeholders in the DTGs without formal accreditation will greatly benefit our work, because their knowledge, experience and capabilities can make us achieve practical and significant goals as we see needed by the majority of the international community and in line with the mandate of this global mechanism. Thank you.

I would like to thank the distinguished representative of Italy, and I now give the floor to the delegation of China, to be followed by Japan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the first time I take the floor, so as the House said, I'd like to congratulate on your election as Chair of this Ban Ki-moon. As you said in your statement, even a small country can make a huge contribution to the processes at the UN. Indeed, the 2 predecessors of you set a good example Switzerland and Singapore, to be exact, under extremely difficult circumstances, both of them advanced this process to arrive at some consensus. Their experience shows that the size of a country doesn't matter at the end of the day. Is a deep understanding of the situation we are faced with and the issues we are to discuss. Also, an objective and a balanced approach to find a compromise between different and even opposing positions, and this diplomatic skill is paramount. That is why I have full confidence in you and in your team. I'd like to articulate our position that we are ready to work with you, with your team, with other member states to push for positive outcomes in the next biennium. Regarding the matter on hand, In short, the gist of what I said is we support in principle the involvement of NGOs in our process. That said, there's no politically correct position. That is, they can participate in the process at will. Respect certain procedure. They have to meet some criteria. So the matter we're discussing now is not a question of whether or not NGOs should or should not participate. Rather, it's a matter of whether or not they should respect the procedures that we agreed upon. Consequently, And that takes us to the second point I'd like to make, i.e., the participation of NGOs in DTGs. Some delegations in their interventions earlier said the plenary process should not apply to DTG. That raises some Reflex, as far as I'm concerned. As the USG said in the video message, DTG is an important innovation of ours. This innovation, this experiment, if I can put it that way, can it succeed? There's only one touchstone to measure its success or lack thereof. The DTG discussions, to what extent its results can be incorporated into the final document. If the DTG mechanism uses a totally different set of procedures, rules of procedures, It will dent the confidence of member states in their discussions and it will also dent the seriousness of the final outcome coming out of the DDG discussions. If things go on like this, DDG will become nothing more than a workshop or even a A side event. And I don't think this is something that all member states wish to see. I believe all member states are hoping for the success of this innovation of ours. So I'd like to remind all my colleagues that when we consider the procedures or rules of procedure for DTG, Yes. We need to see the bigger picture. That is, we want to see what sort of role that DTGs will play in the future ultimately. As far as my delegation is concerned, in our opinion, the rules of NGO participation in the plenary should also apply to the participation switching of NGOs in DTGs. And that's how we can guarantee the outcomes of DTG discussions can become an integral part of the outcomes of the plenary of this process. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the representative of China for the statement, and I now give the floor Thank you very much. We now turn to Japan, to be followed by Nigeria, who will speak on behalf of the African Group.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Japan appreciates all your efforts to— for the success of global mechanism, including facilitating the participation of stakeholders. Become increasingly sophisticated and complex, it is essential to draw on the expertise of the private sector in assessing threats and developing concrete responses. Japan places great importance on the multi-stakeholder approach. Japan considers that public-private cooperation within the global mechanism will be further strengthened through expert briefings and interactive public private discussions in the plenary sessions as well as DTGs, deepening common understanding and awareness of cybersecurity issues among all nations. As communicated to all delegations in the chair's letter in June, Japan is concerned that objections were raised in a non-judicious manner with respect to the requests of numerous private sector organizations to participate in the global mechanism. In light of paragraph 15 of Annex 1 to the final report of the UN OEWG, which provides that objection needs to be expressed judiciously, Japan is of the view that any objection should be accompanied by appropriate justification and that those countries that have raised objections should explain their reasons in a transparent manner. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias. Thank you so very much. I now give the floor to Nigeria, who will speak on behalf of the African Group.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we can leave our statement to later. Thank you.

De acuerdo.

All right then. I now give the floor to the delegation of Iran, to be followed by Chile and Germany. Microphone, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the open-ended working group adopted by consensus specific modalities governing stakeholder participation in the global mechanism. These agreed modalities apply to the global mechanism as a whole, including, including dedicated thematic groups. Neither Annex C to the 3rd Annual Progress Report nor Annex A to the final report draws any distinction between plenary meetings and dedicated thematic group meetings for the purposes of stakeholder participation. The global mechanism is governed by stakeholder participation modalities that were specifically negotiated and agreed by member states. In our view, there is no need to rely on the practice of other United Nations processes. While general UN practice may be relevant where agreed procedures are absent, it cannot supersede or modify modalities that member states have specifically negotiated and adopted by consensus for a particular mechanism. Accordingly, we consider that technical briefers should be drawn exclusively from among stakeholders accredited in accordance with the agreed modalities. Likewise, the pool of experts from which technical briefers may be selected should consist solely of stakeholders accredited by member states through the established consensus-based process. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Chile, to be followed by Germany and the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chile sees with deep concern the accreditation process for this first substantive plenary session of the global mechanisms. Out of 92 applications sent by stakeholders, over 50% were subject to objections, many without known reasons. We thank you for the consultations that you held to find a solution. Nevertheless, we would like to support what was said by Canada, Colombia, Mexico, and other member states in terms of their concerns. This exclusion is not just a mere procedural matter. Stakeholders contribute with specialized knowledge, technical experience, and capacities that complement the work of States, especially in areas such as capacity building and the implementation of internationally agreed-upon measures. Limiting their participation reduces the diversity of perspectives available and limits the capacity of the global mechanism to create practical implementation-oriented results. The exclusion of over half of applicants is difficult to align with the commitment assumed by member states to promote a substantive and systematic interaction with stakeholders on the basis of Thank you. Point A, Annex 1 of Report 257. Such restrictive participation could weaken that commitment from the very beginning of this global mechanism. The consensus that we were able to reach in 2025 strengthened the transparency and accountability with regards to the modalities of the open-ended working group. Before that, consultations were held on objections, and there was a call to use this procedure with moderation. Broad-based vetoes without any known reasons contradict that progress and the spirit of inclusivity that we agreed upon. The participation of stakeholders is fully compatible with the intergovernmental character of the global mechanism. Their contributions enrich member states' discussions. Thank you. Without prejudice to the fact that negotiating, adopting decisions, and determining the results of the process are exclusively within the remit of member states. Madam Chair, Chile trusts that this situation will not be extended to the work of the dedicated thematic working groups. On the basis of the modalities that we agreed upon by consensus, the non-objection procedure was contemplated for substantive It was not contemplated that this would be applied to the thematic working groups. This is why we hope to have broad and substantive participation from stakeholders whose experiences and knowledge will contribute to strengthening the work of these groups. I thank you.

