IGF 2023 - Day 2 - WS #107 Stronger together: multistakeholder voices in cyberdiplomacy - RAW

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.



>> MODERATOR: Good afternoon.  Welcome to Stronger Together: Multistakeholder Voices in Cyberdiplomacy.  Thanks so much for being here.  Thanks so much to IGF for providing the space and so those who are sort of combating various forms of either jet lag or post lunch afternoon fatigue, appreciate you taking the time to be part of a pretty important discussion.  I'm John Hering, a senior government affairs manager for Microsoft.  I will be the moderator today.  An incrediblable online and unitage.  I will have them interTuesday themselves in a moment.  I want to start with just providing framing remarks around the issue at hand to bring folks up to speed an what we will be diving into which is the nature of multistakeholder inclusion in UN cybersecurity dialogues in particular.  A well timed conversation because last week Microsoft released the annual digital defense report, if you haven't had a chance to dive into in the day since it has come up.  I encourage you to do so.  The summit of annual threat intelligence report that we put out a comprehensive overview.  We only see the sliver of our Internet on our platforms but it a view of what the con temporarily challenges are.  Cyber crime continues to be an increasing confidential leg.  To improve the scale and impact of cyber crime operations.  And nation state activities, particularly with the focus on espionage over the past year.  And 41% of which in terms of all nation state cyber operations observed by Microsoft intelligence teams were focused on critical infrastructures across various regions of the globe.  None of this especially new.  It has been an escalating concern for decades but now the cyber operations in armed conflict is a rising concern including in the past year and a half in Ukraine most notably making conversations all the more urgent.  We have seen the UN stepping up to try and meet the moment and keep pace with an evolving threat environment.

     Stirring up various working groups and new processes and involving the mandate to make sure it is meeting et cetera moment and a new challenge how do we cloud the right multistakeholder voices in the conversations.  Cybersecurity is a more shared domain of conflict than any other.  It is inherently synthetic and a lot owned a and operation rated by private entities.  And human rights are bro texted on academia voices at the table as well.  Thus far, sort of an ad hoc patch work approach to include more multistakeholder voices in the conversations.  That brings us to today.  And it I think a two-fold for the conversation.

     The one, on the one hand it is to hopefully keep everyone appropriately informed only where the conversations are at the United Nations and beyond and hopefully help people like they are equipped to more effectively enE. engage from the conversations and two hear from you in the room.  From those in the IGF community about the challenges, recommendations or guidance you might have around how we might improve the relevant inclusion of multistakeholder voices in cybersecurity dialogs.  Essential for the guests on the stage and aft action report following the session works we will save the bulk of the time for audience Q&A.  Not just question and answer but also commentary and other suggestions or things you would like to contribute to the conversation or hear our guests respond to.  Without further ado, I would like to welcome our speakers on the stage and Charlotte online tint deuce themselves first.  Let us know whew you are and what organization you are from and maybe your relation to the cybersecurity dialogues at the U.N.  It is not working.  Thank you very much.  Thank you for having me on this prestigious panel.

     >> MARIE HUMEAU: I'm Marie Humeau.  Working at the permanent mission of the Netherlands to the UN in Geneva and I'm first secretary cyber.  Of what cyber diploma he is is in a Member States perfective.

    >> PABLO CASTRO: I'm Pablo Castro.  Basically cover cybersecurity and cyber crime and AI and military domain and among other cyber things.  That is my role as minter.  Thank you.  Hi.

     >> I'm Joyce Hakmeh.  The deputy director of the International Security program at chat ham house.  My relationship to the conversation is that my team we need a lot or a number of projects following UN cyber processes, the open-ended working group as well as the cyber crime convention and had our fair care of multi-stakeholder engagement or attempt to do so at the UN.  Working to The Open Group and cybersecurity.

     >> JOHN HERING: And Charlotte, could you introduce yourself as well.

     >> CHARLOTTE LINDSEY: Good morning.  Can you hear minim Charlotte Lindsey.  The chief public policy officer at the cyber peace institute in Geneva and with my team we engage inned UN processes, the recommended working group, the ad hoc committee on cyber cybercrime and our for a to bring evidence and data-driven based analysis of cyber landscape.

     >> JOHN HERING: Thanks so much.  And thank you again to the panelists for joining us.  Starting on the government side of the equation.  I gave a little bit of outline from how we see the threat environment from the industry side.  Let me here from Marie and Bert to start us Jif how is it in particular evolved in the UN at the time that you have had there.  And where are we living up to and where are fee following short of the international expectations that have been set.

     >> MARIE HUMEAU: Thank you.  Yes, so from a really UN perspective and really focusing on the cyber industry sense which is cybersecurity,ed discussion are not really new and have been goingen since 1998.  But there is a broader picture because the sabre security discussion are not new.  First new is the scale at which they are discussed.  It is no more and more places but alsod integration of other stakeholders that is feeding you into the processes -- that is pretty new to the processes.  When we would look at the broader cyberspace picture, more multistakeholder engagement and comes back to 2003 with WSIS.  In the cybersecurity strict sense we have seen stronger multistakeholder involvement and unfortunately does not have yet achieved the inclusivity that we had expected in the first place and we would like to have more inclusivity.  It is already nice that the open-ended working group now now is open to all Member States which was not the case with the GDE.  There is already more inclusivity but I think we would like to go further and ensure that all relevant stakeholders can have their voice heard also in those discussions.

     >> ENGELBERT THEUERMANN: Thank you so much.  I have to say I'm very much looking forward to the discussion here because what I can observe is quite a discrepancy between the way we discuss things here at the IGF and where everyone is in equal footing and as soon as stay with the metaphor step your into the into the UN it becomes very intergovernment Val and it by its nature it is not very multistakeholder friendly.  It is really an uphill battle every time in all of the processes.  And when it comes to your specific question on sort of the threat landscape and how it has been discussed, also there, there is a bit of discrepancy between the real world and UN world.  The real world, you just released your own annual report which lays out the landscape that is very -- which raises many concerns about state actors and nonstate Octoberors and collusion between the two or cyber crime activities by state actors and espionage and how it is combined and how malicious cyber actors are more and more involved in disinformation campaigns.  All of this is there.

     It is very difficult to have a discussion on this in the working group when we discuss threats.  There is a strong sense, an uncomfortable discussion so to say and people rather skip over the sort of stronger interest to discuss and things like confidence building et cetera than to discuss the hard stuff.  Way why do we need to build confidence?  Because there is the problem of growth?

     Ed malicious cyber activities have, particularly the cyber espionage.  We should be clearer in calling it out assistive technologies clear violation of the framework.

