IGF 2021 – Day 4 – WS #119 The Next Chapter of UN Cyber Dialogues

The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual 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.



>> KAJA CIGLIC:  So I think that was the sign that we are live.  This is the second time this week that video has given me a heart attack.  Welcome, everybody.  I know we are exactly on time and I think people are still trying to find their links and get signed into the Zooms and I also see there are people slowly entering the room as well on the ground.  So we'll probably start properly in like a minute or so.  Already welcome and looking forward to this discussion.  I feel we can begin.

So, thank you, everybody, for this very timely discussion on the past, present and future of the UN cyber dialogues.  I'm very delighted to have distinguished panel from across the world joining us earlier ‑‑ today rather and what we're going to try and do is to have sort of level setting to begin with in terms of where we are in the discussions on cybersecurity at the UN.  There are several initiatives going on.  Figuring ‑‑ talking and figuring out a little bit about how far we have come particularly over the past couple years because there's been some significant progress.  And then also look to the future in terms of the new open ended working group starting up next week.  But also potential other avenues and dialogues that are touching on cybersecurity and are taking place in the different international forums and arenas, not just the UN.

We'll also talk a little bit ‑‑ as this is largely a state discussion, how the multi‑stakeholder community so the community of industry, Civil Society, academia and others can most effectively engage in this process with the governments themselves.  Throughout this, we'll try to answer as many questions as you might have.  So please ‑‑ I have a very long list of questions, but also if you have a question to pose to any of our panelists, but also comment or suggestion, please either raise your hand and we'll call on you or put it in the chat and I can read it out and direct it.  As you do that, do introduce yourself so we know where the question is coming from whether your individual capacity or representing a particular group.  And with that, I will start with actually properly introducing the panel we have today.  I will do it very quickly and hope that each of the panelists as they start with their opening remarks can say a little bit more about themselves as sort of the path that has gotten them to the cybersecurity and diplomacy arena.  We all have very different ways of getting there.  So I think it's interesting to consider the perspectives as well.  We have Mr. Issac Morales, coordinator for multi‑national security affairs.  We have the tech Ambassador.  We have Pablo Castro, coordinator of foreign affairs, Chile.  And Natalie, Jaarsma, which I hope I'm pronouncing it correctly from the Netherlands.  As I mentioned, this group will touch upon first some of the things that have gone before.  So with that, I want to give the floor to the first panelist I introduced, Issac, do you want to talk a little bit about the priorities of Mexico into space as well as like I said, a little bit about you in your quick opening statement.

>> GERARDO ISAAC MORALES TENORIO:  Thank you very much, Kaja.  First of August, just let me thank all of you, all my dear colleagues to join this conversation, which is by the way, a very timely conversation as we will face next week the session, the first ostensive session of the open ended working group.  And also in a plural setting this scene having with us you from different governments, regions and stakeholders, which is by the way, one of the core values that we all together need to preserve in the future discussions of the UN.  Just let me share in general from our point of view, from the point of view of the government of Mexico that the first element we do need to emphasize is the importance of having this kind of conversations and dialogues on cyber and the different elements regarding cybersecurity, cyber governance, applicability of international law, et cetera in multi‑lateral settings.  This is perhaps the very first message to keep very clear that the mute lateral settings, the UN role, of course, but not only within the UN, but at a (?) level, but the multi‑scenario is the best way to address these very core elements and challenges regarding cyber in general.

The second element I will say also that it's perhaps the idea of peaceful uses, and the balance between the development conditions, all that you can do with this technologies and platforms and cyberspace to advance development.  They need to protect the rights in that spacing, in that platforms in cyberspace in general.  And, of worse, the concerns on security will be in general the way to advance better and the way to advance in a more comprehensive way all these kind of efforts.  And I do believe that after following and participating in both, the GGE receipt process and the last open ended working group that we now have a framework, a general framework that could take into account as BASIS for next steps at the mute lateral discussions and to all multi‑lateral settings.

In this regard, my very first patient to all of us when thinking of next steps at the UN level and multi‑lateral level discussions on cyber will be implementation, the cut implementation.  Now we do have very, very important framework, which includes some norms for responsible estate behavior which includes CBMs, confidence building methods, which includes also some approximation to trends and challenges and, of course, taking us to the breaking point their affirmation of applicability of international law to cyberspace.  All of this links to capacity building and the better ways to address the needs and obstacles to advance cybersecurity in cyberspace governance because of lack of capacity or because of the current and existing digital gaps.  So when you take into account all these elements and coming very close detail from the GG reports,s group of governmental experts, the UN and the receipt open ended working group also having both consensus reports, by the way, you will see these very whole picture that we ‑‑ where we are approaching at the multi‑lateral level and concretely at the UN level to all these discussions.  I will, of course, I'll let my colleagues to go further in more detail on some of these elements that we are advancing at uni lateral setting, but also to reaffirm that for the coming days, but for the coming negotiations and discussions, we do need from my point of view to preserve this comprehensiveness, the idea of implement or to advance on what we already have and, of course, keeping the core value of the stakeholder view.  Most of these processes have been states processes.  But with the substantive contributions, participations and inputs coming from the multi‑stakeholder community we do need to preserve these core values to the future discussions.  At the UN level, of course, but also at the regional level where we were in the Americans are having more advancements on perhaps CBMs through the OAS and our working group on CBMs concretely at this stage.  I would (?) and to come back and go into details in some element.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  For sure.  I feel I have a bunch of questions listening to your remark.  The next person I introduced was Henri.  So perhaps, Henri, if you can talk about yourself, your background and France has been particularly active in this space over the past few years not just at the UN, but there as well with the program of action proposals and then also, of course, for the Paris call.  I would love for you to talk a little bit as well about why the ‑‑ why France considered this an area of such importance.