I thank you very much. I will now read the following 5 statements from the Working Group on the The delegation of Germany has the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Germany aligns itself with the statement of the European Union and wishes to deliver the following remarks in our national capacity. Chair, during the last few months, this group of states extensively discussed modalities and organizational items of the permanent global mechanism. These are important building blocks to set this mechanism up to advance the implementation of the Framework for Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace. However, these building blocks should not become roadblocks towards addressing concrete challenges we all face. Therefore, we welcome the pragmatic approach of you and your team took that has enabled us to move forward collectively. In her introduction, Undersecretary Channel and High Representative Nakamitsu highlighted the importance of stakeholder participation and their contributions. We fully share this view. In this regard, as highlighted inter alia by Canada and Colombia, we see potential for greater inclusivity in the agreed hybrid modalities for DTGs. Remote participation will allow experts of smaller states and stakeholders with limited resources to participate in the discussions, while we also recognize some of the challenges forward by some delegations related to that. As stated by Kiribati, stakeholder participation is not an abstract question, but will have direct impact on our work and our effectiveness, also with regard to capacity building. Academia, the private sector, technical experts, NGOs can provide meaningful insights to advance our discussions on all elements of the framework during the DTGs. Therefore, in line with Mexico, Chile, and many others, we want to express our regret at the fact that some states have failed to exercise restraint when assessing stakeholder accreditation requests for this plenary meeting, but instead have used their veto power almost indiscriminately. More than half of the entities applying for accreditation have been rejected, most of them by few states, depriving us of the opportunity to hear from them this week. In the spirit of transparent and open dialogue following a veto in accordance with Annex 1 of the final report of the Open-Ended Working Group, the EU member states have provided a written explanation for having vetoed the accreditation of one stakeholder whose behavior we deemed to contravene the ambition of the global mechanism. Finally, Germany echoes the points in the joint statements by several of the stakeholders and expresses our hope that going forward states will exercise restraint in their decisions. Thank you, Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

Doy ahora la palabra. Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to begin by recognizing the joint statement issued recently by members of the multi-stakeholder community. Their statement outlines stakeholders can contribute to the global mechanism, including in relation to capacity building. Regarding the use of the non-objection mechanism, we deeply regret Russia's excessive use of this mechanism to block stakeholder participation in the plenary. This undermines the inclusivity of this process. As we have all agreed by consensus, member states are encouraged to utilize the non-objection mechanism judiciously. Judiciously, bearing in mind the spirit of inclusivity. Russia has objected to more than half of all accreditation applicants, including 6 stakeholders that were accredited and made meaningful contributions to the OEWG. Such a large number of objections is clearly inconsistent with the commitment all states have made to exercise the non-objection mechanism judiciously. We wish to reiterate, for the avoidance of doubt, that the dedicated thematic groups are informal working groups, and as such, stakeholder participation at DTGs does not require accreditation. This is consistent with both the modalities agreed by consensus and with established UN practice, including the May 2024 intersessional of the OEWG, where unaccredited stakeholders attended and contributed to discussions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of the Republic of Korea, to be followed by Poland and Estonia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Since it's the first time to take the floor, I would like to begin by expressing our gratitude to the Chair and the Secretariat for preparing for the first substantive plenary session of the global mechanism. On the multistakeholder, cyberspace is shaped not only by governments, but also by the private sectors, academia, civil society, and other stakeholders. Given the rapid pace of technological development, the meaningful participation of these multistakeholders is indispensable if we are to respond effectively to the evolving cyber landscape. In this regard, the global mechanism should be open and inclusive, enabling it to fully benefit from the expertise and experience of stakeholders. Their participation will enhance the effectiveness of our policies and strengthen our collective capacity to respond to emerging cyber threats. In this regard, the Republic of Korea aligns itself with Canada and EU and many other previous speakers. In case a member state objects to the participation of a specific stakeholder, the grounds for such an objection should also be made transparent. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Poland, to be followed by Estonia and the United States.

Poland aligns itself with the EU statement. Let me just make a short remark in my national capacity. Madam Chair, first I would like to warmly welcome your commitment to the participation of non-governmental organizations and multi-stakeholders in the works of the United Nations towards an open and inclusive cyberspace, including the organization of productive informal sessions with stakeholders. We fully support your approach. That is why we have decided to raise the issue of Russia's blocking numerous non-governmental organizations on a massive scale. Allow me to give just one example: Polish Watch Cyber Hub, the center of research of International Law in Cyberspace has been operating since 2021 within the Department of Public International Law and International Relations at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Łódź. The University of Łódź is a public academic institution with an established international standing. For years, it has engaged in shaping cybersecurity policy at the United Nations. Including the work of the Open-Ended Working Group, through written submissions, statements, and side events. The Centre engages in international cooperation, including with the European Security and Defence College and European Union Institute of Strategic Studies, and has supported the European Cyber Diplomacy Initiative, EU Cyber Direct, since its inception. An objection to the University of Łódź participation was raised by a single member state without providing a substantive justification. There are no grounds to justify excluding the UCH Cyber Hub from the plenary sessions of the global mechanism. According to Annex 1 of the OAWG final report, member states should exercise the objection mechanism judiciously and in a spirit of inclusivity. Raising objections en masse without justification runs counter to this commitment and undermines the legitimacy of the process itself. The problem is systematic in nature. An unprecedented number of objections has affected not only Poland but a wide range of recognized organizations from Europe North and Latin America, Asia, and Oceania. Excluding those entities weakens the mechanism's ability to achieve its objectives and limits access to the expertise upon which states with fewer resources in particular rely. It was with astonishment that I hear Russia's argument a few minutes ago that the organizations it blocked I quote, the reason for that was that they were making political attributions or pursuing a politicized agenda. This is clearly not what WatchCyberHub is doing. I would be rather inclined to think that Russia's decision to block a Polish organization, which I deplore, was actually driven by a politicized agenda. As you stated, at the beginning of our debate, and we fully endorse your point of view. We call upon all states to adopt an approach that fosters trust and strengthens peace in cyberspace. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Estonia, to be followed by the United States, Morocco, Malawi, and Montenegro.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Estonia aligns itself with the statement by the European Union and adds the following in its national capacity. As numerous delegations have already noted, it is clear that the involvement of stakeholders strengthens the Global Mechanism process. Stakeholders bring expertise that we states need: technical knowledge, operational experience, independent research, legal analysis, capacity-building support, and the list continues. For this reason, we deeply regret that the Estonian-based Cyber Law International and Cyber Policy Group have been blocked from participation. The claimed reasons for rejecting wholesale these and other stakeholders are unconvincing. And as a general matter, Disagreement with or criticism of a state's conduct is not propaganda. It's a normal feature of multilateral discourse, which states are free to rebut but not to silence through accreditation vetoes. Chair, Estonia approaches stakeholder participation with a strong sense of responsibility. We support an open, inclusive, and transparent global mechanism. But inclusivity must go hand in hand with safeguarding the integrity and purpose of this process. Participation should not provide a platform to entities whose activities or affiliations undermine the objective of strengthening security, stability, and responsible behavior in cyberspace.

Space.

