• • • • • • Under the discussions section, we welcome the mention of the important function of capacity building to empower States and others to fully participate in the international discussions as well as the contribution it can have to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Under paragraph 80 we would additionally like to underline the mutual reinforcement of cybersecurity capacity building and the SDGs. Providing clear and explicit examples of strong linkage with specific SDGs might help underscore this connection, such as SDG9 on resilient infrastructure, SDG10 on reducing inequalities and SDG5 on gender equality. Under paragraph 82, the importance of multistakeholder platforms within and outside the UN may be stressed in the second sentence. We welcome the attention that was called to the “gender digital divide” under para 84 . Under paragraph 86, we welcome very much the principles to guide capacity building in relation to State use of ICTs in the context of international security, divided into process and purpose; partnerships; and people. We would like to underline especially the Global Forum on Expertise (GFCE) principles on sustainability; trust, transparency and accountability; ownerships; and inclusive partnerships and shared responsibility. which are based on the Busan principles for Effective Development Cooperation. o In that light, we would like to add “inclusivity and shared responsibility” to the first principle under partnerships, which are core principles under Busan. We welcome the mention of capacity-building is able to help foster an understanding of and address the systemic and other risks arising from a lack of ICT security under para 88. We would like to suggest to add the following to this para: “Capacity building may also help states publish their position on the applicability of international law in cyber.” We would like to add the following to para 90: “Efforts should enhance and support the work of regional organizations and existing global multistakeholder endeavors such as the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE)” Regular Institutional Dialogue • • • • In regard to para 98 the Netherlands is of the opinion that whatever form the regular institutional dialogue takes there should be room for implementation and for the elaboration of additional commitments. We welcome the mention of the proposal on the establishment of a Programme of Action (PoA) under para 99. We would like to suggest to add “multistakeholder consultations” in the last sentence in order to stress the importance of multistakeholder platforms. Moreover, we suggest to replace “with a view to establishing” with “as”, given the PoA is intended as a permanen UN forum to consider the use of ICTs by States in the context of international security. Moreover, we would like to add ‘open’ and ‘transparent’ to paragraph 109. Finally, we would like to add text from para 99 to paragraph 112 (additions in red): States establish a programme to continue to take forward existing agreements and commitments in their use of ICTs as set out in relevant General Assembly resolutions, in particular 70/237, as well as the conclusions and recommendations of this OEWG. Such discussions would take place under the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly as a Programme of Action for advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace as a permanent UN forum to consider the use of ICTs by States in the context of international security. The PoA would constitute a political commitment by States to agreed recommendations, norms and principles, and confidence building measures; convene regular meetings focused on implementation; enhance cooperation and capacity-building among States; and hold regular review conferences. Broad participation and multistakeholder consultations are also foreseen under the PoA proposal.