The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Hello. It is 11:30. I suggest we get started. Welcome. Welcome also to everybody joining us online. I heard we had a bigger crowd online than in the room, which is always exciting, given that the IGF is a hybrid event.
My name is Tereza Horejsova. I will be your Moderator for this session. I'm with Global Forum Cyber Expertise. Joining me in speaker capacity today is Pua Hunter from the Cook Islands, joining online. Good afternoon to you.
We have here in the room Liesyl Franz from US Government. Thank you. And we have Chris Painter, President from the GFC Foundation.
My helper online for the remote moderation is Allan Cabanlong, also from the GFCE. Director of Southeast Asia Hub.
What we will try to do at the session is mostly have a conversation with you. We will have a few points to get us started, connected to the presentation of, I hope, major conference that the GFCE and partners are organizing in November, with Ghana, the GC3B, the Conference on Cyber capacity building.
We will particularly focus on one of the outcome documents we expect will be coming from the Internet Governance. The Accra Call. That will set some guidelines and ideas for more efficient Global action on cyber capacity building. We would like your perspectives to help us shape what this document could look like. I hope this sounds as a good plan. I suggest that we do for start is we will play a very short video. That should introduce the conference a little bit and we go to the various speakers. Fingers crossed that everything works. If I may ask our dear colleagues here in the room to get Allan on screen. Who will share his screen and play the video. Thank you very much.
At this moment, it is without sound. I don't know if the sound is something to handle in the room or on Allan's end.
Can you start it again? Sorry about that. Thank you, we can hear the sound now apologies for the technical glitch.
(Captioned video)
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Thank you, Allan for playing the video. I hope this serves as a little bit of introduction on what we are up to. Liesyl, if you can tell us more why at first place it is important for the U.S. Government to be involved in the efforts and why you think the GC3B is tackling issues missing on the Agenda.
>> LIESYL FRANZ: Thank you, Tereza. Good afternoon. I'm Liesyl Franz with the State Department in the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy. I'm responsible for our international cyberspace security unit. One of the key elements, the business lines as I have and to describe it is on international engagement and capacity building. It builds upon years of efforts of building capacity around the world including international strategies, learning from our experience, perhaps mistakes. Also with building incidence response teams and other efforts that help build institutions in other countries to address the risks that you heard about in the video.
Over the years, fortunately we have been able to garner a little bit more funding to provide capacity building around the world. We started with sort of one person doing cyber issues years ago and we built it out to a little more activity.
What we found first of all, there is an increasing amount of demand for not only funds, but also the breadth of things, that countries are looking for to be able to build up their own resources, knowledge, and skills. And other countries are also looking for ways to help provide such cyber capacity building. As Chris said in another session where he talked about the global cyber capacity building we want to make sure all the countries that have the means to provide resources or funding are not doing all the same thing for the same people and spread ourselves in a more informed fashion. That is why we are supporters of the GFCE in the beginning and why we are supporting the conference. Because we can think it is a unique opportunity for the multistakeholder community and donor countries, this sort of coordinated fashion, recipients, implementers, you know, those who are actually on the ground doing the capacity building that we and others can fund. The Private Sector and Academia to actually have the discussions and dialogue to discuss the current state of cyber capacity building. What does it look like? Where is it happening? What are we providing to whom. What demands are coming from the Global community. This is at a critical moment when conversations at various multilateral organizations, such as the U.N., say, or the International Telecommunication Union or others, look to cover capacity building in greater detail because of the growing demand. So as you have probably heard, the year's conference inaugural, right? (Chuckling)
The conference is thematically focused on bridging the gap between cyber capacity building and digital development and I would say development writ large also. It doesn't have to be its own thing. It is a unique opportunity to connect various groups and ideas that have too often been siloed. And not ‑‑ Chris used to talk about silos of excellence in the U.S. Government. Fair point. But we see them in every aspect of the world we want to build the connectivity between them. How do we make progress on connectivity without sacrificing security? How do we digitize societies and make sure they're resilient? These critical questions ‑‑ these are critical questions for us in the 21st Century and heard them throughout the week here. I think probably in our everyday work‑lives. I think all of you here and online understand that covering them in detail is important and worthwhile. So for these reasons and probably many others, the U.S. is looking forward to participating through a high‑level inter‑Agency Delegation led by the Ambassador for cyberspace and digital policy and engage the stakeholder community on these questions and probably many more that will come to the floor in the conference. We hope to see many of you in Ghana as well. So we can take meaningful steps toward a safer digital and cyber future. Thanks.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Thank you for your remarks and the support of the U.S. Government. And kind of reconfirmed by the Delegation that you are sending to Accra, that is fantastic. The Global Conference is taking place in Africa. It is of particular importance to the GFCE and where we progressed most with the kind of approach of regional Agendas to cyber capacity building. But the main aim of the event is to connect the regional perspectives with the Global discussions.