Our aim is to ensure that stakeholder engagement contributes constructively to the work of the mechanism and reinforces the principles it seeks to advance. For this reason, Estonia, on behalf of the European Union and its member states, objected to the participation of JSC Positive Technologies. In doing We did not hide behind procedure. We set out our reasons in writing and made them publicly available. Because transparency matters, especially when objections are raised. It helps preserve trust in the process, prevents misuse of the objection procedure, and allows all states and stakeholders to understand the basis for the decision. Our concerns are serious and substantiated. JSC Positive Technologies is part of Positive Group PJSC and operates in the Russian IT sector. This group holds a license administered by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, the FSB. Positive Technologies has been been identified as supporting Russian government clients, including the FSB. In the current security environment, this cannot be treated as a neutral or merely technical affiliation. On 13th of July 2026, the European Union denounced Russia's malicious cyber ecosystem targeting the EU, its member states, and international partners. And identified the FSB as responsible for malicious cyber activities, including the infiltration of government networks and the sabotage of critical infrastructure. Our concerns are further heightened by the fact that the EU has adopted restrictive measures concerning the entity in question. Positive Group BJSC was. Subjected to EU sanctions in the context of Russia's actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine, including as part of the EU's 11th sanction package adopted on June 23rd, 2023. Estonian position is clear: stakeholder participation must strengthen the global mechanism, not weaken it. It must not provide a platform to entities that contribute to, enable, or are closely linked with malicious cyber activity or Russia's aggression against another state. Chair, inclusivity matters, but it cannot come at the expense of integrity, trust, and security. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to the delegation of the United States, to be followed by Morocco.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the exceptional leadership of this mechanism. I want to address the concerns about stakeholder participation. The United States supports a genuinely open, multi-stakeholder mechanism. The private sector, the technical community, academia, and civil society own and operate most of the infrastructure in this body and is trying to keep it secure. Their expertise is not a courtesy. It is a prerequisite for doing this work seriously. The cyber domain is unique. It was not created by governments. It was created by the private sector, specifically Private, Western companies that also happen to champion freedom of expression and the inalienable right of every man and woman to be free across the world. Perhaps this is the heart of the problem. A stakeholder process is only as valuable as the expertise it lets into the room. Systematically excluding the very organizations with the deepest technical and operational knowledge does not protect the intergovernmental character of this mechanism. It hollows out its substance. For the record, the United States did not object to a single stakeholder submitted by the members in this room. However, the Russian Federation objected to over 40. The United States would like— would be interested in knowing the Russian objections to the stakeholders that were submitted. Thank you. I don't think there is much to be afraid of. Let us be clear about the scale of what is happening. One delegation has moved to block dozens of established, credentialed organizations, along with respected research institutions and civil society groups from multiple regions. This is not a case-by-case scrutiny. It is a wholesale effort to strip this mechanism of independent expertise. The United States will not pretend this is a good faith defense of intergovernmental process. When a state moves to silence dozens of the world's leading technical voices at once, the effect and the intent is to ensure our discussions proceed without the very expertise that would make it— make them credible. We reject that approach, and we urge the chair and all delegations to resist it. The question every delegation should ask is simple: Do we want a mechanism that draws on the best available knowledge to counter real threats, or one deliberately kept in the dark? This is equivalent to holding an agricultural convention and not inviting farmers to participate. That is how silly this is. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Morocco, to be followed by Malawi.

Thank you, Chair. I would first of all like to address to El Salvador and also to Your Excellency Ambassador Griselda López the most warm and sincere congratulations from our delegation following your election to chair this new mechanism. Your election, Chair, shows the trust that all member states have placed in your experience and your capacity to lead our work, and in also in your wisdom and impartiality. Morocco accompanied this process from the very outset when the governmental group of experts existed. We would like to assure you that you have our full and tireless support, and we plan on making a modest contribution, of course, one that is focused on effectiveness and concrete results. On the organization of work, my delegation would like to make 3 observations. Firstly, on the DTGs, Morocco welcomes the appointment of the 4 co-facilitators. Egypt, Australia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, and also the balance that led to their— that guided their appointment. We would express the wish that these experts carry out their work in a spirit of neutrality, which is a condition of the confidence that all delegations have placed in them. Secondly, on the calendar, we welcome the swift activation of the work of the DTG, and the first meeting will be held in December this year. We hope that the practical modalities for participation will be clarified as soon as possible to allow then delegations who have more limited capacity to be able to prepare properly. Thirdly, my delegation supports an organization of work that is underpinned by the 5 pillars of responsible state behavior in cyberspace, which has already been agreed upon by consensus. While we remain open for the expanding— deepening of the work of this framework, including addressing gaps, considering new norms, or strengthening existing norms, this tried and tested architecture provides us with a solid foundation to make progress on on this. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Malawi, to be followed by Montenegro, Cuba, Australia, Ireland, Mauritius, and Nicaragua.

Chair, Excellencies, and distinguished delegates, the Republic of Malawi is pleased to take the floor and wishes to share the following remarks in its national capacity. The Republic of Malawi appreciates your continued engagement with member states throughout the preparatory process and your efforts to ensure that the work of the global mechanism is conducted in a transparent, inclusive, and predictable manner. As we convene for this inaugural substantive plenary, it is worth recalling that the work before us did not begin today. Rather, it is built upon years of dialogue, trust-building, and consensus among member states. The foundation laid through the Open-Ended Working Group remains instrumental to our success, as reflected in Annex 1 of the 2025 OEWG Final Report, A/AT/257, Member States agreed to establish an action-oriented permanent mechanism to advance the implementation of the cumulative and evolving framework for responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs. It is on this foundation that we must now build. The Republic of Malawi underscores that meaningful stakeholder participation is is indispensable to an implementation-oriented global mechanism. While the agreed modalities provide for stakeholder participation in the dedicated thematic groups, we believe that the broadest possible engagement of relevant stakeholders strengthens our collective work by bringing technical expertise, operational experience, and practical perspectives to our discussions. If our objective is implementation, then we must ensure that those who contribute to implementation are meaningfully engaged throughout the process. Chair, as you rightly stated, we do not want to leave here simply saying we held another meeting at the United Nations. Let this global mechanism instead be remembered as one where dialogue remained stronger than distrust, where cooperation translated into implementation, and where our collective efforts delivered meaningful outcomes for all, particularly for developing countries and smaller states. For my delegation, stakeholder participation has informed and strengthened our ongoing efforts to advance our national cybersecurity framework including through policy development, institutional strengthening, and enhanced cooperation. They have also reaffirmed that effective implementation cannot be achieved through a one-size-fits-all approach. It must be nationally driven and responsive to national priorities. As recognized in the consensus outcomes of the OEDWG, no state can address ICT threats alone. It is in this spirit that the Republic of Malawi reaffirms its commitment to constructive dialogue, practical cooperation, and the faithful implementation of the cumulative and evolving framework for responsible state behavior in the use of ICTs. As we embark on the work of this action-oriented Permanent Mechanism, the Republic of Malawi looks forward to working with all Member States in a spirit of mutual trust, respect, and shared responsibility to ensure that the Global Mechanism delivers practical, inclusive, and meaningful outcomes that strengthen international peace and security. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Montenegro, to be followed by Cuba and Australia.

Dear Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, I would like to thank you, Madam Chair, for convening— and the Secretariat— for convening this first substantial session of the Global Mechanism. Montenegro welcomes the establishment of this permanent single-track forum as a significant step towards structured multilateral dialogue on ICT security and responsible state behavior. Cyber threats represent one of the most pressing security challenges of our time. For Montenegro and wider Western Balkan region, these threats are not abstract. They are more immediate and evolving. We face a race of ransomware attacks, state espionage, critical infrastructure disruption, and hybrid operations that combine cyber intrusions with disinformation campaign. Such activities undermine public trust economic development, and stability of our democratic institutions. As a small nation with growing digital infrastructure and EU accession ambitions, Montenegro is particularly aware that even a single successful large-scale cyber incident can have disproportionate consequences. In response, Montenegro has strengthen its national cyber defence capabilities, aligned legislation with the EU NIS II Directive and Cyber Resilience Act, and enhanced cooperation with regional and international partners, including through NATO and various CERT networks. However, we recognise that no country can address these challenges in isolation. Cross-border threats require cross-border solutions based on the shared norms, transparency, and mutual trust. This is precisely why the global mechanism is of strategic importance for the Western Balkans and principally for Montenegro as the first next member state of the European Union. Thank you.

Muchísimas gracias. Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Cuba, to be followed by Australia, Ireland, and Mauritius.