>> HENRI VERDIER:  Thank you very much.  My background I am more tech guy.  I started my first company in 1995 and in between, I was state (?) in data policy and came up with a platform approach with friends like UK and now I'm in charge of digital affairs and GMFA.  And maybe yes.  I am mostly achieved by the infrastructure itself.  I consider if we want to build trust and safety yes and I'm very clear here.  We need good behavior and engagement and why not consequence and position that don't respect the engagement, but we need also a safe IT, a culture of secretary by design, the companies.  A culture of responsible engagement of responsible disclosure of failure from the research.  We need to build knowledge and data.  That's why we try to promote a lot, realistical approach of issues.  First we welcomed, of course, the fact that the UN processes tried to (inaudible) for good reasons and for an office, that's not enough.  So that's a good first step, but that's not enough.

So three years ago, they did (?) safety cyberspace, which is now a great majoristical platform.  We supported the U.S. and the EU.  So that was great news.  Now we are ‑‑ with the U.S., 18 states, but also more than 700 companies from offer continent and more than 350 organizations and we work together.  And we work together very important issues.  So we had six working groups.  For example, how to best help to better help country, how to build a cyberspace disability index because we needed to know and to understand the level of security of the level of threat in the cyberspace.

And one of the groups was about how to better engage with strong approach in the UN negotiations.  So I am very happy to share with you the link of this document because that is a very interesting report.  And I suggest to read it.

So now we have this platform to walk together.  But take into account the conclusion of the scope.  We are proposing because now we're on 54 countries.  We're proposing to the united nation to establish a permanent educated organization, a program of action walking on these issues.  So capacity building for states that say they need this.  Publishing this kind of index, organizing and sharing of data and, of course, how to implement the norms, importance norms that we did agree past GEEs and actual best on next (?).  With this format, the program of action, we could build a better bridge with check civilization.  We couldn't imagine a working group and balanced working group and very important issues.  We could accept within the POAs suggestion coming from the service IT.  We'll take one year to build this together within states and with IT and we propose something to the next few NGA next year.  We consider that a good pass it was to try to build this new (?).

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  That's super helpful and a good overview.  All the efforts France and partners have been driving to make multi‑stakeholders a real thing in cyberspace as in particular.  I've been reminded.  I didn't introduce myself.  So I'm Kaja.  Hi.  I am a senior director with Microsoft leading our digital diplomacy theme.  So the theme working on this type of issues.  But also I want to turn to our next guest which is Giacomo.  He's representing a ‑‑ it takes a really broad view of sort of UN and cyber dialogues looking at both of what is going on in cyber crime and laws and potentially what is going to be going to in space and cyber.  So it would be great to hear a little bit about you, Geocomo as well as the role your organization plays in this area.

>> GIACOMO PERSI PAOLI:  Thank you, Kaja.  It is an honor and a pleasure and very humbling experience to be sharing the panel with such excellent speakers.

So about me, I'm Geocomo.  Indeed, our portfolio is quite broad and covers a wide range of new and emerging technologies for international security.  Cyber is one of the main pillar of our work.  I think in the specific content of the UN processees and sort of role that we play in that context, I think it is important to clarify what unity is.  So despite having UN and being in the name and being part of the broader UN family and UN support is an independent research think taking.  It is a very broad mandate to conduct studies, forecasting and foresight to basically contribute to the achievement of a more peaceful world.  Within this mandate, we do set our own research agenda and we are basically in a very privileged position of having one foot in the UN, but all the one foot out.  And this allows us to play the first important role that I wanted to highlight today, which is the role of the bridge builders.  So bring in together communities, putting together states with industry, with Civil Society.  We had annex investment a year ago.  I think I remember it because it was the last even before the pandemic changed completely our ways of working and it was responsible vulnerability disclosure and we brought hackers in the room as well.  It's really a privileged position to have to be able to convene under the UN flag, such a diverse range of stakeholders in the spirit of our academic role and academic freedom.  This, of course, plays and feeds into the second role that I wanted to highlight which is the role of knowledge providers, knowledge builders.  Of course, we exist to support the informed participation of all member states to the various security and disarmament processes.  We tried to channel not only the knowledge we acquire with the own research, but also the wealth of knowledge that exists outside of the institute through our work, through our power.  And building knowledge has always been important in the cyber domain, but it is becoming particularly more important in the context of the UN processes the moment the processes with the first open handed working group became open to all member states.  That's where you saw really knowledge and symmetry playing an important role in the way and the extent to which different countries were able to engage.  So we see ourselves as trying to level the playing field when it comes to the knowledge base.  And last but not least, an important role that UNADER has been playing over the last 10 to 15 years within the various group of experts that took place since 2004.  We always had a role within the team that was supporting the chair person of each of those processees to really help make sure the process would run smoothly.  So three very different, but I think very important roles that we play were also very excited about what the future would bring.  Of course, a new open ended working group with a 5‑year mandate is a team with such a long time rising.  So we're really excited to see how we can support that.  We mentioned already the program of action.  There is a lot that is brewing in the cyber diplomacy field that we're really looking forward how we can support.  Of course, we're very proud in addition to kind of the knowledge that we're providing.  We've also developing over the years a set of tools that member states or Civil Society or whoever is interested in cyber policy and allow me to shout out and shame the privacy support tool that's being recognized as a confidence building tool within the tool supports that we would agree earlier this year.  Lots of things to talk about, but I will pause for now and wait for the questions.  Thank you.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  Thank you.  I think the confidence building link is actually really helpful link as I turn to Pablo to talk a little bit about what Chile has been doing and, um, and both of the UN on confidence building measures and more broadly.  And, of course, tell us a little about yourself.