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you both so much.  Sticking on the government side of the conversation and we will go back to you, Bert and then bring Pablo that the conversation as well.  You have both mentioned I think now the open-ended working group, the current information security dialog.  The secondity iteration.  And as of 2015, there have been established norms for responsible state behavior online and recognition that international law ought to govern state behavior online.  There lass not been new norms established.  How should we think of the current status of the open-ended working group?  Whew is its mandate and mission and what is importance of multistakeholder inclusion in that?

     >> PABLO CASTRO: Regarding norms and especially new norms have to be really honest and maybe even from the perspective of probably new norms but the implementation of the norms especially at the regional level.  Probably one of our plain interest right now and it is also important for the Latin American regions to move forward.  Expectation can be different regarding the open-ended working groups.  From Latin America and our conversations with our colleagues we have a good conversation with other states, after years of probably state and Minister of Foreign Affairs didn't have someone in charge cyber and now it is possible to have this.  Capacity building is important.  Norms, implementation is important especially at the regional level.  That could be a good chance for stakeholders how they can help the process and improves implementation.  One of the reasons why last year we proposed a new CDM.  A working group for the establishment of CDMs in cyberspace which started back from 2017.

     We have now 11CDMs which is quite something.  One of them is about the implementation of 11 norms, you know.  That was proposed specifically try to encourage the state with the organization of American state the cybersecurity programme is good and important in the process and working a lot with stakeholders.  That would be a good opportunity on this.

     Moving forward, the open-ended working group it is a really good question, you know, because as we had different expectation, by the way, from Latin America for example, capacity building could be probably something really important.  We manage in the last, I mean in July to (?) several states for Latin America about capacity building.  The current situation is a little complicated.  We always have the conversation between the states in our region because try to get the consensus of the open-ended working groups is really difficult.  So trying to decide which are the item you want to move on is complicated.  Did as complicated balance, you know.  So farrion I think we have been trying to agree on things that we -- things that everyone could agree like CDM.  But I cannot really oversee Lou we can move on on new topics and new discussion when we do that because the current context.  And I don't see that is going to be easy to resolve from coming years.  I mean with the geopolitical situation we have right now.  Tank you.

     >> ENGELBERT THEUERMANN: We need to focus on how to implement better and not only implement, understand better the normative framework as we have it.  Some countries also who try to produce confusion and say we only have voluntary norms and we need the legally binding treaty to clarify the legal obligations ignore the that the general assembly confirmed that national law as enshrined in the charter fully applies.  We need more dedicated discussions and look specifically what does it mean national law applies.  We tried to hammer this out and we will be happy that next year one of the sessions will be dedicated to the application of international law.  A bit the voluntary norms a bit muddied the waters and led to some confusion.  We don't need new norms.  We need better understanding of the!

     Isting ones and that they have been implemented and the companies who violate them are held accountable.

     >> JOHN HERING: I heard accountability.  Confidence building measures.  Clarifying the existing energies obligations all spaces -- norms considerations and things which neat multistakeholder inclusion and participation and engagement.  And so to that side I want to bring from Charlotte online and Joyce frommed nongovernmental stakeholder perspective.  I think we have a lot of government folks in the room.  What is it like to try and participate and engage in the UN information security dialogues as a nongovernmental stakeholder.

     >> JOYCE HAKMEH: Thank is, John.  This is like an experience that reflect on quite a lot and sort of share stories in the multistakeholder community between each other.  I think speaking from our experience at Chatham House but also observing multistakeholder participation more generally.  There are maybe four issues that I believe act as a challenge to the multistakeholder participation.  And, of course, I'm not going to talk about the biggest one which is states blocking and actively going out of their way sometimes to blocking multistakeholder participation in UN processes.

     The first point I want to make is I guess there is a disbelief or perhaps insufficient conviction from some states about the value that multistakeholders bring to the stable so you baseball and there comes often from states who need the support or could benefit from the support the most.  Often the starting point is really sort of making the case about why it is important that you are at the table and what is it that you can contribute.  And so this basically leads to either states not engaging with multistakeholder or they tolerate your presence they don't he gauge or engage at a superficial level.  Perhaps this stems from the second point I want to make which is a perception that some states have that the multistakeholder community is a sort of a uniform group.  Like monolit and we all have the same approach an objectives.  This it view for more Civil Society and not industry.  This is not true.  Civil Society is a very diverse groups with sometimes overlapping but more complementary mandates anded role they can play is diverse.  If you don't understand what it they can bring to the table.  This is more directed at countries who actually (?) support the multistakeholder participation and be called the champions who really kind of like make the point oh over and over again from UN processes and beyond.

     I think sometimes the challenge with the relationship is it there is a lack of strategic but also consistent engagement.  And you know, this could be related to like time issues, resources issues or perhaps sometimes lack of coordination within the government itself between the different agencies.  This means that the relationship with multistakeholders isn't as good as it can be.  Isn't as impactful as it can be.  I'm not suggesting this is just the responsibility of government.  It is a shared responsibility and relationship and lass to go both ways.  Perhaps on there current OEWG specifically, I think probably the sort of word that describes the best when it comes to multistakeholder participation is uncertainty.  Right?  What every session like multistakeholder groups they don't know whether they are going to be accredited or not.  I know Microsoft you had your good share in that and so Chatham House until we got the status which in a way give us the right to be in the room.  And you know, the ability to influence you and processes.  In this kind of complex geopolitical climate derequires strategic planning over time.  If you are uncertain whether you will be in the room or not it makes it very lard to influence.

     I want to also talk about the other ways to influence but maybe for later.  Maybe I want to conclude with this point that all know this, you know, the participation hasn't been great, it has been possible, right.  And I think from our perspective it has been a learning curve and if you look at the cyber crime convention this is the first time the multistakeholder community is trying to shape a legal instrument which the UN on cyber.  We are learning from the Le sons that will help help us in the future and also help us sharpen our tools.

     >> JOHN HERING: Charlotte, you are up if you are online.

     >> CHARLOTTE LINDSEY: I would like to focus on a couple of points.  I think that while the states fra V. Soo he toe power and dozens of organizations including the cyber peace intimate substitute regularly vetoed and that makes it complicated for us to plan strategically but also to really be representative and to bring added value to these -- to this fora.  Clearly an achievement what has been the GTE and open-ended working group around the parallel processes and came out with a consensus report which was aligned.  However, it is very complicated in these parallel processes for multistakeholder, Civil Society organizations to be able to participate in all of these parallel processes and to really be able to contribute.

     The cyber peace institute, we have been able to contribute to the objectives of several of the UN working groups.  We submitted comments, recommendations on predrafts and Zero-Drafts and final reports of the open-ended working group and we have also submitted multistakeholder engagement statement.  Which we led with a group of other organizations.  And contributed ahead of substantive sessions.