Thank you, Chair. Cuba highly values this global mechanism in the United Nations as the only forum that will allow all member states to continue discussing transparently and on an equal footing on the use of ICTs and international security. In this context, we reiterate that the Global Mechanism is a body that is member states-led, and consensus constitutes the fundamental principle that should guide its work on the basis of modalities agreed upon by member states and enshrined in Resolution 79/237 and 80/16 of the General Assembly, the participation of other stakeholders should be based upon the principle of non-objection, as was agreed upon in the open-ended working group which led to the creation of this body, this mechanism. Therefore, Modalities agreed upon for this mechanism should be respected comprehensively in order to ensure that other stakeholders are able to participate in a non-politicized and impartial fashion. It is not about giving greater or lesser weight to a certain number of actors or a greater number of actors, but really ensuring that there is a balanced focus. These rules should also also be applied to the dedicated thematic working groups. I thank you.

I thank you. I now give the floor to Australia.

Let me first begin by thanking you for your leadership in getting us to the first plenary, as well as your update on your consultations with those member states who have objected to the participation of stakeholders. Australia aligns with the statements made by Canada, the EU, New Zealand, Japan, and Kiribati. We note with concern the high number of stakeholders prevented from participating in this first plenary of the Global Mechanism. Australia underlines the importance of meaningful cooperation with the multi-stakeholder community inclusive of industry, the technical community, civil society, and academia. These stakeholders are often close closest to the threats and are essential partners in prevention, response, and recovery. Similar to others, we urge member states to use the non-objection mechanism judiciously and transparently. With that in mind, we strongly support Estonia's transparency in explaining their objection to the participation of a stakeholder. For the global mechanism to, to be successful, it is vital multi-stakeholders be part of and enrich the significant work ahead of us. They provide essential expertise and knowledge to understand how to practically implement and operationalize.

It is—

it also promotes the spirit of cooperation and inclusivity which were previously agreed through consensus in establishing this mechanism. We refer to and support the Joint Multi-Stakeholder Statement and the recommendations contained therein. We also want to reiterate our understanding that these objections will not apply to the participation of objected multi-stakeholders in the DTGs and informal meetings. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Ireland, to be followed by Mauritius, Nicaragua, and the Philippines.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ireland aligns itself fully with the recent intervention of the European Union and also wishes to add some points in our national capacity. We are delighted to be here at the start of this new mechanism. This represents a new beginning for us all to address the many challenges that are facing the global community when it comes to cybersecurity. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for your outstanding work in preparing for this session. Your tireless efforts to reach out to all sides of are very much appreciated. We join with many others in expressing our strong regret that the recent outcomes of the accreditation process have led to the objection to 43 stakeholders, which is a majority of those that applied within the procedure. Stakeholders have a key role to play in both the general process and in the DTGs, and the global mechanism would lose a great deal without their technical and operational expertise and insights. In this regard, we are supportive of the joint multi-stakeholder statement on the objections to the participation of stakeholders. I thank the Chair.

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

Thank you. Chair, as this is the first time that Mauritius takes the floor under the global mechanism, allow me at the outset to warmly congratulate you on your appointment as Chair. Our delegation also wishes to express our sincere appreciation to you and your team for your constructive leadership, dedication, and tireless efforts in laying the foundations of this important mechanism and in steering our work in an exemplary manner. Mauritius also wishes to express its sincere gratitude to the donors supporting the Women in International Security and Cyberspace Fellowship Program. Their continued commitment to capacity building has enabled the meaningful participation of women experts from developing countries, including Mauritius, in this global mechanism. We believe that such initiatives are instrumental in promoting inclusive and representative discussions on international cybersecurity. Mauritius believes that the effectiveness of the global mechanism will benefit from being open, inclusive, and practical in its approach. The evolving cyber landscape is such that governments alone cannot address all challenges. The private sector owns and operates much of the world's digital infrastructure and possesses significant technical expertise, while academia, the technical community, and civil society contribute valuable research, policy perspectives, technical knowledge, and capacity-building experience. In this regard, as also stated by delegations of Canada, the EU, Australia, and others, Mauritius sees value in a multi-stakeholder approach that enables these stakeholders to contribute their expertise in a manner that complements while fully respecting the intergovernmental nature of the global mechanism and the decision-making role of member states. Such participation can enrich discussions through technical briefings, expert exchanges, written contributions, and the sharing of good practices, particularly on technical, operational, and capacity-building issues. At the same time, participation should be guided by principles of transparency, inclusivity, equitable geographical representation, and appropriate safeguards to ensure accountability and avoid conflicts of interest. Mauritius also concurs with the observation made by China that the meaningful contribution of member states to the work of the global mechanism should not be determined by their size. Speaking from a perspective of a small island developing state, we believe that every member state, regardless of its size, can make valuable and substantive contributions where there is common interest. Commitment, expertise, and a willingness to engage constructively. An inclusive process should therefore ensure that all states have meaningful opportunities to participate and shape the work of the global mechanism. With respect to the dedicated thematic groups, Mauritius considers that clear and predictable rules of procedure will be important to ensure efficient and inclusive Without prejudging the outcome of these negotiations, the rules of procedure could usefully address matters such as the objectives and scope of each DTG, the frequency and format of meetings, modalities for the submission and circulation of written contributions by member states, the role of the chair and co-chairs in facilitating discussions and preparing reports. Timelines for work programs and deliverables, procedures for documenting discussions, and mechanisms to promote coordination and coherence among DTGs. Mauritius also considers that transparent accreditation procedures and clearly defined modalities for stakeholder participation would help ensure a balanced and predictable process while providing equitable opportunities for stakeholders from all regions, including developing countries. As discussions continue, Mauritius stands ready to considering practical arrangements that command broad support among member states and contribute to an effective, inclusive, and sustainable global mechanism. I thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Nicaragua to be followed

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We would like to welcome the beginning of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism. With respect to the modalities for participation for stakeholders, we would like to recall that these were negotiated and approved by consensus by member states. These fully recognize the right of states to participate in the Global Mechanism.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

to present objections with respect to the accreditation of NGOs. This right should be respected and it cannot be reinterpreted or substituted. Stakeholders should contribute objectively, constructively, and in a non-politicized fashion. Organizations that develop activities against certain states or have political activities will have a difficult time contributing impartially to the work of the mechanism. I thank you.

Muchísimas gracias.

I thank you very much. I now give the floor to the Philippines.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership and for opening the floor for States to discuss concerns regarding the objections made on stakeholder accreditations.

This reflects the Chair's efforts to make the global mechanism a venue of openness, transparency, and ensuring that the States have the opportunity to participate in substantive As a country with a developing cyber and technological maturity, we rely on the support of and partnerships with the private sector, the academe, civil society, and international partnerships.

We align with the statements delivered by the EU, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Australia.

Multi-stakeholder coordination plays a vital role in enriching and improving our cyber resilience by bringing together technical experts from the academe, the civil society.

Our country, as well as others similarly situated, will benefit from diverse perspectives that deepen situational awareness and help us prepare for real-world operational needs.

Through cross-sector coordination, the plenary session provides opportunities for member states to build resilience and foster a secure, stable, and trusted digital environment, especially for the country like ours.

The Philippines considers it as best practice to strengthen our cyber resilience through whole-of-government coordination, multi-stakeholder engagement, and inclusive multilateralism. We thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership, and the Philippines remains committed to inclusive dialogue and most importantly, to practical implementation along with other stakeholders.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And before giving the floor to the delegation of Albania, I would like to indicate that for the moment, this is the last delegation that has requested to take the floor. Therefore, if there is another delegation that wishes to avail themselves of the opportunity to make a statement, this is the time to indicate it. And I now give the floor to this distinguished representative of Albania.