So in this sense, it will be very important that we get perspectives from various Regions. At this point, I would like to turn to you Pua joining us from the beautiful Cook Islands to tell us a little bit more about the perspectives of Pacific Island States when it comes to cyber capacity building and how you see the regional efforts feeding into the Global action. I hope we have on online. And we can hear and see you? Let's give it a few seconds.
>> Pua Hunter: Can you hear me?
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: We can hear you and see you, go ahead.
>> Pua Hunter: Thank you. Greetings, everyone. There is a lot happening in the Pacific in the cyber ecosystem and cyber capacity building space. In my view, this is a good sign. It demonstrates that nationally countries in the Pacific Region are developing their own enabling environment, their infrastructure, legal framework, their policies and plans, including their capability and capacity to deal with developments in the cyberspace. We receive support from our development partners such as the World Bank, Asia Development Bank, United Nations Programme and so forth.
Which is a great thing. And we're grateful and benefit from the initiatives of regional and international organizations who deliver cybersecurity initiatives in our Region. And for example, the Pacific cybersecurity operational network. The Pacific Islands law officers network. The cyber safety Pacifica. The e‑safety Commissioner. Oceana cyber security center. And recently, last week, in Nandy, GFCE the Global Forum for expertise launched its hub. It was a great event. There are many more regional and international organizations helping us here in the Region. In the Pacific Region. So it is actually a busy, busy space. Good busy space.
These are useful initiatives, undertakings, training offers extended to our Region. However, I think we need to be able to manage these events, nationally and regionally to reap the benefits these are intended for. It is one thing to bring something to the ground and leave and nothing moves from there.
So yeah, it needs to be managed properly.
Back in 2020 the Oceanian cyber ‑‑ cybersecurity conference it was for the Region and the development partners. The takeaway was contextualizing nationally and regionally through more collaboration and engagement and also better coordination.
And just last week, I attended the Pacific cyber capacity building and coordination conference, the in Fiji. The same message about collaboration and coordination was repeated several times. This time accountable was attached to this. I think that is a very powerful message. We need to be accountable for what we're doing in the cyber ecosystem. For me, this also confirms that cybersecurity is our only responsibility and collectively. With this being a busy space in the Region. Is it highlighting that cybersecurity is an important component of the digital engagement that cuts across all Sectors and across all of the dimensions of cyber activities. We have seen that in the CMM review that was done and for us in the Cook Islands. I'm encouraged that at the highest level of the Region, our leaders recognize and place emphasis on the importance of cybersecurity and references in the Region high‑level plans. The Declaration for 2050 Blue Pacific strategy and the endorsed Langatoi Declaration.
Next month the Pacific Island Forum leaders will meet in the Cook Islands in November. And in their Programme I was so happy to see that they have a session for strengthening cybersecurity arrangements. Again, it demonstrates the commitment of the Pacific leaders and leading up to the upcoming GC3B in Ghana, it sets a clear path for the Region and also the fact that we're looking at high‑level participation from our Region. Thank you so much.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Pua thank you very much. Good remarks there. And you know, I am happy that you also kind of called for a bit more action for things to be moving. And that is what we are hoping. That the GC3B will help with. Not only to make some concrete progress on bringing the two rather siloed communities of development and cyber together. But also to bring more political attention to the very urgent issue of cyber capacity building as Liesyl stressed and have a tangible document as an outcome that hopefully can contribute to more concrete actions in the future. Chris, if I can turn to you. The document's working title is the Accra Call. Would you be able to tell us more about the document and the shaping that will be the basis for the discussions and inputs that we will hopefully hear from all of you hear?