     So we are able to find ways to contribute.  But it does take a lot of navigation, a lot of engagement behinded scenes to be able to really be able to be present and to put statements and positions forward.

     I think that we as Civil Society organizations we do have added value that we can bring.  What we have been able to demonstrate and many states demonstrate that they really appreciate these contributions, is bringing data and evidence on many of the issues that are being addressed in the open-ended working group.  And we have been able to, for example, bring things like a compendium of Best Practices on protecting the healthcare seconder from cyber harm and bring practical recommendations that can help negotiations and help discussions and I think that by bringing these recommendations we can add the diversity.  We can bring voices which represent the full range of how the cyber landscape is actually being managed and the threats of that -- from that landscape today.  With I would like to make a couple of final points.

     A number of governments reiterated the commitment towards an inclusive process in which the multistakeholder community really does have a voice, we think it really is important that there is more clarity on what these potential contributions from Civil Society or multistakeholders can really bring.  And there can encourage other states to really advocate for and pursue this more inclusive process if there is ain' understanding of the added value.  Then each time each organization is not having to bring that.

     And we think also what is complex ahead of some of this sort of consultative meetings, we think it is also very complex when documents aren't shared ahead of meetings or are very late and therefore it is really lard to bring as Joyce mentioned this strategic role in we are not able to actually receive any of the documents.  Understand what the subjects are going to be and also not necessarily able to participate in the room.  We think it would be important to have real clarity on nonstate actors and how they did are are par participate and clarity on the level of trans pair Rentzcy and visible for multistakeholder contributions throughout the process.

     And there also needs to be inclusion not just at sort of international organizations and Civil Society organizations operating at international level but also those operating nationally and regionally and help are a global understanding of the challenges but alsod considerations that different actors can play.  Thank you.

     >> JOHN HERING: Thank you, so much Charlotte.  Hit the major points as a nongovernmental stakeholder I think covered well what the challenges have been.  To your point, Joyce, this is also a learning process and we should give credit for credit is due.  I remember the first ever multistakeholder consultation for the OEWG that happened in the conference room B at the UN in 2019 and we have come a long way.  That is a credit to I think a lots of support from various Member States and increasing numbers of Member States anded current clare of the OEWG who would should recognise as well.

     I think to the broader point here, indeed, it has been highly ad hoc and especially for resource limited organizations that is a challenge to think about how best to structure on that level of engagement.  Thinking about maybe moving forward and how to sort of begin to be a little more accommodating and inclusive, I would love to hear from Bertnd Charlotte. I'm one ahead.  That maybe have greater success.  Whether that is the stat us orfy other ways that we have seen other stacks more successfully -- stakeholders included inned past.

     >> All of the discussion of internal weapons systems and in gentleman Viva but when I think about the future dialogues future process.  I have to think about the programme of action which is something that is coming.  Going to be very good opportunity, you know, to really create a sort of as you mentioned and I can read a lot offed word (?) is what we need and in a way also tries to create some or define a specific role for multistakeholder like in the future.  How they can help.  Or assist in terms of identifying needs assessment.  How to help a state for the implementations.  We in some ways are not necessarily from the structure but define some roles in the future dialogue.  That way we can identify some stakeholder good for some -- let's say international law.  Let's say 11 norms.  Let's say CDMs.  Or evaluate I think can would be good to actually try to start the discussion, you know.  Cybersecurity institute for example has been good report on this.  The website.  Because this is something that is coming sooner in the he couple of years and that's going to be a good opportunity for a State to think about it.  I would like to see also more, I mean probably (?) between the stakeholders and other states.  Something maybe in Latin America and more on this in some I should say before on the specific task, Chile.  This is something we could probably try to think and work in the near future.  Thank you.

     >> MARIE HUMEAU: I think I will go a bit further than just UN and First Committee.  But looking at the first the purely like UN perspective, I think those discussion we have seen popping into so many different forum.  When the pandemic started, WHO started talking about cybersecurity, we were seeing cybersecurity related discussion in the con it text of E commerce but also obviously with the ongoing situation in Europe and from Ukraine in the humanitarian liia log.  I think we also need -- dialogue.  We need to take into consideration how other stakeholders are involved into the discussion.  If we don't connect the dots and all in discussion as well then we will never be able to have the open, free and secure environment that we want and where people trust around that we can all benefit on.  We are see agroing number of multistakeholder initiative outside of the UN.  Be it at the national, regional, international level and those are really inspiring and we need to look at how stakeholders when they are having those multistakeholder initiative how they engage with each other.  I find it difficult to really compare because obviously we are in a UN situation or in a multistakeholder.

     But I think we need to look for wherever we can and not only in First Committee or purely UN, because as was pointed out it is really new to have multistakeholder engagement within First Committee discussion on cyber.

     So I think is L. it is try we don't always understand as diplomats the entie breadth of how much Civil Society could bring and the stakeholders.  In the context of the open-ended working group we never mentioned the technical community.  If you look at the report we talk about Civil Society and private sector and academia but the technical community for example is not there.

     That is a sign that we need to continue the dialogue and we need to  understand how much other stakeholders can bring to the discussion and little by little we will make that space and that we will hopefully see more participation in those discussions.

     >> JOHN HERING: Thank you both.  And Pablo, I think you mentioned elephants in the room here perhaps in the conversations which is the programme of action the Reese endly pass the resolution to establish what would be kind of the first standing body that is going to be focused on cybersecurity at the UN and there is a lot of open questions about that.  I would like to invite Bert and Charlotte back into the conversation.

     To share a little bit about what that might look like and how that could regularise more multistakeholder inclusion in the UN processes from the First Committee.

     >> ENGELBERT THEUERMANN: There are many great initiatives out there and again we should also look nor what the IGF experience what that can bring.  Similarly the for run and et cetera.  We have to see this.

     But also just to mention, what is the best way forward?  We have -- I found if more frustrating in the open-ended working group because there is no objection procedure or no other practice for the invitation of multistakeholder was used much more expert tensively.  Basically it was a long list and everyone who wanted to participate was able to which is exactly how it should be.  Other ways, if you look, I have done many things.  Delegate to the CSW in the past.  You have many countries involved, NGO representatives in government delegations.  There was done for some countries in the working group after the (?).  I'm not totally sure that is the right pleasage because I must say multistakeholder or to put in the delegation sounds like they are aligned with you.  I want you do be there whether you agree with plea or not.  I don't want them to be part of a government delegation.  I'm not sure that is the right way.

