Estonia’s response to the OEWG zero draft, February 2021 sharing information and lessons learned, including through the Cyber Policy Portal of UNIDIR (paragraph 75). 24. Estonia is supportive of the idea of States nominating national Points of Contact as it would increase the effective implementation of CBMs regarding policy/diplomatic, legal and technical questions (paragraph 76). We would also welcome continued discussions of establishing a directory of such Points of Contact at the global level and find a useful recommendation. Capacity-building 25. Estonia fully supports the idea that all UN Member States need to build capacities to identify and protect national critical infrastructure. To further enhance the section and show that we are not starting from scratch, we suggest enhancing the section with further concrete activities to reflect the three elements in capacity-building. As such, we propose adding the following mention in paragraph 86 under “Process and purpose”: “Capacity-building should be guided by the existing consensus reports of the UN Group of Governmental Experts, notably the voluntary and non-binding norms, confidence-building measures, and international law, as a way to help build action-oriented measures in line with existing agreements.” 26. We support the inclusion of human rights and gender perspectives in capacity building efforts and welcome the current text (paragraph 86, subsection “People”). 27. We welcome capacity-building being described as a “shared responsibility as well as a reciprocal endeavour, a so called ‘two-way street’” as a useful encapsulation of the spirit of cooperation in capacity building (paragraph 87). Regular institutional dialogue 28. We support the inclusion of the Programme of Action initiative in the report (paragraphs 99 and 112). Our discussions in the OEWG have made it clear that there is a need for a process under the UN auspices that would be action-oriented and inclusive, allowing also to engage all relevant stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder community. We reiterate that the PoA initiative has been discussed widely within the OEWG and as such it should continue to be included. 29. We could support the inclusion of the new OEWG group in this section but reiterate that this should not preclude the PoA for fair inclusion as a recommendation. The PoA should be reflected as a dedicated mechanism to follow up the implementation of existing undertakings, while providing a periodic opportunity to assess whether additional actions are necessary. For this reason, we consider it is important that the PoA be reflected as part of this group’s achievements. We believe that the initiative to establish the PoA, suggested by 48 States including Estonia, would allow to deliver results many delegations have been calling for throughout the OEWG discussions: helping to implement existing agreements, advancing capacity building and helping to prevent conflict. We also note that the wide list of participants for the PoA across regions means it cannot be considered as a national initiative but an international proposal that could be one of the most actionable elements of the OEWG. 30. If necessary, we would welcome further discussions under the current OEWG on how to reflect the PoA in the report in a way that also considers further discussions on its modalities and would set conditions for its establishment in the near future. 4