>> CHRIS PAINTER: Certainly, Tereza. To build off the prior comments, we launched the Pacific hub. What it does is tries to do the exact coordination. As Pua said, I saw it in Melbourne at the conference we helped have a session just before the pandemic. Many island concerns said we get lots of offers for help, sometimes they're the same offers for help and sometimes we can't actually deal with them. One of the reasons for being with the GFCE is to take donors, implementers and recipients and make more sense given that we don't have a lot of resources.
That builds on another thing mentioned, the overall purpose of the conference is as Tereza said, to highlight and promote the idea of cyber capacity building that is often lost, as important as it is. But also to bring the oven disparate communities that don't talk to each other very well. The cybersecurity capacity building community, which we know very well, but the traditional development community. And the traditional development community, not just as digital development, but development pictures around the world. Think about the SDGs or think about those, almost all of them are undergirded by digital and having strong cybersecurity. If you think about the development projects like water, power, we saw this in the video. They're often controlled by cyber means. Therefore cybersecurity is a foundational thing. The communities don't interact that much.
One of the big outcomes from this is to really promote that integration between the two communities and dialogue and actually leveraging each other's efforts. If we can move to slide five.
Yeah. Okay. So, you know, obviously bringing people together, having the conversations and Programme is important. More important is this is meant to be a process. And a call for future action. It is great as Pua said to do this. But not great if you don't have actions to follow it. The Accra Call, which is the working title right now, instead of Declaration. Declarations are like we declare this it. A call is a call for action. Like the Christ Church Call or Paris Call some of the others out there, meant to be a living document. The idea is really to elevate a mainstream cyber resilience in the development Agenda and vice versa with actionable items. Going to the next slide.
Okay. It is meant to be an action framework drawing from existing commitments but also some new commitments in a few different areas. It is a blueprint for motivation to work in the area for the development and cyber community. To be clear, it is not that, you know ‑‑ we're not saying the development community has to understand cyber and cyber community doesn't have to understand development. We have to understand and work with each other. Both communities have been a little with blinders on. There are exceptions. World Bank, USA ID, a number of them are doing this, that is good. This is a blueprint and call to action with an aim to elevate cyber resilience. You may wonder why we used that. When you say cybersecurity, you are dealing with a military there. Cyber resilience resonates with the cyber community and the development community. I think it is really what the overall goal is, resilience. It is to elevate that, promote capacity building that supports larger development goals. Next slide.
So I should say that this document is still in development. We hope to circulate somewhat mature draft at the end of October for community comment. And welcome your comments then. Today, we want the consensual framework and get thoughts from you. We think it matters now as Tereza said because we're at a point where the development projects are getting more dependent and we need ‑‑ we can't afford any longer to be in separate communities and can't afford in terms of resources to do that. There are resources and development, not that much in capacity building. We make each other stronger working together. The call is directed to countries including recipient countries, donor countries, regional organizations, Private Sector technical community, really the entire multistakeholder framework we know and love so well here at IGF. Next slide.
I basically covered this, the framework is meant to be more of a call to action. With specific items listed under four major categories. It is voluntary like most calls you can't reach a binding agreement like any of you know in a short period of time. A voluntary call where people sign on or endorse, it is very helpful. Not formal signatories but people who endorse it. There are action items. And the four areas are one, actions to strengthen the role of cyber resilience it is drawing this connection in clear terms and making recommendations within that bucket in terms of how the development and cyber community can work and leverage each other. The second major bucket is actions to advance demand driven effective sustainable cyber capacity building. This is to have the political will and not just do one‑off trainings, you want this and have more sustained capacity building. You heard Pua talk about this as well. We listen and talk to people in Regions and countries about what they want and need matching that. It leads to sustainability and traction and our scarce resources are affected by. The third bucket is to foster stronger partnerships and better coordination. The coordination is one ever the major elements and I mentioned it before. The whole reason we were set up is to promote coordination. There is much more than seven years ago. Still not perfect. Won't be surprised. Countries are talking, the platform we create has allowed this to happen and happening organically in other venues, too. That is great. We need to amp up the coordination. Because if we don't do that, we are wasting resources not actually meeting the needs of the countries and others that need this help.
And finally the last bucket is, you know, one that everyone understands, which is resources. You know, how can we significantly up the game in terms of resource commitments to this area? You know, much like, you know ‑‑ no one has enough money. We all understand that. No one has enough people to do the issues.