     I was often the delegate to the human rights commission.  There is a number of negotiations and resolutions nonState participates are invited to partition dissipate in the negotiations as well.  There is precedent for almost everything.  I will not go into the question how it should look like, this is a separate discussion and important project and we are preparing another resolution for the general assembly that is happening as we speak.  The idea would, indeed, be to have more stability by having a permanent body but have a inclusive.  A strong focus should, of course, be implementing the existing naturallative framework including capacity building where multistakeholder play a key role and they are major actors and therefore also need to have a proper seat at the table.  We have to see we want this to be a UN body so we still have to find that UN rules and regularrations apply.  Have the multistakeholders as prominently as possible as the table.  If the saying goes if you are not sitting at the table you are on the menu.  We really want multistakeholders to be at the stable.  Thank you.  There represents a unique.

     >> CHARLOTTE LINDSEY: It focusing oned implementation of the agreed norms an ensure capacity and need is driven capacity building.  This initiative -- the operationallization that would benefit from real practical implementation and meaningful multistakeholder participation.  Anded inclusion of the relevant stakeholders in the dedicated forum would build what Git lacy and shape any future instruments.  The in cluiveness could create a process that reflects the realities and addresses threats that affect the safety, security and well being of people and stakeholders can assist states to build the capacity and understanding how to apply the norms.  There is an added role that Civil Society and other multistakeholder organizations can play on a practical day-to-day level that if would can contribute could be invaluable.  Positioned to connect different actors and build part Sherrships and help the pack implementation of the cyber norms and we can help and in international and region implementation efforts including reporting on the progress.  So that -- the real added value is there.  I think what is really and I come back to the point I started with the POD modalities in relation to the scope and method of establishment and format and frequency of meetings and decision-making structures and stakeholder participation, all of the points are being debated and we urge that states create a mechanism that reflects the multistakeholder nature.

     And as some of the previous participants mentioned it does need to include Civil Society, industry, academia and the technical community around other experts who -- and other experts who can play a vital role and bring expert per cease to future dialogues on cyber security in the context of International Security.  Inial drive more outcomes and contribute to ensuring transparency and credibility of the agreed decisions as well as sustainability of implementation.

     >> JOHN HERING: We will have one or two mow questions and then I would like to hear from people in the room.  Including more stakeholder voices at the UN or elsewhere in conversations throughout piece and security.  If you are part of the online audience, do put questions in the chat and Edoardo Ravaioli will address them to the room.

     What I want toed geopolitics offal the moment.  Joys Joyce and then Pablo to discuss.  Rising tensions seems to be difficult to have any kind of productive conversation in dip plow plattic spaces.

     Certainly multilateral ones.  Microsoft is certainly among many, many other multistakeholder voices that would seem to be relevant to dialogues but are blocked from participating by Member States aamid escalating geopolitical spaces.  We need to have the inclusive dialogues we need in future conversations without letting geopolitics play such a weighty role.  And if you want to start?

     >> JOYCE HAKMEH: That is a very important question.  How do we understand the reality and work within the confines of that.  I think maybe I will sort of like split my answer moo two kind of parts or talk about the two different lens.  Firstful all, there is, you know, it there will be new processes, right.  So we heard from the POA.  Outside of cyber there are sort of like processes being establishnd and in cyber there our calls for new processes whether leading to something blinding or otherwise.  I think it is very, very important and at that point has been mentioned before is that this starting point ought to be like figuring out good modalities for the process.  It is much harder when you have bad modalities to fight for multistakeholder participation.  Easier when is the enshrined in the process from the very beginning.  And there has to be trans parentcy and clear criteria but importantly clear criteria for exclusion.  I think we can aim to be more ambitious than just you.  Certain Member State can object and say why it is objecting and this won't sort of really go much further than that.  I think maybe we should be more am byssus and so S. for a formal procedure to resolve disputes with multistakeholder participation.  If we believe multistakeholderrism is the way forward in digital technologies governance, it should be, right, we should have more part and parcel rather than something we sort of like every time try and beg for.  Has to be there and unquestioned.  There is is a journey and already had some successes and we hope to build on that.

     The other lens is Lou we sort of -- what can we do with existing processes and in the geopolitical context that you described.  I think an important point is that while it is important to be in the room and if you are not on the table, you are on the menu, that is probably maybe true but I think it is important to know that the ability to influence is not just in the room.  A lot can be done outside the room and arguably you can have a better impact outside the room.  The floor in the open-ended working group they give us three minutes to speak.  How much can you influence?  This sort of like combining where other innervishtive a extremely important.  I think the -- would weak talked about the fact that some Member States don't understand the value of multistakeholders and there is an onus on multistakeholders to prove through actions that their value it.  Car lot Falked about datand resources and pass youity building and member Tates can understand why multistakeholders are valuable and they will then become the champion circle will expand beyonded current few.  And I think also importantly is to focus on just multilateral but also regional and Pablo talked about the OAS and differ rent kind of initiatives there because that has a huge potential for influence.  If you can get equal status then do because that will help you overcome a lot of challenges and maybe kind of a final point we are worken on new areas emerging areas.  Right.  And I think we can't use sort of like always or just, you know, old or existing models to solve new and emerging problems.  I think it is important to be innovative and creative and think outside the box that we as multistakeholder community have limited resources.  We might be able to participate if the door is open but we pete not even if they let us, right -- we night not.  There is also the need to think about how to do it creatively and differently.

     >> PABLO CASTRO: Thinking about this, I think you mentioned plow digitallities and transparently and the region almost as speck.  Come back again to the strategy.  I think we definitely need more from the perspective of government to work more with multistakeholders in terms how to face this problem and create strategies.  I don't think it has too much again from the perspective of my region in Latin America that need to every time we have a new meeting with the working group or cyber crime, it doesn't really have the chance to start or have the dialogue you know for the stakeholders you know.  We are trying to move on in the last years with the initiatives in Chile that we managed to have a dialogue with the stakeholders and representatives from the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the region which was good.

     I think it will definitely means trying to work mored in strategy phases.  Bus the Member State that they are actually against participation.  They already have a strategy.  They have a goal, you know.  That is the problem.  We are not facing something that they leak it or not.  They are really I have very clear mission and goal to stop this.  So I think we are not maybe have this sort of my impression so say they have a strategy and what is theirs and how with we create the counter narrative and do more with this.  And NGOs, very much, a lot of things we can do in the margins on all these meetings, you know.  Especially the regional level in the OAS or in Africa, et cetera which probably has the most change to call together and really thinks about things that also are important to move on as you mentioned.  Capacity building.  Implementations.  Those are the things that in some region are really critical and important and have to work together in that space.  Thank you.

     >> JOHN HERING: What are the opportunities for engagement outside the UN and how can cyber diplomats.  I do want to invite now that we are in the latter half of the programme anyone in the room or online who has a question or a comment or other ways to contribute to the conversation invite them to please take the floor.  There are microphones in the aisles here and certainlied chat box online.  Already Eduardo, maybe you can ask the first question if from is one.