>> PABLO CASTRO:  Thank you very much, Kaja and everyone.  I am cybersecurity coordinator.  I used to be in charge of military affairs, lambs control here in the ministry, but maybe I have to say that high connection with cybersecurity or cyberspace has nothing to do with the ministry.  I am a big fan of science fiction.  When I was a teen, I was (?) cyber planned writers.  That was my first connection of culture of things.  But, um, what I used to be in charge of military affairs, so, um, we started in our ministry to work this issue.  It was a very big (?) because at that moment, the government decided to work on the first national security policy.  And with other agencies, they understood very well about the importance of the international engagement and the role it needs to go with this.  It was a feed bark.  We learn a lot from them and then also understood very well about what we were going to do.  The multi‑national level.  We worked with the ministry of defense in 2017.  As you know in our regions, it is very important.  It's a long time and, um, I'm not spooking about cyber, but in general.  CBM is very important in our regions.  We took as the example what was done in Europe since the beginning of the '90s.  So I would say that it was a natural step started to work on CBM sign are space.  In 2019, we started a working group until today.  And so far, we have six CBMs done by the working group.  And four of them are ‑‑ I can relate it with cyber.  The reason for that is because we realized that in our ‑‑ it was very important to work in the engagement ministry of foreign affairs in the cybersecurity and cyberspace issues.  And, um, and in some way, it was a need.  In my case every time, it was to talk with someone else in Argentina, Peru and Colombia.  I am very glad right now after several years, right now it is quite easy to find a counter part in countries and our region and also I will say that our ‑‑ the discussion and conversation at the end level was good reason that specialized people and experts with someone in charge.  So in some ways in itself.  Now, of course, this is something that is measured very well.  The main challenge in the region is implementation.  Very good for the side, for new things.  But the implementation, you know, is the thing that we lack in our regions.  That is connected with capacity building.  I like to say that maybe capacity building is the most strategic subject when it comes to discussion at the multilevel.  It allows to start other processes.  Our mentions and our 3‑hour session on the BOA panel on Tuesday, for example, when you ‑‑ if you want to move on the national conversation about the application of national law, which is something that we can do in Latin America in the Caribbean, you need to have experts for this.  The only way to have this expert thanks to training capacity building so far has been done by OS and done in the cybersecurity program.  Five years ago, it was not possible to find a lawyer that was connected or engaged with cyberspace or cybersecurity.  So right now I have a possibility to work with a lawyer.  I think it would be about time that the state can move on this particular issue.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  You know, also from a capacity building perspective and I think this is an area ‑‑ because I think we all need to learn whether it's government, irrespective which ones, whether it's the Private Sector, whether it's the broader multi‑stakeholder community, I think it's definitely an area that is evolving quickly and I think there is a lot of white spaces that still need to be filled.  With that, I want to turn to Natalie as well both in terms that Netherlands has been a lead capacity building effort, of course.  But also we've had the pleasure of working together not just on the UN processees, but also on the secretary generals it know up on the corporation, the trust builder and just one of the questions about global compact there.  Also wanted to see maybe later on a little bit more detail as part of the introduction, you know other whether you wanted to touch upon some of those areas that go beyond just the open ended working group.

>> Nathalie Jaarsma:  Thank you.  I want to see you all.  And my name is NATHALIE Jaarsma.  I am Ambassador for security affairs in the Netherlands.  I started this position last year in September.  And I previously before I joined the foreign service in 2001 worked in the ICT industry.

Just to look back and highlight a little bit the Netherlands has done, perhaps it was a real important year because our scientific government published a report with advise about the relevance of the public core and how our government should play a bigger role in protecting the public core through multi‑stakeholder.  In the same year, we hosted the Global Conference on cybersecurity, the global form on cyber expertise.  So on capacity building was established.  The Global Commission on cyber stability we were one of the initiators of that and the Global Commission, of course, has done great work on norms development and they're still doing great work, I think.  And indeed, we have been very active in both the GG and the open ended working group, but also on the high level panel process which later on was changed into the ‑‑ with another name and now we're in a transition again I think with what we're trying to drive here is the ‑‑ is a declaration on security and trust.  I'm happy to talk about that later.