The SDGs are successful in focusing attention and getting some resources. A lot of resources for those. Not trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. Trying to leverage each other's resources. It is not like give it to us not them. It is to achieve the things the SDGs and development community is trying to do we see with the same vision of how it is done. And allows us to learn from each other in terms of implementation modules. Those are the four major buckets. We would love input from you on those. It is going to be based on the conference in terms of those four buckets kind of reflected in the Agenda for the conference. But the content of the Declaration or the call is meant to actually be actions after the conference. The conference is the set piece, but it is the process I talked about.
I mentioned the consultation. We started with a small group of co‑organizers, us, the GFC, World Bank, Cyber Peace Institute, and World Economic Forum and others on the Steering Committee that helped fund the conference. Larger Group of Friends, the community, we're in the process now and that is why we're here today. I don't need to go through these. Public consultations, doing this now, in Singapore, Summit for the future. Any possibly or chance to engage the community we will take. We will circulate a mature draft but willing to take input. The question we have for all of you is really those four buckets that I talked about. Does that cover everything? We think it does. That doesn't ‑‑ we don't know everything. The people who we're working with don't know everything. We want input from you. Those four broad buckets cover the major concerns we're talking about? Are there particular barriers that we need to overcome and better connecting cyber capacity building with development goals? And elevating the role of cyber resilience in development and vice versa. That would lend themselves to particular action items you would like to talk about today? And also this is an ongoing thing. If you leave this room and say I should have mentioned this, let us know. We want to hear about it. That is the set up for today. We want to hear from you about where you think there could be progress made on this. About the overall idea and about this structure, if this makes sense.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Thank you, Chris. That was quite clear. Now is the time we want to hear from you. You come from different backgrounds, different perspectives. You might have maybe come across complications stemming from the fact that cyber and development communities don't interact with each other. You might have been involved in various cyber capacity building projects. I would suggest Allan, did we keep the slide with the four years up? And at this point, really I would like to encourage you to share your views with us. Either online or here in the room.
>> CHRIS PAINTER: Don't be shy.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: And I know there are a few people in the room who are not shy. No. Michael, you will disappoint us if you don't. Maybe ask ‑‑ you need to get on the microphone. Otherwise the people online won't hear you. This one or over there.
>> ATTENDEE: Mike Nelson Carnegie Endowment international peace. Worked with these people. Simple question, why Ghana? What were the other things considered? And how much will be virtual. You don't have to be there to be part of it?
>> CHRIS PAINTER: Trying to work on connection details for good virtual ability. Long storied history. We wanted to have it at World Bank in Washington, which would pose challenges, Visas, because of COVID restrictions, that won't work. We thought about a number of places frankly.
As Tereza said, every Region has unique needs, we partner with OAS, in America's Region. Pacific hub we just launched. We have an ASEAN liaison. Doing work in Africa. And the Government of Ghana wanted to do this.
Given all the work we have been doing in Africa, setting up the expert's group, et cetera. It is important. It is important to have the first one in the Global South. That was important. Rather than have it ‑‑ there are lots of nice places in the north to have it. Doesn't send the right message. It is a conference of the Global North talking about what they will do. This needs to be a conversation. That is the rationale. We're quite happy about that too.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Yes, we are and very grateful.
>> CHRIS PAINTER: We want this one under our belt. In the future we will see how these things work. We want them to be representative. We want to get people from all over the world. This is in Africa, it is not just an African conference.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Thank you, Chris. And for the question. And hopefully even on the substance of the document in the making. Any takers? Please, go ahead. Yes? If you can also introduce yourself and your internationally affiliation.
>> ATTENDEE: Sparky from GPC. My question is obviously, what are written on Accra Call, can be achieved in six months or two years. It should have or may take more than few years to reach the level you like to achieve. My question is other than your short‑term goal launching the call maybe after a few months, is the plan for year after. What is your goal in the next three years?
>> CHRIS PAINTER: For each category the idea is several more specific goals. Although they will not have ‑‑ I don't envision them with strict time frames saying this is done in 90 days or something like that. We are going to monitor them, look at them after six months, after a year, see what progress is being made. When there is a second one of the conferences, this is the inaugural one. That is stock taking. There is lots of opportunities for stock taking.