Madam Chair, thank you for giving us the floor, and I use the occasion to thank you and your team for the excellent work undertaken so far in organizing the UN Global Mechanism. Albania appreciates your leadership, commitment, and efforts to establish a solid foundation for our future discussions and cooperation. Albania supports the position of EU presented and wishes to also restate that it is committed to strengthening the UN Framework for Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace and views the Global Mechanism as an important opportunity we are waiting to explore to the fullest. As a country committed to digital transformation, cybersecurity, and the protection of critical infrastructure, Albania places particular importance on strengthening international cooperation against malicious cyber activity. Albania firmly believes that an open, secure, stable, accessible, and peaceful ICT environment can only be achieved through inclusive cooperation. In my country, effective cybersecurity policy requires a whole-of-society approach that draws on the expertise of government and private sector, academia, the technical community, and civil society. These stakeholders provide practical experience, innovation, policy analysis, threat intelligence, training and capacity building support, that are indispensable for informed policymaking and effective implementation to the UN framework. In this regard, Albania also wishes to express concern regarding the outcomes of the recent stakeholder accreditation process. The objection to applicant entities, including a number of organizations with well-established expertise and a proven record, of contribution to international cybersecurity discussions, from whom we have all also learned extensively in the last year, raises serious concerns regarding transparency, predictability, and inclusiveness. And it risks depriving Member States of valuable expertise precisely at a time when cyber threats are becoming increasingly complex and transactional. Albania aligns itself with the objective of advancing the implementation of UN framework and responsible state behavior in cyberspace, and supports efforts to ensure that UN Global Mechanism becomes a practical and effective platform for cooperation, capacity building, and the exchange of expertise. We therefore encourage continued effort to ensure the qualified and experienced stakeholders are able to contribute to discussion in a systematic, sustained, and substantive manner consistent with the previously agreed commitment. Such participation is essential for developing practical responses to evolving cyber challenges and supporting the effective implementation of the UN framework worldwide. Albania remains committed to working constructively with all partners to promote a global, open, sustainable, secure, and peaceful cyber space. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. And I now give the floor to the delegation of Ukraine.

Thank you, Chair. Ukraine aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union earlier and would like to add some points in our national capacity. At the outset, my delegation congratulates you on convening the inaugural plenary session of the Global Mechanism. We are confident that this process will become an important platform for strengthening international cooperation in promoting an open, secure, stable, accessible, interoperable, and peaceful ICT environment. Ukraine firmly believes that the Global Mechanism should become more than another discussion forum. It should evolve into a practical tool that strengthens international cooperation, enhances resilience against malicious ICT activities, and contributes meaningfully to international peace and security. In this respect, to our understanding, DTGs, as the informal consultations format, should be accessible for the stakeholders based on their diligence and expertise in the first place. In this respect, we would like to echo the statements earlier made by Canada, Japan, the US, the EU, and the EU member states, and many other states, emphasizing the need to explain the reasons behind the stakeholder exclusion. In addition, we think it would be useful for the international community to be able to follow the cases of the malicious behavior in cyberspace that is exercised by some of the stakeholders. We view it as important that the cases of such misuse can be brought to the broad attention of the international community. Both in the form of the official public attribution and in the form of the exchange during this and the following plenary meetings. This is with reference particularly to Estonia's intervention today. In relation to the modalities of the components of the global mechanism, we would like to note that interoperability should not only be the principle of our common cyberspace and the use of the ICTs, but also our principle for approaching the issues directly related to its security. security and promoting the responsible state behavior in the use of the ICTs. I thank you.

Thank you very much. I believe that we have now heard the last delegation that wanted to speak on this matter. Yes, we did. I have listened carefully to your views. Views, and it is clear that stakeholder participation remains a priority for many delegations. And rest assured that I remain committed to a systematic, substantive, and sustained continuous dialogue with stakeholders, and I have the intention to continue working hard in order to convene informal dialogues. Before moving on to the next item in our program of work, it is necessary to address one more issue when it comes to stakeholders. I would like to draw attention to member states. The document entitled List of Non-Governmental Entities, it is contained in the document A/AC.304/2011. This information document includes entities that have been accredited to participate in the work of the substantive plenary sessions and review conferences of the Global Mechanism of the current 5-year cycle, and this is pursuant to the agreed modalities. May I take it that The Global Mechanism wishes to take note of this document. I hear no objections, therefore it is so decided.

All right.

And with regards to organizational issues, I would like to make some brief comments on the issue of the specific thematic working groups on the base of consensus modalities that were agreed upon by member states regarding specific thematic groups that are in Annex 1 of the document A/80/257. I have carried out broad consultations in recent months. This includes exchanges held during our organizational session, written contributions sent by delegations, 3 town halls, bilateral meetings, and meetings with diverse groups of states. On the basis of this, I was able to identify that grounded in a broad understanding amongst a great majority of delegations, the nomination of 2 co-facilitators per group, bearing in mind geographic balance and gender balance as well as relevant experience, constitutes the most balanced and logical approach in order to support the work of the global mechanism during its first biennium. And as explained in my note dated 29 June, I continue to be fully committed to working closely with the co-facilitators and with all delegations to ensure that the specific thematic groups work in full respect of the modalities agreed by the global mechanism. The co-facilitators will carry out their role on Under my guidance and my general responsibility as Chair, I will continue actively working as a guide and ensure that the opinions of all delegations are heard. Co-facilitators will act on a personal basis, ad personam. In strict observance of the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and inclusion. As Chair, I will ensure that we preserve that objectivity, and I will work very hard for that. Having concluded this decision, I now open the floor in case any delegation has additional comments or would like to provide feedback, bearing in mind that it is not my intention to reopen a debate on the issue, but rather I do consider it important to facilitate opportunities so that all delegations may be able to express their points of view. If you are interested in taking the floor, You may indicate that now, and for logistical purposes, I would kindly ask you to please indicate that now. I give the floor to the delegation of Nicaragua, to be followed by the EU.

Well, I'm going to deliver a joint statement on behalf of the group of like-minded states, on behalf of Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Russian Federation, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and on my own behalf, Nicaragua. We welcome the start of the substantive work of the global mechanism on the development of— in the field of ICTs in the context of international security and advancing responsible states' behavior in the use of ICTs and reaffirm our commitment to work constructively in good faith with all member states. With regard to the organization of work of the dedicated tomato groups, we reaffirm our position reflected in the joint statements of the group of like-minded states as of June 23rd and April 27th of 2026 that were also published at the GM webpage. Building on the above-mentioned statement, we reiterate that the GM is a state-led body and that consensus is the fundamental principle guiding its work. According to the agreed modalities of the GM anchored in the UNGA Resolutions 79/237 and 80/716, Consensus is the sole decision-making rule of the GM, which applies both to procedural and substantive matters. Any references to practices established, established in the, in other UN General Assembly bodies do not apply. In this context, we express our strongest disappointment with the approach of the chair to appoint co-facilitators of the dedicated thematic groups, which is inconsistent with the consensus procedure of the state-led nature of the GM. We therefore disassociate ourselves from the procedure followed in making this decision and will not consider it as a precedent for future functioning of the global mechanism. Co-facilitators should either be elected or appointed on the basis of consensus among all member states. We call upon the chair to ensure strict adherence to agreed modalities of the global mechanism, including the centrality principle of consensus. Consensus has been the core guiding principle of the negotiation process on ICT security at the UN and must continue to guide our collective efforts as agreed by member states. Any attempts to reinterpret this principle endanger the future of the GM and limit its ability to achieve balanced and credible results. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Gracias.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the delegation of the European Union, to be followed by Colombia and Venezuela.