Perhaps on what we have seen in the discussions within the open ended working group, I agree completely with what Issac said on that the inclusiveness of the dialogue and multi‑lateral character that all states are included is very, very important and we appreciate that.  In addition to that, it is very important to listen to the expertise of other stakeholder groups.  We really regret the opposition to the greater participation of other stakeholders to had discussion and we hope that we will find consensus on this issue early next week.  And regarding the substance like Issac said, the starting point is the current framework and the open ended working group and, um, the priorities that we see for our stops is that in addition to the norms that we have been advocating for in the previous open ended working group and we're happy to take that forward.  For example, the public core norm.  We also would like to see the open ended working group to share their views on all states on how they see the application of international law in cyberspace because this would create a better understanding among all and this could hopefully also include further discussion on international human rights law and international humanitarian law.  And this is really ‑‑ these two are very much a priority for us.  We also hope that the open ended working group will develop a better understanding of the norms and there is room to dive deeper into a common understanding.  Indeed, we started addressing some issues such as coordinated disability disclosure in the previous round, but we lack time to discuss it even more.  So those are just a few elements that I wanted to share with you already at this stage.  Thank you.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  Thank you.  It's great to hear that there is ‑‑ across the board, there is support for greater multi‑stakeholder involvement in the processes.  I would love to pick you guys' ideas in terms of how that can be potentially done.  But also from the teams listening in as well I think would be very helpful to hear suggestions, I think, for all of our participants.  The one thing I want ‑‑ and I will ask John to maybe post it the chair of the open ended working group has a multi‑stakeholder in a session next week.  And so, you know, please listen in and demonstrate your interest in this area.  It's important that early on from a multi‑stakeholder community we signal that we think this is an important area.  With this sort of set the initial set of discussion, I will also ‑‑ I'm looking at some of the questions in the chat.  I actually want to turn to Geocomo. 

>> We talked about the frameworks.  What is the framework that we talked about and also just because again in the chat, there is a fair amount of things about the ad hoc committee on cyber crime to just also just see what is the difference between the processees and how they separate it.  That would be helpful I think.

>> GIACOMO PERSI PAOLI:  Sure.  I will start relatively quickly a list to do so in a couple minutes to explain the difference through processes.  These are two processes on the international piece and security those are established within the first committee of the general assembly, the deals with international security.  The adult committee is set up by another committee assembling the third one which is normally where issues are related to crime are dealt with.  So they are reporting to different committees of the general assembly.  They received their mandate from different bodies and these bodies in themselves have very different mandates.  So the way I in general see the international cybersecurity and cyber crime is a very elementary school level diagrams where you have two circles and they're both ‑‑ they're clearly very distinctive features.  There are ‑‑ they exist in their own merit, but they share an area of overlap in some aspects.  So maybe perhaps later on we can talk about that.  But that is just to clarify that they are two processees that are set up by different bodies of the UN.  So we're not again in a condition where under the first committee we had two piloted processes with GG and WEOG.  They're very distinct.  Your question was really about of course the 2021 reports are fresh in everybody's memory and the fact that they were both successful and added a lot of substance to previously agreed principles, languages, ideas, I think it's very important.  But I think it's also equally important to the fact that this has been a journey, a journey that's over 20 years old that started with a resolution in 1998 and had the first ‑‑ in the mid‑2000 had the first GGE that met and there were five GGEs before the last one.  So six in total.  In a way, every GGE whether successful or not has contributed to advancing debates, the negotiations.  We can argue that having initially a group before it was to every member state sitting down and talking about these things had the value of its own the ability to engage in the discussions on these issues.  Of course, it has matured significantly over time and the framework you are referring to was not built in a day.  And each group in a way added a foundational stone to what becomes referred to as the framework just to give you a few practical examples.  2010 was a very important year because it was the first time that continuous the recognition of states as a potential actor using ICT for malicious purposes.  So something that today we take for granted.  It wasn't before then.  So it was clearly a very important step because that recognition then triggered the discussion that then led to the development of all the language around, the importance of measures being measured, corporate measures and really the emphasis on confidence building and cooperative measures was triggered by the recognition of the fact that states could indeed, be actors using ICTs for malicious purposes.

Then in 2013 other another important milestone with the recognition that international law applies to cyberspace.  So again, things that since then particularly those that have come to these debates without all the history have taken for granted the result of very long and times complex negotiations among state.  Of course, after 2013, the next one 2015 is probably until the most receipt process is 2015 was considered in a way from an international cyber diplomacy was almost like the golden age.  It really produced the golden ear that produced both a very important report for the GGE with detection of 11 norms with possible state behavior in cyberspace in addition to reaffirming everything that was agreed until then.  But it was also the first time that the General Assembly adopted my consensus a resolution that called for all member states.  Not only those that were part of the GGE, but all member states to be guided in the views of the ICTs by the measures and by the framework presented in that report.  And that was a very significant milestone.  We know that after that, the following g GE did not reach consensus.  So the way the GGE formed, you see the mandate that goes in and if there is consensus, you see the report that comes out.  Otherwise, there isn't visibility of what are the discussions, but we know no consensus was achieved.  It is still an important period of time that member states spent to discuss, articulate and potentially to kind of bring force to things they agreed on and clarify what differences were.  I would like to think the success of the 2019, 2021 processes is rooted in both sections and the failures of the past.  So this is just to give a very short historical account of how we got to where we are.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  That's very helpful.  It would be interesting like that last point to maybe pull a little bit on it.  And I know it's not an easy question to answer because there is lots of geo political and other issues at stake, but it would be great to understand a little bit more about why this past couple years at the UN there has been process and a successful report.  And why in 2015, the GGE was not able to get there.  Are there lessons learned in there from state negotiation perspective that allow us to take them into the open ended working group and move forward.  Maybe it is something you were in the last GGE.  Maybe you can touch on what went really well so we now have a report.