A call, unlike a Declaration, it is to make sure there is progress in the call. We don't want it to become shelf wear as many things become, and you don't look at it again. That is the thought process. People will make progress at different rates in different parts of the community, implement them in different ways. That is why it is voluntary. We want to track and go back to parties that support the efforts and say okay, what have you done? Not in an accusatory way, but a way to say are we making progress?
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Thank you, sparky. Thank you, Chris. Others? Liesyl?
>> LIESYL FRANZ: Stereo! I think ‑‑ well, first of all, I would say that I think the U.S. Government has had some input into as part of the concentric circles that Chris was talking about as far as consultation about the conference and substance of the call. So I'll say this in my capacity and not necessarily prejudge or discuss any of the undermine anything we have said into the process so far. What comes under item B, the effective capacity building. Looking at the ability for any particular country to absorb a certain amount of capacity building at any given time. Do they have the institution before you, you know, before they get a deluge of funding for something that is sort of amorphous or don't fit the need? Demand driven, but also tailored enough to the recipient so that it can be effective and I think also sustainable. The other thing that we have been grappling with is that to sparky's point, I think about the fact that foreign assistance and capacity building is often a long‑term investment over time and takes time to ‑‑ for the knowledge, skills and institutions to develop before they can have the full impact that you want. But we have been grappling with more emergent or urgent response in some of the crises, I suppose for lack of a better word that we have seen in Ukraine, Albania, Costa Rica. That might be an element of effective as well in the second bucket, although I would also think it could be captured in the third bucket as far as partnerships and coordination. Of course, I think everything relies on D, which is the financial resources. But even if those aren't in text in the Accra Call, I think those are two things that we in the us are looking at when we are looking at these days as far as our strategic approach, our strategic outlook for some of the capacity building that we're trying to do now.
>> CHRIS PAINTER: Thanks, Liesyl. I'm all choked up.
(Overlapping conversations)
Others, please. Online, too if you have comments.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Go ahead.
>> ATTENDEE: I'm Casey Rouse. She says my boss so I pose this to Chris so we don't put her on the hot spot. We had a conversation yesterday. I have been think about this more. It is the sustainable sign capacity building cyber capacity building. So after the donors and trainers leave, you know, the countries need budgetary resources to continue, you know, the hardware, the software, the knowledge, the training. So how do we ‑‑ what is your view on involving legislators an training them? Having them understand the value of this so that they create the budgetary resources we need to really have sustainable capacity with cybersecurity in Governments. How do we better integrate them whether it is through GC3B or other ways?
>> CHRIS PAINTER: I think that is a big issue. It goes to the political will, the sustainability point. You know, two aspects of that. One is getting the country buy in at a legislative and leadership level. I agree those are maybe something we can work into this. The other is under the last bucket, with the financial resources, there are a lot of financial streams that are available and used in the development community and models of the development community uses to measure sustainability, to make sure their dollars, pounds, pesos, other things are ‑‑ yen, are actually well spent. And it is not just one‑off. I think there is a lot to learn from the development community in terms of tools they use. For example, one of the things we're thinking of having is one of the action items is to identify and employ the full range of sign resilience financing, domestic resource mobilization which goes to your point. Private Sector, incorporation of sign resilience and integrated financing frameworks. It is not an add on. It is a part of the larger plan. That is the wording we're thinking about, but that puts it in relief. Thanks for that.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: I'm glad we're talking about the practicalities of budgets and money. As Chris pointed out, no one has enough money.
>> CHRIS PAINTER: Leave a check on the way out. You just leave your credit card and your pin, we will be fine.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: That is why it is a little bit also, you know, makes the situation inefficient. We should make sure that the resources are used efficiently, which would not be happening if we don't connect the communities and don't connect more on according sign capacity building. Which is the main of the GFCE. Because we do have a speaker online. Because she's online I don't want to put her in the shadow. Pua give us a sign if you want to chip in. Otherwise, we will continue the discussion in the room.
I also know we have ‑‑ okay. Yes? No? Sorry. I know we had one comment online from Allan. On Southeast Asia, go ahead now. We cannot hear you. Maybe let's remove the slide so we can see you properly Allan. Thank you.