Thank you, Chair. It's my honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the EU and its member states, also the candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Georgia. And the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, as well as San Marino, aligned themselves with this statement. Let me also say and express my gratitude to you, Chair, and your team for all of your efforts, your commitment, and your guidance in operationalizing the UN Global Mechanism. We are really encouraged by the progress we have made so far and look forward to engaging this week in substantive discussions on how to advance the implementation of the UN Framework of Responsible State Behavior in cyberspace, giving also guidance to the DTGs. We look forward to guide the substantive discussions of the DTGs, building on the careful balance we have achieved as consensus outcome of the Open-Ended Working Group. We also welcome your timely appointment of the co-facilitators. In line with UN practice, as they will serve part of your team in their personal capacity to help give shape and further operationalize the DTGs in the coming 2 years. We believe that the paper that you've circulated on the work of the DTG sets out a clear way forward on how the DTGs should work, and it gives us further elements on how they can become an effective tool for the international community to practically implement the UN Framework. As we have said before, we think that the agendas of the Plenary, the DTGs, and the Global Roundtable for Capacity Building are complementary to one another. This week is about discussing the pillars, and it's about guiding the DTGs in their discussions for December. Next year, during the Plenary, we will be able to benefit from that guidance, provided this week by discussing actionable recommendations coming from the December DTGs in our plenary session next year. We encourage you and the co-facilitators, in consultation with member states, to develop programs of work for the DTGs and select topics that are in line with the guidance that you will receive this week and the continued engagement we envisage in the run-up to the DTGs meeting. We also encourage you, in preparation of the DTG meetings, to develop guiding questions to allow States to prepare their contributions. The work of the DTG should provide for focused and topic-based discussions, drawing on the relevant expertise through expert briefings, followed by States' interventions, exchanging on best practices and developing practical know-how for the implementation of the Framework. To this end, the selection of topics for both DTG 1 and DTG 2 should ideally be synchronized to allow for complementary and coherent discussions. As the DTGs are informal meetings, we encourage you also to take prior practice as example in the organization of work of the DTGs, including on the engagement of the multi-stakeholder community. Expert briefings, as outlined in your paper, by a pool of nominated experts will enrich our exchanges with technical and operational insights. They should also be given the opportunity to answer to potential questions addressed to them by states. And to bring in the appropriate expertise and have a whole-of-government approach and inspire further work and tangible outcomes where it should be, on the ground, we are glad that the informal nature of the DTGs will provide for hybrid participation. Which will allow also smaller delegations to meaningfully join the meetings. As for your proposal on the reporting modalities, the DTG co-facilitators could update the plenary next year in a verbal transmission of the discussions of the DTG, in addition to, where needed, a transmission of written recommendations to the plenary session in case they are agreed upon by states within the DTG context in the spirit of consensus. We believe that clarity on the reporting mechanisms will be vital for delegations to ensure substantive progress on the practical implementation of the UN Framework of Responsible State Behavior. We are really looking forward to taking this step with you, with the whole international community, in advancing a global, open, free, stable, and secure cyberspace. It is essential that we use this global mechanism as the vehicle to make that progress on substance. We stand ready to contribute to this, whether it is through sharing best practices, funding capacity-building projects, or hosting simulation exercises. We want to ensure that the mechanism delivers tangible results for global cybersecurity. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias.

Voy a dar—

Thank you very much. I will now read the list of speakers, um, until now. Colombia, Venezuela, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Switzerland, Mexico, Italy, Canada, Japan, and Cuba. I now give the floor to the delegation of Colombia.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Regarding the organization of our work, my delegation would like to point out the following aspects. First, Colombia supports and welcomes the selection of co-facilitators on an individual basis, bearing in mind their technical experience and the principle of gender equality. We consider that reflecting a geographic balance between developed and developing countries favors a more inclusive and representative dynamic by incorporating the perspectives, experiences, and strengths of both parties. Second, my delegation considers that informative. Sessions led by experts constitute a valuable mechanism to introduce and contextualize an analysis of different topics in the framework of the first thematic group. These presentations could be complemented by structured dialogue guided by guiding questions drafted by the chair and by doing case studies or reviewing specific challenges, which could allow us to identify good practices, lessons learned, and to draft specific recommendations that are action-oriented in nature. The proposed methodology can be adapted on the basis of the topics chosen as a result of the consultative process that will be led by the Chair along with States in coordination with the co-facilitators. To conclude, Colombia wishes to reiterate a condition that is practical but critical for the effective functioning of thematic groups, and that is the availability of simultaneous interpretation. Technical experts from different regions and linguistic contexts should be able to participate fully and meaningfully in our discussions. This is why we urge that whenever possible, we can ensure simultaneous interpretation in the meetings of the thematic groups in keeping with the inclusive spirit of the mechanism. I thank you.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the delegation of Venezuela, to be followed by the Russian Federation.

Madam Chair, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would like to congratulate the chair of the Global Mechanism on her election, and we subscribe to the declaration of like-minded countries which was read out by the delegation of Nicaragua. We would like to add the following comments in our national capacity. Venezuela reaffirms its commitment to strengthen cooperation between state parties to prevent and fight against the use of ICTs for purposes that are incompatible with the maintenance of international peace and security in order to benefit all of mankind and sustainable development pursuant to Resolution 75/240 of the Security Council. It is very important for Venezuela to preserve the principle of consensus in all decisions and activities of the global mechanism, and this includes those that are done in the framework of the thematic groups. It is very important that the naming of co-facilitators for these thematic groups are subject to consultation with all member states. consultations with all member states and that it is done on the basis of consensus. Venezuela notes that a 50/50 distribution between developed and developing countries does not reflect a truly equitable distribution because developing countries represent a considerably higher proportion in the United Nations. Therefore, the proposed division could translate into overrepresenting developed countries. Given this, Venezuela believes that selecting the co-facilitators for the thematic group should be a process that is subject to consultations with member states on the basis of the principle of consensus. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reiterates its full willingness to contribute constructively to finding a consensus on these issues, and we trust that our work will be carried out in an inclusive, transparent, and member states-led fashion. Thank you.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the Russian Federation, followed by Iran, Switzerland, and Mexico.