>> Thank you for this question.  And let me briefly introduce myself.  I ‑‑ I realize that in my first intervention, I was very passionate to the topics and very captured by your question and I didn't introduce myself.  I'm Issac Morales.  I am head of multi‑dimensional security within the ministry of forge affairs of Mexico.  And I emphasize this idea of multi‑dimensional security because actually we see not only cyber but all related to technology developments and challenges to security in this regard.  And also those challenges for development link to the new technologies and new threats and challenges.  I have had the opportunity having this more comprehensive view have the opportunity to participating in the different processes which we believe from Mexico has give us a better understanding of what is happening.  Why and how are happening these discussions on cybersecurity on cyberspace, on digital platforms on digital technologies at the same time.  So it is key.  It is very fundamental question why I'm not only from the UN, but why we are able to advance recently at UN level with both the open ended working group and the GGE consensus report in comparison to previous efforts where simply was not possible to reach a consensus report.

I will say, Kaja and colleagues that the more discussions we have the better.  Of course, we face some challenges when trying to accommodate all these discussions to advance priorities, to address concerns, et cetera.  But looking at how the international community not only member states, but the whole international community are engaged more and more in the unilateral discussions on cyber.  It is better for the formal FARAC is things.  I want to say perhaps because we have simultaneous processes and an open ended working group and a GG.  The pressure went to other to reach something to deliver something was more than having only one process because we expected to deal with some of our concerns, with some of our priorities in one track and simultaneously presenting the same attitude and approaches to these other track.  So the continuous pressure went to another.  In the end helped us to reach those consensus because at the same time, we were able to Dale with more detail understandings to the GG channel, for instance, and more broader understandings and perhaps initiatives, for instance, a reporting implementation through (?) et cetera on the open ended working group site.  So this idea of having multiple and simultaneously processes is not the best scenario.  The idea, the great idea will be having one track, one very big discussion on the whole things cyber.  That is impossible.  But we need to understand that each of our mandates, each of our commissions, each of our (?) has concrete added value to put in the general track.  Of course we faced geo political elements, et cetera, to try to understand and to explain why we recently have results and not before it.  But also it is important to emphasize two elements from my point of view of the receipt discussions.  Inclusivity and appropriation of the discussion.  On the inclusivity side, my colleagues have developed further because we have many people, many experts, many more countries that in previous conversations and the appropriation is great result of these inclusivity.  At the very beginning of these processes, there was this idea that we were facing only big players conversation.  Big players is member state or companies, but only big players.  In the end, we now see how it is not related to have all the potential but the interest to discuss and to contribute from different member states no matter what level of development, what level of capacity and also from the multi‑stakeholder community no matter what the main focus, no matter the capacity or the size of the companies or the organizations, et cetera.  So I will leave right here taking into account these two elements.  The possibility to have simultaneously coherence and complimentary for the processes, the value of inclusivity and then the appropriation as some possible way to explain how we faith recent discussions and to reach something to deliver.  I will leave right here, Kaja.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  I want to almost build and turn towards looking in the future.  We heard a little bit from you, Issac, about the priorities for Mexico ‑‑ sorry.  In terms of the ‑‑ in terms of the ‑‑ what you'd like to see in the new open ended working group and particularly in terms of the implementation of the framework both informative and international law, I think, Nathalie underlined very similar optatives and highlighted as well the public core.  I wanted to see whether Pablo or Henri, you have suggestions there in terms of what the priorities should be for the group reflecting also some of the questions in the chat.  I think there was one that talked about ‑‑ a question asked whether potentially important thing would be to declare cyberspace an area of peace, which I think would be lovely, but I think that boat has sailed.  So I wanted to see your comments on that.

>> Who starts?  Pablo?  First I will start with that point.  I totally agree that it's time for each of us to learn to see that we face values and different questions and that we need it dedicated forever each question.  You K. understand that in the first committee, we speak about state behavior and we try to refrain some (?).  It cannot be from the same conversation.  The future of the human centric AI, we serve, et cetera.  Crow here are in the IGF.  Governance is deeply real deep Internet is a multi‑stakeholder organizer of the United Nations.  That is very important.  And if you want to protect this, if you want to continue to have a multi‑stakeholder governance of broad Internet, we need to define some places to fix some issues.  For example, another issue is the fact that France advocates a fair tax system to be sure that every tech companies we play certain attacks and we did propose this in the city to elaborate.

Open of the four needed to be minute‑stakeholder, but we needed the size.  Convenient for each.  It is very important.  Especially because if we don't trust on this, for example, some people will try to fix some issues in the deep layers.  Directly (?) itself.  We don't want this because for 50 years, 50 years, Internet works.  In fact, not so bad.  So if we have to fix, I don't know.  But this information from my perspective is direct consequences of a setting business model.  Attention economy is a matter of companies regulation and not of Internet confirm.  So considering this as I did mention, we Lee some initiative like POA or (?).  I feel that another topic which is how to delay, there is content in respect of rule of law.  We did work.  A lot of series organizations with some states with companies, with (?) that was launched by Microsoft.  We define and some things seem well balanced to remove this content in respect of France.  We sat right to contest the removal, duty and responsibility and priorities of states.  There is content and that great.  We have our own initiatives and you are asking me about the working group.  So far I don't know.  Monday we had the first meeting.  We go to this meeting in a very open approach.  We want results.  We know that we need to put more norms.  It remains ‑‑ in example, France like all (?) discourage (?) to enter in a war fair logic, but we have to be very precise.  We have to be very precise about duty (?).  If we don't want the state to attack where there is several used for an attack, we have to be sure that in certain states, we'll make everything possible to stop (?) and we have to be sure about how we observe this and we have to be so precise here because we have to respect sovereignty.  We have to respect to build transparency.  We have a lot of issues to address and we decide together it is open.  We have a great chair coming from Singapore.  The only thing that I can say is that Canada and are the friends, we need support later to the chair to ask to build multi‑stakeholder work.  But again, the first committee is about state behavior and everyone can understand a part of this conversation has to be between states and another part is to be done with Civil Society.  We have to build something very precise.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  Thank you.  This was very helpful.  Pablo, you want to add anything to this?