>> Allan: Good morning, everyone. The GC3B Conference on Capacity building, this will inspire other Regions and leave with a renewed commitment for Global cybersecurity cooperation. It is very important for Southeast Asia not just the South, but the Pacific as well, other Regions, so they will be inspired to globally engage with other Regions as to capacity building efforts and share insights and ideas and good practices in that they can learn in the GC3B. I would take this opportunity to invite everyone next week in the GFCE regional meeting in Singapore, during the Singapore internal cyber week. This will be discussed there. Next week. Thank you so much.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: If any of you are traveling to Singapore, let us know so you are also part of the conversation. Any other reflections, either online or here in the room? Go ahead.
>> ATTENDEE: Hello, everyone. Sorry. My name is (?) we're with the Dutch Government. We're proud of the GFCE run by our colleagues on the same team. As Netherlands we published the cyber strategy where we lay a layer of cyber capacity building and we tie it into supporting countries that are receiving the cyber support to also adapt their regulatory frameworks in order to make sure that these cyber capacities are being run in a framework that is with respect for all, intra‑human rights standards. I wonder what your perspective is, if that is part of the GC3B conference? Thank you very much.
>> CHRIS PAINTER: Parts of any Declaration or call and one of them is the preamble that sets it out. Respects for human rights. We don't get into the regulatory framework, as much. Rule of law, yes. Action items are more tailors to other things. Some is mentioned there. That is the goal. We want to integrate better Governance and respect for human rights. This is like foundational to the GFC certainly, too. Going forward. That is what the development community does. That is another place where there is a good nexus, I think. Tereza or Pua.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Pua has thoughts. So second attempt to connect you Pua, please.
>> Pua Hunter: Thank you, Tereza. Ahem. Sorry. I wanted to as I recall back to the comment earlier on from one of our participants here about the sustainability. So right, you know, sometimes our donors assist us with something and leave. We need to have sustainability attached to it. Last week, they were talking about trainers coming into the country so more of us to be trained at a given time. Rather than one person going to a region or somewhere where the trainer can train many countries, but one or two from each country. The idea is to bring the expertise and train more on the ground, rather than one or two going out to be trained. The other issue is the knowledge learned from the trainings oversees may not be trans‑‑ overseas may not be transferred back. Or appropriately transferred back in country. Again, those need to be looked at appropriately. Thank you so much.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Thank you Pua that is a concrete suggestion there. Any other reflections or comments?
>> CHRIS PAINTER: I totally agree with that. If it is under several buckets. One place to reflect that now is in the third bucket with fostering partnerships and better coordination. One thing we think of it is a bullet that says fostering leadership of developing countries in coordinated efforts in close cooperation with donors and others. It is more locally owned.
I agree having a bunch of people descend on the country and leave again doesn't help in the long‑term. You want to have ‑‑ the last bucket we talk about systemizing South‑South and triangular cooperation. Not a bunch of people landing on the shores and leaving again. Building this more permanently.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: The train the trainer logic in that. Chris, any other reflections? Go ahead.
>> ATTENDEE: Linda from the State Department. I'm interested in deconflicting between donor countries and how we use the GC3B and GFCE as a mechanism for doing that, also involve not reinventing the wheel. If tools exist there is no reason to do them again. How do we find them or use a tool to make sure we are not doing the same work over and over. How do we get donor countries to speak to each other? Thank you.
>> CHRIS PAINTER: We were created for that purpose. In the Pacific or launching the Pacific hub. We had a side meeting, which we do for every core group of donor countries inspect is at their request so they can share information with each other. It will never be perfect. Countries have their own priorities. That is the way the world works. That is fine.
I think they welcomed that ability to share the information to find out what somebody else is doing. We don't need to do that or we'll just join your efforts. We don't want the Accra Call to create new giant new structures. That is not helpful. We leverage the structures we have. Many of you know following some of the debates in the OEWG. One is should we create a new ecosystem? Why would you do that when the scarce resources you have that you need to leverage. Under the coordination, third bucket, one thing we specifically say is utilize existing coordination platforms, like ours, for instance, to better coordinate and have the donor dialogue you are talking about. And strengthen. Make them more participatory and get more people involved. We are trying to do that, take what we have, make it stronger, be more effective with the resources we have.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: To add because the civil portal was mentioned. It is available on civil portal.org. It is a resource where we try to map various cyber capacity building globally. It is possible to filter specific Regions and currents and get the information that is oriented and projects. Why is that important? To be able to plan say a new activity in a specific country, it is kind of a good idea to build on what others have done. So that there is to the extent possible little bit less dupe cage of efforts ultimately again, more efficient use of the limited resources available for the activities. Any other comments or inputs? Susan, please. From our Pacific hub, please go ahead.