     >> EDOARDO RAVAIOLI: I will pass over to Nick Ashton-Hart who has had his happened up and I think wants to -- hand up and I think wants to make a comment.  Go for it, knick.

     >> NICK ASHTON-HART: Good morning from New York.  2:30 or something here.  No, 3:00, sorry.

     I wanted to follow up on the point that Joyce made.  I agree with everything everyone has said about the value of stakeholders and what we bring to the table.  I think we all know that is true.

     But I think we have to do something about it.  Because you know, just like when women got the vote, they didn't get the vote because those who had the vote decided it would be the right thing for them to get the vote.  They got the vote because they went out and said you are give is us the vote, right?  And made it unavoidable.  I follow a lot of processes at the UN.  The cybersecurity processes are frustrating because of the theatre of the absurd of applying and then being vetoed.Ed WTO negotiations on electronic commerce are completely closed to all stakeholders.  The least open process.  Believe it or not, it is actually some what better in the First Committee.  I spend a lot of time with delegates from New York.

     I think they are tired of having this stakeholder argument every time a new First Committee process is launched.  I know they are tired of it.  I think a majority of sits think it is a lot of wasted time goes on arguing about this.  It is the same argument every time.  And I do believe that there is am tight to make a set policy on stakeholders that would turn it into more of an administrate eastbound process that happens each time a First Committee process is convened especially related to the Internet.

     And this that would be the end of it.  The decision would be taken, we would be able to participate and that would be there.  States would still take decisions and all the rest of it.  But we would have something more like at the ad hoc committee on cyber crime.  An administrative process.  It is not a political process which is what of course it has been turned into.  As stakeholders if that is something we want, we have to advocate for it.  We have to do the leg work on the ground with the delegates and get someone to propose a general assembly resolution and I think we would win on votes if there is voting.  Wouldn't be consensus of course because the states that don't want us, don't want us, that is the way it is.  I think we would have a clear majority in favour of an administrative process.  Because we're' right basically.

     We are right but also even for the States who are some what -- who don't care that much one way or the other they are tired of fighting about it and wasting a great deal of time arguing over the subject.  So I think it would be interesting to if any of the rest of you have thoughts on that.  It would be interesting to mount a campaign to solve this problem an a horizontal basis once and for all.

     Because I think that is the only real way we are going to get a solution and the honest truth is the states would be far better off if we are around to bug them because they need a more ambitious agenda when it comes to cybersecurity really.  If you look at what is on the table to be decided at the OEWG and what is going on in international cybersecurity there is a huge gap in need versus what is actually being addressed.  Thanks.

     >> JOHN HERING: Well taken, make.  Thank you so much.  I will leave it to the panel oned table to see if there is anyone that would like to take up the thought moving this to aned a ministryive matter as opposed to the political process and whether knick's read of the appetite has some accuracy and validity to it.

     >>ENGELBERT THEUERMANN: People are tired because it comes up over and over again and particularly because it has become a politicized questions for a number of countries and it would be difficult all along.

     I think the idea whether one sizes fits all for every resolution of the general assembly how multistakeholders participate in such processes is an interesting idea.  It has to be discussed.  If you make this totally unclear for what type of future process I'm not sure we get the best results.  You might get better results on a specific process under specific circumstances than for any future process where it might become quite narrow and a difficult process.  Something to be discussed.  My concern is even if it would succeed.  We would have a fight whether the a agreed framework is being applied or specific rules to have be decided upon.  It is an urgent matter andeddish slew where I think which is particularly urgent is we are discussing here both in he is shins and informally abouted upcoming process of negotiating particularly global digital compact which is part of a broader process preparing for the summit of the future where we need stronger multistakeholder involve innocent in the general assembly process which is already as we said intergovernmental by flayure and we have to challenge at that time key objective out of the process is the key information of the multistakeholder model and also a strong role forked IGF.  But then again to get there the process plast be as multistakeholder as possible.  This will be an uphill battle.  It is not clear whether the mostly cloudy would be plaid specifically for the global digital compact resolutions ore for the entire process.  I would be from favour of the global digital.  Defensive a new agenda for peace where basically there is sense that statesester a much beggar role to play.

     Some kintries are opposed to multistakeholder involvement for aflame of reasons.  We also need to do more work why it is of benefit to all of us.  It has become a political issue.  For me an issue of expertise and quality control.  I come have a country our capacity in the area of cyber digital is limited.  We benefit a lot from talking to industry partners from academics, experts its.  Without them we can't survive such negotiations.  This is with are we get ideas and quality check of our ideas and I'm sure it is the same for others.  And also very important that multistakeholder ever voluntary normsment is as inclusive as possible and as representative because there is multistakeholder means big tech companies at the table.  It must be include and ever involved as much as possible.  Thank you.

     >> JOYCE HAKMEH: I agree with what you said and the sentiment behind Nick's mess seasonal.  On your point about how you benefit from multistakeholder input it goes both ways because we benefit when when we speak with government what is on their mind and how they are thinking of the different priorities.  Sometimes between online in the room we might not know what is going to on.  So speak together them is valuable to us because it makes our role much better, right, if we kind of like have our fingers on the right pulse.

     >> JOHN HERING: Thank you both so much and thank you to nick, even if we don't have the be-all, end-all, moving towards a gold standards of multistakeholder inclusion.  In the US we call is the Cadillac.  But from Japan, maybe the Lexus of multistakeholder inclusion I think could be a good framework to work towards.  I think we have a question in the room here.

     >> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much for a an interesting conversation and discussion.  I think I'm just going to point out the elephant in the room.  We are talking about multistakeholderrism.  And just looking.  I was just looking at the representation of different multistakeholders from the panel.  And I don't see representation from African stakeholders.  So I guess my question would be how involved of African stakeholders in the discussions and debate?  And what can they do to improve their participatory role in the discussions.  I understand government actors could be different processes being followed but with the public sector and Civil Society academia what is being done to improve their participation from discussions like in.  Like we talk about inclusion.  But if we are not going to have African voice as being part of these discussions, it becomes a bit difficult to understand how we approach our multistakeholderrism.  Thank you.

     >> JOHN HERING: Absolutely.  Thank you so much for the question.  And I will leave it to those at the table to comment on multistakeholder inclusion and participationnd dialogues across geographic regions.

     >> JOYCE HAKMEH: I think you are right and we talk about multistakeholder participation but if we look at the come position of the multistakeholder groups it tends to be mostly western dominated.  There is a need for inclusion at the regional level and not bring different Octoberors but also act Yoss that represent different regions.  We don't put all our focus just on the end processes because there is a lot going on at regional level and at national level and the experience from those stacks on the field would be valuable -- stack E. stakeholders to be valuable to the U.  K.  Processes and beyond.  I agree with you there.  I think also we need to be honest about -- we need to ballon nest about how multistakeholders coordinate with each other.  I don't think it is great either.