>> PABLO CASTRO:  Thank you, Kaja.  I agree with Henri and with (?).  It is very important to, um, get some concrete things, concrete steps.  We're talking about the point of contact which is part of the last report in the working group.  Having this list of the United Nations also to survey, the national survey that was like Mexico and Australia a very good one.  It's a challenge for me every time when we started a new process, United Nations where I have to talk with the national agencies because they're expecting that can be something concrete again that applies in a daily work.  So that's sometimes that something is complicated.  For them, we are just spending a lot of time having discussion and dialogue and sometimes the fine report is not satisfied for everyone because they are ‑‑ you have some goals in the very beginning, but then you find mostly rich consensus and nobody is really satisfied.  I had to make a notion on regarding the final draft of the open waking groups.  When there was a lot of discussion about why several states and regions wanted to join the treaty.  One of the reasons was because there was a lot of chances to get capacity building from the (?) union, C projects and lesser projects.  So our agencies were pushing for something concrete in some of the discussions.  So that is some ‑‑ I will insist an idea if me in term of priority for this group or this five years in coming in conversation and dialogue we can get some thins.  Little thing have, for example, the point of contact and list that can be useful for the problem we're facing all days.  It is interesting about due diligence.  We're seeing how actually President Biden (?) about one of the groups that were operating from Russian territory say okay.  It's something you have to do putting down.  It was interesting.  They were referring to the agreements that were achieved by international committee.  That was actually in the wake of the GGE.  That is something that can be very practical.  It is something we were seeing in terms of how to deal with that.  That is something I suspect and you have concrete outcomes to be resourced, capacity is still very important.  It is full of strategic leapt in terms of (?) and other subjects.

In terms of priority and about what you're saying, the idea of the cyberspace, how do you say, Kaja?  I mean, ah, well, it reminds me about a discussion in outer space.  Right now, of course, not placing whether they're there.  And but also remind me of other processes.  The weapons system we're having a discussion in Geneva.  It's probably been more complicated in our discussion than cyberspace.  And also that photo we're talking about the application of international law, international humanitarian law, it's a problem emerging technologies.  When it comes to this new technology, of course the states won and taking advantage of it and use of it.  I think this is also it can be a problem with trying to find a common understanding of the application of international law.  I am pessimistic and I am more optimistic they can own international law.  As far as an agreement, this is ever have difficult because those come after a major price.  In a situation where they realize things are maybe out of control, we have to put some rules of the game, you know?  That way we can create some kind of stability at a global level.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  Thank you.  I think one of the points you mentioned is really important for everybody to hear, which is the ‑‑ it's not ‑‑ it's not a successful compromise if everybody's unhappy a little bit.  I think that's kind of the nature of negotiations and I think we can all hope and put pressure on certain things to move, but at the end of the day, they're different people, different opinions and different groups as well.

I think the point Henri mentioned around and you as well, Pablo, about the different fora they have different roles I think is important.  They kind of reflect some of the questions there in the chat as well.  Why do we have so many different discussions and it's important to remember they have different purpose even if it's cyber.  It would be ever have difficult to make progress on all things cyber.  So having narrower ones within the UN like laws or the GGE and with that and outside the UN like the Paris call and the hack back discussions, for example, I think fully agree with your points there.  It's important to make sure we move forward perhaps more slowly.  I think the law in Civil Society would like, but that we continue to move forward.  I think with that, Natalie, you want to talk a little bit about the high level statement on trust and security, what it is, the thinking behind the it and what we can do to help.

>> Yeah.  Indeed.  Thank you very much.  The call champions for recommendation for the report of the high level panel that we are a part of, but also Microsoft is part of it, other countries has been looking at trusts and security from a broad perspective and to Connect it universally endorsed objectives.  So just the Sustainable Development Goals.  And we also anchored it within principles agreed in the content of the world summit of information society and it's tenure review such as the importance of multi‑stakeholder reason and adopting a human centric approach where respect for recommend rights is central.  Because in an ever more connected environment, trust and security are crucial to achieve those objectives and vice‑versa.  We also consider the trust and security for meaningful Connectivity and for vulnerable groups and it's relation to economic and social growth.  We were conscious of not duplicating already existing mechanisms.  But to look at how to reinforce and compliment them.  And based on those thoughts, there is now a working paper with champions put together and recently discussed with the constituents of the group and the group is constituted over wide variety of stakeholders.  Civil Society, Private Sector governments.  But we feel like greater consultation could enrich our thinking and vision.  And the idea is therefore to publicize this paper more broadly and get the use of wider stakeholders and we're looking into using platforms such as the IGF, the original IGF and other platforms to collect views in the paper.  Given the reasons in the UN secretary general that includes the proposal for digital compact, our work in the contention of the UN's secretary road map included in the working paper will be an important contribution to the digital compact.  Having said that, still off the middle and there is still thinking to be done on how to take this forward.  So please stay tune to let us know if you would like to be involved and are consulted to improve the working paper on trust and security and if you would like to receive a copy, I'm on LinkedIn and please shoot he a message.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  Thank you.  It's ‑‑ I would say obviously we're involved, but it's a great opportunity for everybody to contribute thoughts and ideas and hopefully concrete that states can then take on.  As Henri said, a lot of issues have to be decided by states.  They are the regulators and have specific responsibilities to the citizens.  If we're able to shape, put suggestions and sort of help input our expert ease, I think that hopefully they can make better decisions.

