priority attention, such as regular dialogue and voluntary information exchanges on existing and emerging threats, national policy or doctrine, national views on how international law applies to State use of ICTs, and national approaches to defining critical infrastructure and categorizin g ICT-related incidents. Sharing of good practices in approaches to digital forensics and investigation of malicious cyber incidents could both increase cooperation and build capacity. The value of developing shared understanding of concepts and terminology was also highlighted as a practical step for furthering international cooperation and building trust. Other such measures included developing guidance on the implementation of CBMs, training for diplomats, exchanging lessons on establishing and exercising secure crisis communication channels, personnel exchanges, scenario-based exercises at the policy level as well as operational exercises at the technical level between Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) or Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs). National transparency measures, such as voluntarily sharing responses to an implementation survey or issuing national declarations of adherence to the framework for responsible State behaviour, are other avenues to build trust and confidence regarding the intentions and commitments of States. 64. Taking into account the experiences of regional bodies with establishing and maintaining Points of Contact (PoC) networks, and building on existing networks, the viability of establishing a central global directory of PoCs was discussed. At the same time, it was noted that the security of such a directory as well as its operational modalities would be crucial to its effectiveness, as would avoiding duplicative or overly detailed arrangements. The value of regularly conducting exercises among a network of PoCs was also emphasized, as it can help to maintain readiness and responsiveness and ensure that PoC directories remain updated. 65. As CBMs can be developed at the bilateral, regional or multilateral levels, States also discussed the desirability and viability of establishing a global repository of CBMs under the auspices of the United Nations, with the objective of sharing policy, good practice, experiences and assessments of CBM implementation, and encouraging peer learning and investment in capacity-building. Such a repository could also assist States to identify additional CBMs appropriate to their national and regional contexts and offer potential models for adaptation elsewhere. It was noted that any new global repository should not duplicate existing arrangements and that operational modalities would need to be further discussed. 66. States also drew attention to the roles and responsibilities of other actors, including civil society, the private sector, academia and the technical community, in contributing to building trust and confidence in the use of ICTs at the national, regional and global levels. States noted the variety of multi-stakeholder initiatives that, through the development of principles and commitments, have established new networks for exchange, collaboration and cooperation. In a similar vein, sector- or domain-specific initiatives have demonstrated the growing awareness of the roles and responsibilities of other actors and the unique contributions that they can make to ICT security through voluntary commitments, professional codes and standards. Conclusions and Recommendations 67. States agreed that the dialogue within the Open-ended Working Group was in itself a CBM, as it stimulates an open and transparent exchange of views on perceptions of threats and 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. 12 Commented [A25]: Transfer para 66 to conclusions section if discussion sections are deleted