     >> I think there is room to improve.  As I said, it is a learning curve on different fronts.  The focus today is how we work better with governments.  There is a bigger question mow we work better with each other and bring more voices from the debate.

     >> MARIE HUMEAU: Thank you for the question.  I think I think, indeed, there is a lot that still can be done but it is also a capacity issue I think.  Coming from a developing country it is even more difficult to dedicate time to come to New York and come to the processes.  Also the initiative at national and regional level are so important and it was mentioned earlier.  It is not only what about you are saying in the room.  It is actuallied ongoing discussion that you have with your representative that will go to New York and represent those points and having the long run discussion, not only a one go during The Open Group network but really ongoing discussion where you actually bring to your governments, to your people that will represent and present in the room negotiating give them the arguments they will need to shape and inform policy that will benefit also not only us but like every stakeholder groups.  And that is completely part of the entire process.  We have the luxury that we can do it.

     We also have some diplomats that are there in different countries that can also have the discussion Knotts only with the national stakeholders but also with other stakeholders from other regions.

     But really like we need those information to make of informed policy decision that we will then fringe to those Fora.  Thank you, in Eick for being a dedicated stakeholder and still up at 3:00 a.m. for the discussion.  But that is exactly the kind of stakeholders that we need.  Really dedicated as well.

     And we understand that it is is capacity issue as well.  Whereover you can go at any level trio bring your expertise and knowledge so we can take better informed policy decisions.

     >> ENGELBERT THEUERMANN: Important-point.  Just two meants.  One it is the same challenge also on the government side.  How to ensure to have negotiations that are inclusive.  I notice, for instance, if you compare the open-ended working group with the ad hoc committee negotiations.  Come funding is available for travel.  Far moor countries are represent dollars from experts from the cyber crime, os than in the open end working group.  And the quality of the discussion is quite different in a way, I learn a lot from listening to the different perspective R.s and that is extremely positive.  The same on the multistakeholder side.  Some initiatives have been taken to provide funding to participate.  We all agree even for us.  We sometimes get denied the travel to New York because it is too expense everybody to spend two weeks in New York.  If you have seen it once then you also understand better how it works and that is make the advantage, so one of the positive side effects of COVID the Democratization.  All of this is high braid and you can participate much more easily and a key role is any go of the in New York, the position formally is back in capital so you need to work with the people if capital so the people who sit in New York or Geneva or whatever press the right button or make the right statement.  A lots of the work has to happen at national level in eye event.

     >> JOHN HERING: Charlotte, please take the floor.

     >> CHARLOTTE LINDSEY: African representation something a we tested where we invited Ambassadors from representatives of the African Union to come.  There was representation from most kintries of the African Union 80s Ambassador levels.  There is an appetite to engage and learn about the processes.  It is always really important to did he liftify the processes -- de-mistify.  We heard feedback we specialize more on human rights.  A lots of what is discussed at the open-ended working group is about aluminum rights.  There are transferable skills.  Sometimes the language is exclusive or very difficult for people to feel that oh, I haven't followed the debates for many years and therefore I Cants contribute.  And actually what we saw was there were very key pleasages an partis D. messages and participation and pleasages that could draps per the skill set into the negotiations.  There an appetite and we just into focus more on the capacity building side.

     >> JOHN HERING: Thank you all.  I think we have two questions in the room.  Patrick, were you at the mic and then the young women here.  And then back to fly 2021 online after that.

     >> AUDIENCE: I'm from Carnegie.  My question was partly asked and partly answered.  Lit me use the microphone to push back a bit and get a bit more precise answers.

     In answering to the colleague's question, many of you said yes, the engagement with stakeholders at the regional and national level is poniard we have to do it more?  We is three governments on the podium.  Describe how each of your governments engages with the 70s ahead of the open-ended working groups.  I know for a fact that we very often talk about the engagement of the multistakeholder community and happens through the side events during during the open-ended working group sessions or any other' vents there.  And they are used as a figure leaf let's say.  So if you can share some concrete examples that would be great.  With Civil Society is let of organizations from were countries around the world will tell you that they have no access.  Easier for Joyce from Chatham House to talk to anybody in the world to cyber Ambassadors and get the access than the organizations that are completely ignore.  How do we break that sort of ceiling at the national level.  And thirdly, I think that engagement at the national and region level, indeed, might be a more sustainable solution if we want to create let's say better functioning cyber diplomacy engagement because so.  Countries from the world have the shrinking space for Civil Society organizations.  So by creating the opportunities for engagement around cyber issues we also are contributing to strength being the broader ecosystem of size organizations.

      of Civil Society organizations.  I agree but wonder how we could do there in a more specific way.  Thank you.

     >> JOHN HERING: Question over here as well and we will take both together.

     >> AUDIENCE: I'm led of innovation industry of foreign affairs for Brazil.  I would like to thank the panelists for the interventions.  I have a question on the point Charlotte made.  The period of 201-91-2021, for Brazil bragmentation is a -- fragmentation is a concern not only to stakeholders but also developing countries.  It is difficult to have fluff delegates to follow multiple tracks 80s the UN.

     One question he would have is with we have spoken about the POA from their supportive terms and Brazil supports continuing discussions on the proposal but it is not a consensus in the UN.  We have observed a fragmentation on the states that support POA and states this are still in favour of starting negotiation says of legal lay binding instrument.  I guess ply question would be, do you -- my question would be do you see a risk of having a fragmentation once again given the position after the OEWG?  And second if the POA is, indeed, adopted there year, how do we avoid that the OEWG in a sway underpipelined or has the discussions emptied due to a discussion being made two years ahead of the end of its plan date on regular institutional dialogue?  Thank you very much.

     >> JOHN HERING: I will leave to you to take the questions in turn or where you would like.  Anyone on the stage with laptop from or, of course, Charlotte online.