>> ATTENDEE: Thank you so much. I would like to just say on what Linda said when it comes to deconflicting when it comes to donors. What we notice is we're living in an era where collaboration and cooperation is a strength going forward. Going solo and individual is not effective anymore. There are many reasons. And in the Pacific, one of the things that I noted is we're on different parts when it comes to cybersecurity. Some are more advanced, some of us are just taking baby steps. With the well coordinated effort, and we make use of all the resources that we have. So that is a plus on this types of platform. Thank you.
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: Thank you, Susan. Definitely a good comment there.
If there are no other comments, so ‑‑ Liesyl and Chris?
>> LIESYL FRANZ: This conversation has spurred a couple of things for me to add to the thought process going forward. One is that in the video and a lot of the conversations here have been about cybersecurity efforts to address the risks and that there is a cost to doing so. But there is also I think many benefits to providing cybersecurity efforts in the processes and digitization and Digital Transformation efforts that countries are going through right now. I think finding a way to emphasize the positive. Because you know, when we talk about funding or talk about political will or talk about ‑‑ okay, funding or political will. Those are pretty important. Sometimes it is hard to say, well, we have got, you know, we have to make this huge investment, cybersecurity for something that may never happen. I think perhaps changing some of the rhetoric to providing cybersecurity for the betterment of the economies and digitization. You know, investment and economy. It might be something to, you know, if Development Bank build it is ‑‑ builds a bridge, it is a positive. Maybe the analogy for cyber.
I appreciated Pua's comment about wanting to have the ability for a training on in‑country and on‑site so that it is well integrated into the whatever phase of development that that institution or country or agency is in. But I think perhaps we can also talk about the various types of training or capacity building that can happen. Maybe thinking about it stealing a page from the legal community, continuing learning or continuing education so there is sort of fundamentals and things that will help individuals, even if they have to go somewhere else to get it. We know that not every, you know, CERT can send their people to a training outside of the country any given time. Perhaps there are ways that individuals who have been trained in country can take advantage of continuous learning opportunities going forward. That is a reaction to a couple of things that people have said here. If it is able to be captured, and there is interest by others, then perhaps something to think about.
>> CHRIS PAINTER: Thanks for that. There are a couple of things as I heard the comments ‑‑ we welcome your continued feedback. Does the structure make sense? I don't think we are, but are we missing a whole group of things we need to address. The comments I heard would fit in the four buckets to some level. The question asked by the Dutch colleague earlier. One of the proposed things we're thinking of putting under the second bucket, professionalizing cyber capacity building community of practice with tools guides to help stakeholders put in practice established principles including human rights based and gender sensitive approaches to CCB.
That is built in ‑‑ our thinking right now, it has to be put on paper and wordsmith negotiated among folks. That is certainly there. Also this idea of doing a better job of creating tools where we can measure the results. That is where the development community is pretty good, they think to think they are. They have the tools to measure the result of the project and helps them decide where to invest. The other thing they do well is to prioritize. One way is to link it to critical national resources. Big projects make a big difference. Cyber is critically important. Figuring out how to prioritize too, will help, too. Learning from each other on that. Those are the areas. I say again, we have a couple more minutes left, anything you think should be in there or thoughts. Also welcome input afterwards. You have four minutes, right? Four minutes. Take advantage of it. Structure, any one of these? Any comment, suggestion you would like to see?
>> TEREZA HOREJSOVA: It is before lunch. We respect that. It is time to wrap. But thank you very much. Pua, Allan, online for your support. Liesyl and Chris in the room and in particular to all of you online and on‑site. To those of you here in the room. On the way out we prepared more resources on GC3B and goodies as well. You might take it home with you. And as this is the last day of the IGF let me wish you safe travels back home. See you around thank you so much.
>> CHRIS PAINTER: Thank you for being here. A shout out to Tereza for organizing this. Tereza has been on the multistakeholder advisory group, thank you for all your efforts there, too.
(Applause)