In the same vein, we believe that existing International Law and the UN Charter in its entirety (para 37) are applicable to cyberspace. Greater substance could also be introduced in para 38 on peaceful settlement of disputes mechanisms, along the lines mentioned by the EU. As both the German and Japanese colleagues have mentioned in their interventions, the distinction and order of appearance between International Law in Section C and the Rules, Norms and Principles in Section D of the Report do reflect the substance of the relationship between the two, and should not be altered as others instead suggested last week. In this spirit, we also second the interventions of those who pleaded for clearly signaling the difference of the status of the 11 norms set out in the 2015 GGE Report which was adopted by consensus, with respect to other norms that don’t enjoy the same status. We join all those delegations who have mentioned the opportunity of including a clear reference to the National voluntary survey on implementation of UNGA resolution 70/237 and to make such a proposal as practical as possible, as Mexico mentioned, its template could be annexed to our Report as a concrete deliverable. On art.79, we second the remark made by Argentinian colleagues to go beyond the donor-recipient dynamic and mechanisms for capacity building, as well as making reference to the Busan principles of inclusivity and shared responsibility as mentioned by The Netherlands. We believe that in the capacity building and CBM sections there are indeed several points of convergence with positions expressed by NAM colleagues that could be taken into account. On the Regular Institutional Dialogue section, we hear the expectations of many on the possibility that the report notes the new OEWG, whose establishment was voted upon last year. We have also heard the suggestion from our Australian colleague to accommodate Iranian concerns on the PoA by clarifying para