are not in a position to sign up to such challenging proposal, which has to be discussed in depth along with other proposals and initiatives in the new OEWG. The same applies to the political recommendations such as creation of so-called “repositories (databases) as half measures which is not suitable for sensitive issues related to national security. The same applies to the proposal of national survey as a basis to implement norms grounded on the recommendation of the GGE. While a lot of issues and discussions are yet premature and certainly need further in depth discussions, the hastiness of some delegations by singling out POA as concrete proposal, devalues all work done by states over the past two years. This proposal is interpreted as a way to return the UN discussion on ICTs in the context of security to a single track format of GGE to give no possibility to further rule-making such as negotiation of legally binding instrument in the field of ICTs that would allow no room for misinterpretations. The zero draft is not consistent with UNGA Resolution 73/27 mandate in further development of rules, norms and principles of responsible behavior of States that the norms preceded by the Section of International Law, in which, the draft emphasizes the voluntary, non-binding and norms in relation to international law, taking in to account the importance of legally binding instrument needed in terms of international law. The section on international law, retains various proposals which confirms the full applicability of international law, including its branches to the use of ICTs despite the absence of consensus on this matter and in this regard, chair’s proposals to promote CBMs in the area of International Law is contested, unless to be discussed in a universal legal approach. Regrettably, the section on norms reduced to the operationalization of 11 norms, contested from the 2015 GGE report, and proposals of a number of states on new norms including our delegations views totally ignored, including them partly in a 5