vulnerabilities, responsible behaviour of States and other actors and good practices, thereby ultimately supporting the collective development and implementation of the framework for responsible State behaviour in their use of ICTs. 44. In addition, States concluded that the UN has a crucial role in the development and supporting implementation of global CBMs. Practical CBMs have been recommended in each of the consensus GGE reports. In addition to these ICT-specific recommendations, in consensus resolution 43/78(H) the General Assembly endorsed the Guidelines for Confidence-building Measures developed in the United Nations Disarmament Commission, which outlined valuable principles, objectives and characteristics for CBMs which may be considered when developing new ICT-specific measures. 45. Building on their essential assets of trust and established relationships, States concluded that regional and sub-regional organizations have made significant efforts in developing CBMs, adapting them to their specific contexts and priorities, raising awareness and sharing information among their members. In addition, regional, cross-regional and inter-organizational exchanges can establish new avenues for collaboration, cooperation, and mutual learning. As not all States are members of a regional organization and not all regional organizations have CBMs in place, it was noted that such measures are complementary to the work of the UN and other organizations to promote CBMs. 46. Drawing from the lessons and practices shared at the OEWG, States concluded that the prior existence of national and regional mechanisms and structures, as well as the building of adequate resources and capacities, such as national Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), are essential to ensuring that CBMs serve their intended purpose. 47. As a specific measure, States concluded that establishing national Points of Contact (PoCs) is a CBM in itself, but is also a helpful measure for the implementation of many other CBMs, and is invaluable in times of crisis. States may find it useful to have PoCs for, inter alia, diplomatic, policy, legal and technical exchanges, as well as incident reporting and response. The OEWG recommends that 48. States, on a voluntary basis, continue to inform the Secretary-General of their views and assessments and to include additional information on lessons learned and good practice related to relevant CBMs at the bilateral, regional or multilateral level. 49. States voluntarily identify and consider CBMs appropriate to their specific contexts, and cooperate with other States on their implementation. 50. States voluntarily engage in transparency measures by sharing relevant information and lessons in their chosen format and fora, as appropriate, including through the Cyber Policy Portal of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. 51. States, which have not yet done so, consider nominating a national Point of Contact, inter alia, at the technical, policy and diplomatic levels, taking into account differentiated capacities. States are also encouraged to continue to consider the modalities of establishing a directory of such Points of Contact at the global level. 52. States explore mechanisms for regular cross-regional exchanges of lessons and good practices on CBMs, taking into account differences in regional contexts and the structures of relevant organizations. 53. States continue to consider CBMs at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels and encouraged opportunities for the cooperative exercise of CBMs. Capacity-building 7