With that, I wanted to touch on the open ended working group, the POA as well as a sort of end of role of multi‑stakeholders and in these processes.  This is a question that came up again and again in the questions on the chat.  I would love again would love to hear and thank you again for supporting multi‑stakeholder inclusion in your efforts going into the modalities discussions, but we would love to hear what your ideas, suggestions on how holders could be involved.  I know there is some chat about a session earlier in the week or the week before ‑‑ I would love to hear your suggestions in terms of what would be a good way forward and also particularly what would be helpful for you to hear from the multi‑stakeholder community.  I gone the care who takes it ‑‑ I don't care who takes it.  I'm going to pick on ‑‑ on Issac.

>> GERARDO ISAAC MORALES TENORIO:  Actually, I was trying to raise my hand.  Well, this is a great moment to put this question on the table because we are just a couple of days before having the association of the open ended working group.

First of August, I would like to emphasize that we recently have an open ended working group process which had some contributions coming from the multi‑stakeholder community.  And these contributions resulted key for the developments and the language that we could reach for a consensus report.  It's not only narrative, but actually it's experience that now we have how multi‑stakeholder community can contribute to advance and to support or actually help member states to reach some agreements and to reach some joint results.

The second element I will say is basically on the experience on how was the formal and modalities for open ended working group.  From my point of view and I believe that at least the representatives are joining this conversation agree on.  We do need more.  It was good having a very first step having multi‑sting holder communities.  But I certainly believe that we need to go beyond the previews modalities.  But at the same final, I am also conscious about the consensus and the discussions and the negotiations.  And sometimes the consensus could be very good but other times, for instance, to advance better modalities for the inclusivity or to include more minute‑stakeholder participation.  Sometimes the consensus is not the best scenario because some other member states, some countries will prefer to keep previous modalities or some of them stepping back what we have presented.  So being very conscious about this I sincerely believe and by the way, Mexico has co‑signed this letter asking the chair in a very respectful way to address this issue and to go beyond what we recently had.  And taking into account receipt experiences at the UN level.  By saying this, I will emphasize that we do need to push together not only governments, but international community to have a better and a more comprehensive participation of these stakeholders in the next ‑‑ in the future or the new open ended working group.  But at the same time.

, we do need to further advance together as community separately not only from the formal setting to take better use to advancement use of the Intersessional periods, for instance.  So perhaps having more not only formal, but formal discussions having more ‑‑ I was surprised on the question in the chat of how the IGF could address some of the open ended working group discussions and perhaps why not submitting something from the idea to the open ended working group.  Everything is open and we can try to do some of these movements at the formal level in the mid‑lateral setting taking into accounts simultaneous ways and conversations we had at the UN level as Natalie also referred to the road map of the secretary general.  We can mind something coming from that in the new stakeholder ‑‑ from the multi‑stakeholder approach to introduce in the open ended working group.  So I have no clear questions, but I will ‑‑ I simply wanted to emphasize this.  We had receipt experience and this experience allowed us to say it's not narrative, but concretely experience on how the multi‑stakeholder community contribute to these conversations.  The second taking into account that experience that tried to go beyond and the third also to be prepared to make better use of not the formal, but intersessional periods and conversations.  Thanks.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  Thank you.  This is very helpful.  I see there is positive response in the chat as well.  I also wanted to turn ‑‑ I am going to terribly mispronounce this.  (?) I think you have some comments.

>> YIK:  Yes.  Just to mention, I'm both from academia circle (?) for internet governance scholar and also from the multi‑stakeholder group of the API IGF and also the China IGF.  So actually, some of my colleagues as we started OEWG and the GGG many academias started and (?) all the documents.  I have two suggestions.  The first one is I look at all this submission, the NGOs or the university based on the proposal or recommendation to the OWEGs consultation process.  I found that actually many of them is Pimias or the famous international organizations such as APC or from the University of Oxford and so I wonder.  Is there any way we can improve the delivery of the message even for the open core to somewhere which is not permanent a south part of the international (?) or south African Groups or Asia groups.  None of then submitted recommendation to the consultation.  I was really surprised.  So this is the first thing.  So is there any channel we can improve?  For example, regional IGAs and to deliver the message to the opportunity for us to participate in that debate as multi‑stakeholder groups.  Regional IGF channels.  And the second is about whether we can also include more academias to discussion.  I think that's my comment.  Thank you very much.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  Thank you.  That was really helpful and a great point to raise.  I think if there's an ability to bringing voices from around the world, I think that would be really important whether through regional IGF and also I would probably say in particular as the discussions on implementations go on, implementation rather, I think Lou the conversations with local state representatives, not just at UN itself, but direct conversations with states I think are the heavies to go forward.  And because we are really quickly running out of time, I wanted to pose a question to all of you.  Having said, that I also hope that Geocomo talked about and brought in stakeholders and Henri will talk about what they have for the POA and particularly from the multi‑stakeholder perspective, but the Uber question I want to ask is:  If you look ahead five years and will other sight of the open ended working group, what are the successes you want to see in this space?  Both signer diplomacy, for norms, for international law and just stability of cyberspace.  I would love to hear some positive thoughts I think to end.  Natalie, you want to go first this time?