     >> JOYCE HAKMEH: I Cants answer how they do j, I my R. know me government doesn't do anything.  This is a very important problem and we think about it as well because in crew seven governance is one of the strategy priorities for our work at Chatham House.  And you know, and just someone talked about the appetite that extremelyists.  Around I agree with that.  There is a huge appetite.  Organized I think it was last year a conference in Jordan and we have a representative from the MFA here about the cyber diplomacy in the other region and what are their perspectives.  I was Alazed by the turnout.  There is the issue of the subject matter expertise with the UN processes.  It can be a little bate too intimidating.  Even for us if I miss one session I'm like I don't know what is lapping any more.  It is hard to stay on top of the very lengthy negotiation process and feel like you have the expertise to contribute every time in an informed way.  So I guess there is sort of responsibility on both side.  If we look at the list of accredited organizations at the sabre crime.  They were all accredited after a little bit of pushback.  Around 160 or something like that.  But look at how many organizations actually participate?  Maybe 20 or maybe a little bit more in terms of consistently participating.  Although there is the opportunity for online edge gaugement set et cetera set.  Also this if you want to engage you need to put in the effort.  Maybe how to encourage that.  The governments the way they have been supporting developing States to come to the negotiations perhaps there could be funding dedicated to bring in multistakeholders more to the debate.  And I know Patrick you have done work like that in the past and more initiatives like this would be expertly important.  An the fragmentation-point point that was mentioned, the question was should we be concerned about fragmentation with new processes.  To be honest, I think the fragmentation is already here to an extend.  You feel there is a huge desire to The conversations.  Of course this one is dealing with international peace and security and there is dealing with criminal activities.  But the reality with cyberspace is the division is not very clear.  Sometimes it is artificial and the distinction is not as clear cut.  There are overlaps that need to be undersad.  If we take for sam is many the open ended working group is trying to operationalized point of contact directory, each state will have one organization dedicated to answer responses and requests to de-escalate.  Will is a similar obligation almost like or expectation in the cyber crime convention about 24/7 networks and having a point of contact.  That a lot of States like win agency doing like the same role am sort of cybersecurity but also cyber cybercrime stuff.  We need do be more conscious in earls it of where the touch points are and how do he would understand them and reflect them better from policies.  Leer really multistakeholders can play a big role in bringing the nuances together and talking about them in a more sort of clear way.  That's the answer.

     >> PABLO CASTRO: I will start with the question from -- a very good question by the way.  Because we had this internal discussions, you know, in our ministry of foreign affairs and also conversation between Latin American state, Brazil, Argentina, et cetera about the situation we are at right now as mentioned before about the geopolitical conflict which is difficult.  The possibly recommend is not just the working group.  Also the cyber group and the discussion of the weapons system and it seems that we have this sort of fracture that is already there.

     So one of the reason regarding the POA.  It was action oriented.  Okay we have the discussion at UN which is -- well, by the way chili voted against the working group back in 2019 for the committee.  I can explain why.

     But at there moment we say okay, this is a good idea because it is something that basically would definitely from the perspective of Latin American.  Focus on capacity building and implementation and we can keep the discussion about national law obligations et cetera.  But we have critical needs that we need to achieve.  We supported the POA but you are right that we have the sort of things that we can do now and we have the working groups and POA and the part of discussion (?) the dialogue.

     And I'm not quite sure that I have the right answer.  And in a way, I think situations for the long-term.  The discussion is quite frustrating by the way on the cyber crime.  Sometimes even -- impossible to agree in a technical and practical solution.  Some States have principle an values.  Culture problems and geopolitical problem.  Maybe in the future will we have different Internets, I don't flow.  I agree and the way Lou you can manage this is something that definitely we need to discuss more and see what we move on.  I' agree it is something that civil state have a lot of concern how to deal with the process.  It is not just -- it is a very important matter and part of our discussions.

     Regarding the questions.  Very good questions and fundamental measures.  I have to confess to you, Patrick, sometimes I see a lot of state regarding multistakeholder in the engagement and so on and at the very end you come back to realize any are probably not going to do it enough to where we met.  That is true, I have confess.

     In my case the Minister of Foreign Affairs ten years ago.  I had no idea of the stakeholders.  I think the first time in sin gentleman (?).  I just came back to the minutester of foreign affairs and explained to the Ambassadors about the role of Microsoft in International Security and trying to make understand to them.  It has been fascinating.  (?) you don't see that in other processes.  Sometimes you know, in I can say your reality in Latin America is lack of people that still have expert.  Now you have the capacity to cover one thing and another.  I have to cover cybersecurity and cyber crime, would I would like to do with more stakeholder is to work from some specific R. line of actions.  If it comes to international law, how we can specific liquor with stakeholders in the regions.  Something that can be done and sometimes like the time and resources.  Lack of time and resources.  Many things to do, backing capital.

     But I would give again there is nothing that we did with Netherlands with the dialogue.  I don't think we have enough dialogues with the region.  (?).  Bring into the people in charge to talk and engage with multistakeholders, you know.

     And talk about, you know, process that we have, you know, at the level.  You know.  And I would add just it In mind that important roles that regional organizations play in this.  Around most of engagement of stakeholders thanks to the regions the same.  Chili now is the (?) when cybersecurity (?) there so so it is something especially on the implementation of CDM is something that we definitely would like to do more and engage the stakeholder more in the process.  I agree with you it is not good enough what we are doing right now.  Thank you.

     >> MARIE HUMEAU: I couldn't be a better advocate for our way of doing stakeholder engagement than you are.  National level back in the open-ended working group and I went back from the Hague and we were having a conversation with other stakeholders to actually before we entered from the rooms more or less open.  Then we would we be able to have an informed policy position.  I'm not saying we are doing it enough.  And I think that is one thing.  Probably not enough.  But we are already trying at that level.  Obviously those conferences I think Bert pointed out well that the IGF is a place also where we can have lots of open discussion and we should grab those opportunities that we have at the IGF, at our national IGF -- IGF, at also the regional IGF to also talk about those issues that we are facing in the First Committee and grab all of the expertise that is there.  There are so many people around here they know so much more that an we would.  We need to grab the opportunities.  Talking abouted IGF but I can talk about non-UN forum like rights con or the conference next month for example.  We need to take the opportunities to also ourselves engage with the stakeholder community as well.

     I mean row wean bringing capacity building.

     What are the objective and really like looking into the implementation and what is evens also for people.  So then -- what it means for people.  So then when they are informed we this gas engage consideration we need to demistify as char lot said.  For someone who doesn't have -- have been there for so long or is not engaged in enE. every da from all of the discussion or can be engaged from all of the discussion it is even more come politic Kateed.  On our side we need to do more on demistifying and what you can bring to the discussion.  We have the luxury of having a nice follow R. fiber o policy and we par tase Pate in petings and try to grab that Lu also May our knowledge and our experience to make everyone be able to also engage.  And we still have so were to learn and I'm sure some others have better ways of doing.  It is about changing on how we do and learning from others what they have been doing and then we can just like improve the way we engage.  It is true that we have the luxury of having a bit proper people.  Lappy to share.  But also really lappy to get feedbacks on how you would like us to engage with you because that's the only way we can make it better so.