Thank you, Chair. The Russian Federation welcomes the launch of substantive work of the Global Mechanism, and we reaffirm our commitment to constructive and conscientious engagement with member states in all areas of the Global Mechanism's activities. Chair, we reaffirm our commitment to the joint statement of the group of like-minded states made by the distinguished delegate of Nicaragua. The guiding principle of the Global Mechanism is its intergovernmental nature. It is states that participate in the negotiation process and take relevant decisions. The procedure for adopting such decisions, both political and procedural ones, is consensus. This is enshrined in the UNGA resolution on this, 79/237 and 80/16, which defined the modalities of the new body. Consensus was the foundation of 4 predecessors to this mechanism, including the OEWG, which concluded its work last year, and it made it possible to achieve important successful results while taking into account the views of all member states. We are convinced that discussions on organisational aspects must be conducted in an inclusive and transparent manner. Manner, without imposing deadlines or limiting the number of states participating in negotiations. We strongly disagree that on the matter of appointing co-facilitators for the dedicated thematic groups, states were basically presented with a fait accompli, given that the results of the consultations with member states held from April to June this year showed that no consensus was reached On the candidates for these posts. The chair of— the decisions of the chair to appoint the co-facilitators contradicts the UNGA-approved parameters of the global mechanism. Russia does not recognize this decision. It was made in circumvention of the consensus procedure and in violation of the principle of the guiding role of states. Such a measure cannot be seen to be legitimate, let alone serve as a precedent for the further functioning of the global mechanism. The allocation of co-facilitator positions, like other organizational aspects, must be carried out in strict accordance with the modalities approved by the GA for this mechanism. Chair, to prevent any possible abuse of authority by the co-facilitators, it is necessary to ensure compliance with the principle of consensus, both in setting the agenda for the DTGs and in summarising the results of their work. In particular, the list of topics should be developed and approved transparently and unanimously, taking into account the priorities and concerns of all Member States. Discussions should be structured in strict accordance with the 5 pillars of the Mechanism's mandate, without singling out individual issues that are of interest to a narrow group of States. At the same time, States can make recommendations which enjoyed consensus in the discussions in the DTGs. The reports of the coordinators and co-facilities that are not unanimously approved by States cannot be regarded as legitimate On the participation of NGOs in the work of the global mechanism, then it should also be done in strict accordance with approved modalities. The role of non-state actors must be purely technical and advisory, with no connection to the policies of the states under whose jurisdiction these organizations fall. According to paragraph 8 of Annex 1 to the final report, of the OEWG, no stakeholders other than briefers may participate in the work of the DTGs. The briefings themselves are optional and should be determined by the agenda and must receive the approval of all member states. Should a briefing be agreed upon, the speakers must be selected from the accredited NGOs. No other category of external participants, including individuals delivering reports in their personal capacity, is permitted to take part in the discussions within DTGs. Russia is ready for constructive work within the mechanism, but exclusively on the basis of the rules and procedures agreed already by member states. These provisions were not proposed by any individual state or group of states. They were adopted by consensus and subsequently by binding UN General Assembly resolutions. They're not subject to free interpretation or selective application. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the Islamic Republic of Iran, to be followed by Switzerland, Mexico, and Italy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Nicaragua on on behalf of the group of like-minded countries. We believe that both the modalities governing the appointment of the facilitators and their functions are already clearly set out in paragraph 17 of Annex C to the Third Annual Progress Report and paragraph 12 of Annex I to the Final Report of the OEWG. Consequently, there is no need to rely on the practice of other United Nations processes. Under the global mechanism, the dedicated thematic groups constitute the core of the process. They are mandated to undertake focused discussions and develop action-oriented draft recommendations for consideration by the plenary. Accordingly, the role of their facilitators is not merely procedural but inherently substantive. Their functions are therefore not comparable to those of facilitators in other other United Nations processes. For this reason, we reiterate that the facilitators of the DTGs should be appointed by consensus of all member states. In this regard, I wish to recall that during the negotiations on the modalities of the global mechanism in the OEWG, the proposal to authorize the chair to appoint the facilitators appeared in the initial draft but ultimately removed because it did not enjoy the consensus of member states. The agreed outcome therefore reflects a deliberate decision by states not to confer such authority to the chair. Accordingly, my delegation wishes to emphasize that the chair's approach to the appointment of the facilitators, as reflected in her letter of June 29th is not consistent with the consensus-based decision-making modality agreed for the global mechanism. We therefore place on record that this approach should neither be regarded nor relied upon as a precedent for the appointment of facilitators in future years. Like Russia, we believe the discussion topics as well as the timetable for the dedicated thematic groups should also be agreed by consensus among all member states to reflect the priorities and concerns of all countries. They should fully and faithfully reflect all 5 pillars in a balanced manner without according priority to certain issues at the expense of others. Regarding the transmission of updates and possible recommendations of the PTGs to the plenary, we have reservations regarding the preparation of co-facilitator summaries. Regardless of the emphasis placed on their factual nature, experience in other United Nations processes has demonstrated that it is impossible in practice to ensure complete objectivity. By their very nature, summaries are documents prepared under the responsibility of the or facilitators and inevitably reflect their characterization of the discussion. As such, they cannot fully and evenly capture the position of all delegations. Moreover, had the drafters intended the preparation of written summaries, paragraph 12 of Annex A to the final report of the OEWG would have referred explicitly to a written summary or a summary of discussions. The absence of such language suggests that the requirement to provide updates should not be interpreted as authorizing the preparation of co-facilitator summaries. Given that the dedicated thematic groups are ultimately expected to produce consensus recommendations, it would be preferable to record the outcomes of their meetings from the outset in the form of a ruling text, which could progressively evolve into consensus recommendations. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Switzerland.

Madam Chair, Switzerland welcomes your appointment of the co-facilitators in line with UN practice. This is an important step in preparing for the meetings of the dedicated thematic groups in December, as well as in the implementation of the global mechanism. We would like to thank those appointed for their willingness to contribute to our work. In our view, the thematic groups offer an important opportunity to focus on the practical step-by-step implementation of the framework of responsible state behavior. It is crucial that we start preparing for the work of these DGTs without delay. We need to know which topics will be discussed, how the discussions will be structured, and which experts the states should send to the meetings in New York. We will put forward specific proposals in this— on this matter, including on international law. Madam Chair, we would like to thank you for your non-paper and France for the working paper. We support the general thrust of these documents and the proposals set out in them. We in particular support proposals for focused scenario-based discussions on selected topics, briefing by experts, and the participation of stakeholders, as well as the expectation that the DGTs will report to the substantive plenary session with updates and potential recommendations. Switzerland is ready to work with you, Madam Chair, the co-facilitators, and all delegations to contribute to productive and successful meetings of the DGTs. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Mexico, to be followed by Italy, Canada, and Japan.

Thank you very much, Chair. Mexico would like to express its support to the Chair's prerogative to name the co-facilitators of the dedicated— the groups pursuant to the established practice in other GA processes. And in that sense, we welcome the 4 nominations announced on June 29th, which reflect an adequate geographical and gender balance as well as the necessary technical expertise to support this work. We reiterate that the co-facilitators carry out a supporting role when it comes to the chairmanship, and any recommendation that comes out of the thematic groups should be considered and, if warranted, adopted by member states in the plenary. Mexico also considers that the thematic groups should prioritize practicality and an implementation-focused approach Therefore, we think that their discussions should be structured around scenarios that allow for us to exchange national experiences, identify common challenges, and extract specific lessons on the application of the Framework for Responsible State Behavior, and thus we avoid duplicating conceptual debates that already happen in in the plenary. We would also like to reiterate our support for the fact that the thematic groups benefit from the participation of technical experts nominated by member states when this contributes to enriching discussions on issues that are highly specialized. This participation should be— done on a technical basis without undermining the intergovernmental character of the mechanism because decision-making rests solely upon member states. Finally, we echo Colombia's comments around observing and ensuring whenever possible the principle of multilingualism in the planning and execution of the work of the thematic groups. I thank you.