>> Natalie:  Sure.  I consider this my Christmas wish list for cyber.  So let's be very opt mystic.  I really hope that in the coming years, we will develop a greater common understanding of the framework with all UN members including on cybersecurity and human rights are complimentary.  Mutually reinforcing interdepend E.s and what applying human rights in the digital environment concretely means.  Second, I hope that more countries will have been able to articulate their views on how international law actually applies in cyberspace.  So contributing to more security and stability in cyberspace.  I hope the open ended working group will have served as a useful platform for confidence building and to nicely compliment other processes within the UN and otherwise the UN.  And I really hope that the five years of the open ended working group will deliver on constructive and pragmatic discussions anchoring reality based on evidence and concrete case scenarios so we really need to move the stakeholders for that.  And so that we can actually agree on action oriented solutions and proposals how to implement the informative framework including through to POA.  And I really hope we find new and creative way to have multi‑stakeholder community more engaged with these UN processes and finally on a more broader note, I'm hoping that we will be able to finalize the 20 review in the spirit of consensus and we'll be able to put our differences away to preserve a human centric approach for an open, free, secure and (?) internet that is supported by a multi‑stakeholder model.  That's my Christmas list.  Thank you.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  Ambitious.  Thank you.  GIACOMO, you want to follow that?

>> GIACOMO PERSI PAOLI:  It is hard to follow that.  My wish list would include let's hope it doesn't take five years to see something be produced by the process because right now with the processes being 12, 80 months length, it was always like the final report was the one and only measurable outcome that states were working towards.  Five years is a long time if that is the only end game.  So I hope that these five years will be used to definitely go deeper into sound discussions, but also produce as the discussions proceed some additional, actionable outcomes that can be use the to implement because in the ICT space, five years from now, the environment might change significantly.  I also hope that there will be just a nuance to the point that Natalie made about the engagement, the multi‑stakeholder engagement.  I think so far there is this idea of multi‑stakeholder community is often referred to as a single group, but they're not.  It's not only within industry which industry were you talking about and different types of industry could have very different propositions and contributions that they can make.  So hopefully ‑‑ I hope in the next five years, there will be an evolution of the understanding of what multi‑stakeholder actually means and how different actors can contribute in different ways whether from industry or academia or Civil Society.  It's not just one big group.  There are nuances there that can be useful.  Thank you.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  And that is most definitely true.  Henri?

>> HENRI VERDIER:  Yes in one minute.  So first, I hope that states will have agreed to prohibit behaviors and we welcome the united nation, but that's not enough.  So then I hope that we'll make this while continuing to have a multi‑stakeholder base on human right governance of Internet itself and maybe we can open this conversation with the POA.  You know, digital is pretty much the only sector that doesn't have safety standards.  They are standards for space, for industries, but not for digital and I hope that this will be marketed in the next five years.  This is global security, but also can have consequences in terms of behavior other states.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  For sure.  Pablo?

>> PABLO CASTRO:  Thank you, Kaja.  Unfortunately, I'm going to be pessimistic.  It's my nature.  I am trying to be ‑‑ my wish list in the future, we can set up the POA, which I think putting my hopes and dreams into this idea which I think is really good.  It fits quite well about our needs today and, of course, I think it's an irony of the include multi‑stakeholder and we're hope.  It looks like it's not so much.  I think it's something that probably we will figure out some way.  But I always say that from by perspective, I'm not so ambitious because I think differences are huge.  We think about points.  So just maybe concrete things, little details and that can make a difference.  We can get the five year discussion and it can make a difference in the future.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  I hope a little bit more optimistic, but definitely recognize the realism.  Issac?

>> GERARDO ISAAC MORALES TENORIO:  Thank you very much.  I'm not sure if it is pessimistic or optimistic, but it is indeed, that we will be here in five years, I suppose.  Taking that into account, of course I will hope to see first more peep getting seas to this platforms and technologies.  More experts and other countries no matter the development engage more engaged in the conversations.  Of course, more gaps breach but all of these in a more certain, stable and of course secure scenario.  To reach that I sincerely believe if we go on the track of more implementation, more reporting of this implementation and then more accountability and more capacity to share and more cooperation to offer taking into account all of these elements, we'll be able to reach that perhaps best in the unilateral settings and conversations.  Thank you.  Thank you so much for the opportunity for sharing this possible views.

>> KAJA CIGLIC:  I know.  Thank you, everybody for in case ‑‑ I feel a lot of you getting up certainly early to join us in this conversation and also for the audience.  I think it was a very lively chat in the discussion.  So hopefully we'll see a lot of you in the open ended working group multi‑stakeholder conversation next week as well.  And thanks again.  This was a fantastic insight into what is going on at the UN at the moment.