     >> JOHN HERING: Thanks so much.  It is of critical importance.  Joyce you said that many were accredited but not so many make use of it.  A challenge and even for governmentsers the cyber time negotiations.  Did is a huge investment and there indeed, if you are not fooling to closely is is difficult to do so.  A challenge in terms of resources.  I hope that many multistakeholder will make the investment because it is porn.  I was a bit concerned that everyone was invited to provide input and so on late last year until I think March outcome April in year.  And then I think nobody heard what happened to the input.  An then we had the policy briefs which I can't imagine would be irreflections of the input received.  Here when I talk to people about the process there is a lots of -- (Engelbert Theuermann) limited access and so far our input has not been appreciated.  That is a huge concern to me because we need multistakeholder involvement in the process from order to get the multistakeholder model as an outcome.  That is certainly an issue.

     Responding to the question of Patrick how do he would involve multistakeholder and maybe I start with the global digital compact.  Thatle be used in national IGF to to discuss the process and input.  The government and multistakeholder input but used the national IGF for it.

     When it comes to the ad hoc committee, there we use very much our public-private partnership with the whole industry and cybersecurity platform where we bring all of the people together.  For instance, telecommand et cetera they are hugely interested in how the treaty turns out because it has serious implications for them.  Some of them are also actively participating but we regularly try tox change with them.

     And I must say this the weakest involvement Ob the open-ended working group because simply we are a small country.  Most people for them it doesn't it is not clear what it in it for them.  So we have a need to mobilize interest so they are fully aware of it.  We are working on a national position paper and analysinged government draft and we want to concert with multistakeholders particularly with the international law community so to say.  And think I think Pablo responded the colleague from Brazil on the important question of how do wimped from the First Committee.  The propose Alabamas has been around for a couple of years and has a lot of support.

     I also think it makes a difference in terms of implementation et cetera.

     The idea what the POS a exactly to avoid fragmentation and battles over new plan dates and have a permanent body and also settle the multistakeholder at least for that process.  We use the current augmented working group to use and discuss in detail how it should be fixed out.  But the elements should about be and then any sort of the configuration would be the follow-up.  We will have to see how it pans out.

     It is negotiations on this ongoing.  But we very much hope in the end we have an inclusive process in the end with one mechanism after the working group.  Because also more as we discussed for fly one of us it is difficult to -- any one of us it is difficult to entertain.  Thank you so much.

     >> JOHN HERING: Coming up on time here.  I will say Edoardo Ravaioli Ed is there a question on the line.  We exhausted things in the move and I will move to Iquique lightning round question.

     >> EDOARDO RAVAIOLI: We do have a question.  I wonder if we have time to answer it.  Amare was questioning the -- MOKABBERI was questioning the legit platcy of companies par at this timing in the field of international law development due to the con next of interest and lack of election by sit dens.  I wonder if you have a quick response to that, John.

     >> JOHN HERING: Maybe I will take that one.

     >> JOHN HERING: It as Phair question and fair thing to -- fair question and fair thing to be concerned about the scope and size of private industry engagement in fly conversations that relates to governance at national or international level.  The only thing I will say is Microsoft makes products and services that we sell and that help to augment the digital domain.  And we certainly don't want to be contributing to a space that is getting unsafe and more unstable to supporting the dialogues is critically born to us as an organization that a large technology company.  I think we are clear in that and we want to always be as transparent as possible from saying that obviously governments make the decisions here, we don't.  We are at -- I think together with our other multistakeholder partners pushing for a voice at the table, knot a vote.  That seems to be always the proper boundary and limitation there.  I hope that answers that question well enough.  And I will just say in the last couple of minutes a lightning round.  If there are sort of nongovernmental stakeholders in the room who have not engaged from the processes atless UN.  Would to be a quick piece of guidance on the way to be most impactful in hoping to support cost dialogues on cybersecurity at the UN.  Anyone can start.  Already.

     >> MARIE HUMEAU: I will start because I'm at the back of the table.  I will be short because we don't have too much time.  I would say so we are not -- we will listen.  Talk to us.  We will listen and be there, provide information, numbers, facts, show the impacts of the project that you are doing like in the different cubtries and different regions.  Record on what is happening.  Those information can on the give an added value to the discussion that will happen in the context of the UN.

     But also, if you start following if from a like it is not a one go.  If you started following and then come back and tell us you did there but you haven't talked if that or this.  And actually, I have to say I find it like very sad that people are saying that they don't see the impact of what they bring to the table.  I can say some of the outcome for the open-ended working group and report in 2021, there are actually things that that I heard happening at the beginning of the process.

     When it was a side event and discussion that we had with Civil Society, the private sector and academia and they made the way through the end report.  Actually, it is a long process, it is frustrating because it takes time.

     And you don't always interest everything you would like to see.  But it lakes its way through.  So just like -- makes its way through.  Just like continue and hold us accountable for making sure that we are taking the right position when it comes to those discussions.

     >> PABLO CASTRO: I with agree.  Also I encourage to approach States in just our conversation in other places.  But also from capital.  Most of the work that we did with the stakeholders is because they approach to us proposing side events.

     We have mad one very good from July recording the tool kits for marginalized stakeholders.  It is was very interest.  With Mexico and Colombia.  The stakeholders approached.  The working group or cyber cybercrime conversations.  So I encourage you to -- of course, during this hour metings in New York and -- we have a chance to create I would say even friendship.  One of the thick things that I like about stakeholders you share a beer and go dancing and then say let's go to work on something or just have some minutes.  And we were having this conversation very much with for example, Microsoft, with cyber cybercrimes.  I also liked submission of documents.  Thanks for the stakeholders with the really good documents sometimes using very good ideas.  It is never really I mean recognise dollars.  It is incredible.  Very good documents and put in there just for conversation.  Thank you for that.

     >> JOHN HERING: We are one minute over.  Please.

     >> JOYCE HAKMEH: 20 seconds.  Maybe choose one thing that you think you can contribute value and not try to do everything.  If you are flew to this, right.  If you -- if I want to look at the OAWG they agreed from July on a report.  A CSO or industry you want to be involved look at the recommendations and see can I contribute to one or more from my perspective.  National or regional and take that as the first step and gradually you will feel you are involved.  States are listening so your Jen put would make a difference.

     >> ENGELBERT THEUERMANN: I do subscribe to that.

     Also of notice we receive a lot of proposals and ideas, sometimes general and sometimes very specific and very often it happens that you pick certain elements up as a statement or argument.  But rarely you write back to the organizations thank you, I see you there.  I want to get better with there.  It is difficult to measure impact and you plight not hear about it and how have idea Lou it was used and might have more impact than you think that you have.

     >> JOHN HERING: Charlotte, the last word for 20 seconds.

     >> CHARLOTTE LINDSEY: Quickly in terms of engagement with is critical is fact-based and framing an the timing of the input particularly for States so they can then take the inbut to you can produce the input but have to could it in a timely way.

     >> JOHN HERING: Thank you all so much for showing up late from the day here.  Everybody online, folks like Nick up at 3:00 in the morn is.  Thank you to panel and join me in giving them a big round of applause.