I thank you very much. Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Italy.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Italy fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and wishes to add a few considerations from its national perspective. Dear colleagues, the evolution of the international security landscape and the pace of digital transformation all our countries are witnessing require a concrete Italy reaffirms once more the importance of making the DTGs operational as soon as possible, because they are the real added value of this mechanism, as also Under-Secretary-General Nakamitsu has recalled, thanks to their practical and action-oriented nature, complementing the plenary sessions. With this regard, Italy supports your paper, Madam Chair, dated June 8th, which is fully in line with the principles agreed by the OIWG. Italy also welcomes the appointment of the 4 co-facilitators, to whom we express our congratulations, wishing them well in their important task, and to whom we ensure Italy's full collaboration. We believe such appointment does not contravene any modality or rule, and that it ensures an appropriate balance in geographical, development, and gender terms. As I mentioned in my previous statement, we also look forward to a broad inclusion of stakeholders in the work of the DTGs, bearing in mind 2 aspects from our perspective. The stakeholders community includes a wide range of actors, not only NGOs. Classifying all stakeholders as NGOs is a clear attempt to politicize the participation of interested parties whose technical contribution can be key to our collective work. Second, paragraph 15 of Annex 1 to the UAWG's final report clearly affirms that accreditation is needed for plenary and review conference only. DTGs have an informal nature and do not need a prior accreditation for stakeholders. Dear colleagues, at last March's organizational session, and even today, we have already dedicated a lot of time to the procedural matters. The global mechanism has been established and its rules are clear as per the OEWG consensus-agreed principles, which the very useful Chair's Paper has recalled and summarized. We now invite everyone to turn page and delve into the many substantial topics we have to discuss in order for this plenary to provide a clear and useful guidance to the next December's DTGs. Intercessional period can be precious and useful to refine any outstanding point in a constructive and cooperative manner under the Chair's guidance. We want the Global Mechanism to be successful in delivering what it has been established for, and Italy is ready to do its part. As a wise man once said, if you don't know where to go, you will never get there. Well, dear colleagues, I believe that we do know where to go, and that the global mechanism will provide meaningful opportunities for cooperation along the way. Madam Chair, rest assured that you can always count on Italy's constructive position, openness and readiness. to cooperate. Thank you.

Muchísimas gracias. Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Canada, to be followed by Japan and Cuba.

Madam Chair, we welcome your appointment of the co-facilitators for the informal DTGs. We understand the magnitude of the efforts that you dedicated to ensuring that all views were heard and considered before asserting your authority as chair, in line with UN practice. Canada invites states to refrain from significant departures from UN practice for UN informal cybersecurity meetings. Informal thematic groups and the opportunities for more in-depth and practical discussions they provide will bring value to the membership beyond the formal statements delivered in plenary. We must enable them to proceed. The precedent set by the OEWG for informal meetings is relevant and represents UN practice for informal cybersecurity meetings. Before the May 2024 informal meetings, OEWG Chair Ambassador Gaffour invited delegations to nominate experts experts. He then selected a number of experts from this pool to provide briefings at the beginning of the informals. He reflected states' views from the plenaries and guiding questions that served as topics for discussion in the informals. All stakeholders, whether accredited to the plenaries or not, could participate as discussants or expert briefers. Canada believes guiding questions should focus discussions on priorities broadly shared across UN membership. To ensure focused and productive exchanges, there should be one or two guiding questions or topics potentially linked to a case study. Delegations could respond through integrated interventions addressing all pillars of the framework. Stakeholders could also intervene With dedicated time for interactive discussions. These working methods would mirror those of the most recent UN informal cybersecurity meetings. They would also enable us to move to substantive discussions as agreed in July 2025 through a week of dedicated thematic groups in December. Madam Chair, esteemed co-facilitators, the success of the December DTGs will depend on the degree of predictability provided beforehand. Delegations and stakeholders will need to know the guiding questions and the expert briefers sufficiently in advance to prepare. The success of the first-ever dedicated thematic groups depends on our good faith efforts. It is our collective responsibility to contribute to this success, including by supporting efforts from the Chair and our esteemed co-facilitators. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Japan places great importance on maintaining and developing a free, fair, and secure cyberspace. In the global mechanism, Japan emphasized the importance of building off the discussions and outcomes of the GGE and OEWG, focusing on practical challenges, and working toward more concrete outcomes. Japan looks forward to continuing to engage constructively in this process. To that end, it is important that TTG1 prioritize and hold concrete discussions focused on pressing issues such as ransomware attacks and cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Japan would like to advance discussions with specific scenarios in mind, drawing on briefings by experts, including from the private sector. Japan also believes it is important that DTG 2 ensure broad stakeholder participation, including from the private sector, while eliminating duplication in assistance efforts and advancing discussions on how to approach capacity building in an efficient and effective manner, taking into account the needs of each country. In order to achieve such objectives of DTGs to advance responsible state behaviors in cyberspace, Japan believes that the co-facilitators from the 4 countries appointed by Madam Chair will contribute to fostering constructive discussions in the DTGs under the Chair's leadership. Therefore, Japan supports the Chair's appointment of the co-facilitators. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Muchísimas gracias. Thank you very much. We only have 6 minutes before we conclude this morning's session, so I will now read out the list of speakers as it stands right now. Cuba, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, China, Kiribati, Oman, New Zealand, Germany, Croatia and Argentina. The last speaker that we will be able to listen to in this morning session will be Cuba, and after I will indicate how we will proceed. Cuba, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Cuba subscribes to the statement read out by the delegation of Nicaragua on behalf of a group of like-minded countries. Regarding the organization of our work, Cuba reaffirms the position expressed in joint declarations by a group of like-minded states in April and June that are published on the global mechanism's webpage. We express our deep concern due to the procedure followed by the chairmanship to name the co-facilitators for the DTGs. We consider that this approach is incompatible with the nature of the global mechanism as a body that is member states-led, nor is it compatible with the principle of consensus that guides our work. As we have stated before, consensus is the only rule to adopt decisions in the global mechanism. And it should be applied to matters of procedure as well as substantive matters. Therefore, the procedure followed to adopt the decision on the co-facilitators should not constitute a precedent for the future working of the global mechanism. The co-facilitators should be elected or named on the basis of consensus from all member states. References to established practices in other GA bodies cannot modify, nor can they prevail over, the modalities that were specifically agreed for this global mechanism. Regarding the dedicated thematic groups, we consider that it is critical that the Scope and mandate of these strictly corresponds to what is established by member states in the open-ended working group. Any understanding reached in this sense should be duly reflected in relevant documents that guide the work of these groups in order to preserve the continuity of deliberations to avoid diverging interpretations and to ensure that their work is done based on agreements reached by states. We urge the chairmanship to ensure that there is strict compliance with the modalities agreed upon in the global mechanism. This includes the centrality of consensus, which should continue guiding our collective efforts. In the framework of this mechanism. Any attempt to reinterpret or dilute this principle creates the risk of undermining the necessary trust to ensure that it works adequately, and it could limit our capacity to reach balanced, credible, and universally accepted results. I reiterate the willingness of my country to continue working constructively with all member states in a spirit of dialogue, mutual respect, and good faith within this mechanism. I thank you.

Thank you. Given the time, I would now like to propose that we meet once again at 3 PM in this room to listen to the rest of the list of speakers. In addition to the countries that I mentioned, we can now add to this list Argentina and Chile, and it would be very valuable that you indicate now if you wish to speak this afternoon so that we can follow this order. Once we have heard all the speakers on our list, we will begin with the consideration of Item 5, On the agenda, our substantive discussion. So according to our program of work, we will start with the topic of current and potential threats. As I have indicated this morning, as we go through each element of the program, we will go on to the next one. So we will follow the established order for our session. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.