The panelists agreed that regions approach and operationalize capacity building differently in practical terms, however, it was also recognized that more cross-regional sharing would be beneficial where possible. Examples included interregional organisations (ASEAN, ECOWAS, EU) or more developed countries (Singapore) in certain regions sharing best practices and building capacities for lesser countries from the same region. Krey criteria for successful and sustainable capacity building comprise legitimacy, trust and respect, according to the panelists. Relationship building was also mentioned as an important contributing factor. However, panelists warned that one can only be as strong as the weakest link, therefore it makes sense to not only become stronger within your country, within your subregion. To really have a proper open, secure, safe system, one must really cooperate between regions. This would also help to address closing gaps between regions on CCB. Furthermore, national buy-in is essential. This would ensure reciprocity and a two-way street from with both partners benefit.
However, it was also stressed that the differences among regions are significant (geography, economics, politics & culture) and best practices are not applicable to every region. The Pacific region was named as an example where countries differ enormously and best practice sharing would not be very successful. Lastly, another important criteria constituted the involvement of multiple partners for sustainable capacity building, which is still lacking in general.
Overall, multistakeholder initatives such as the Paris Call for Trust and Stability in Cyberspace or multistakeholder organisations such as the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise were named as great platforms that could support on cyber capacity building across regions. Interregional fora such as the EU-India dialogue were cited as successful exchanges on CCB.