16 April 2020 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, France, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pacific Island Forum member states, Poland, and South Africa: National Survey of Implementation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 70/237. H. Conclusions and Recommendations H1. This section of the Pre-draft is unnecessarily duplicative – both of the preceding sections and within the section itself. Specific comments on recommendations are made in the corresponding sections above. H2. Each individual recommendation that “States continue to inform the Secretary General of their views on [international law/norms/CBMs/capacity building]” (paras. 68 (a)(d)) should be compressed into one overarching recommendation. A voluntary survey could provide a standardized structure to facilitate this, see: joint proposal of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, France, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pacific Island Forum member states, Poland, and South Africa: National Survey of Implementation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 70/237. H3. Likewise individual recommendations for establishment of various repositories (paras. 68 (a)-(d)) should be combined into one recommendation. To inform assessment of the merits of such a global repository, welcome advice from relevant authorities as to whether such a repository could be incorporated on a cost neutral basis into existing mechanisms (for example: the Secretary General’s annual call for updates from States on their use of ICTs in the context of international security, with responses incorporated into existing compilations of responses to that call and/or compiled on UNIDIR’s Cyber Policy Portal). X. Non-paper listing specific language proposals under agenda item “Rules, Norms and Principles” from written submissions received before 2 March 2020 X1. Australia welcomes the proactive approach of delegations who submitted specific language to the Chair, as set out in the Non-paper. X2. While the specific nature, scope and language would require further deliberation (and may not be the subject of consensus), certain proposals may more appropriately be considered in the International Law section of the Report, including for instance:    China: dot points 1-3 under heading ‘State sovereignty in cyberspace’ Cuba: dot points 1, 6 and 7 Islamic Republic of Iran: dot points 2-4. X3. Any language in the Report on the topics above should reflect consensus understanding of the relevant principles of international law, extrapolating their application to State conduct in cyberspace. The Report should also reaffirm that States must comply Page 7 of 9 www.dfat.gov.au/cyberaffairs