was responding to an ICT attack with conventional weapons, thus legitimizing this misguided and unacceptable approach. It is our hope that, on the issue of international law, the final and consensually negotiated report will include the different considerations of the members of the OEWG on the matter. However, the initial predraft does not. The text presented by the Chair states unequivocally that “existing international law, complemented by the voluntary, nonbinding norms that reflect consensus among States, is currently sufficient for addressing State use of ICTs”. This view was submitted, even though multiple members of the OEWG have stressed the need to negotiate and adopt a multilaterally binding framework tailored specifically to State use of ICTs, in the context of international security. We strongly consider that the only possible way to fulfill these “legal vacuums” is to initiate an inclusive and democratic negotiation process that leads to the adoption of a new legally binding instrument, which would complement existing international law. We were pleased to find that the initial pre-draft included several of the proposals of new norms submitted or expressed by States in the context of the OEWG. In this sense, we would see particularly fit, the inclusion of some of the other norms that were suggested. For instance, that States should exercise jurisdiction over the ICT infrastructure, resources as well as ICT-related activities within their territories (State sovereignty in cyberspace) (China); that the use of ICTs remains exclusively for peaceful purposes (Iran), that it is necessary to ensure the integrity of supply chains (China and Iran) and that there is a need to prevent the militarization of digital space, which is one of our proposals. Moreover, we would also appreciate the inclusion of the norms contained in resolution 73/27 of the United Nations General Assembly, in the pre-draft. These norms already enjoy the support and approval of the majority of the UN members. We also welcomed the inclusion of the proposal of a global directory of Points of Contact (PoC) in the draft. Cuba echoed this proposal during the first substantive meeting, as well as in its written contribution to the OEWG since we consider that the PoC directory would be a useful tool, particularly in matters of assistance and coordination between governments and CERTS (Cybersecurity Emergency Response Teams).