to their counterparts that they are indeed a partner in threat-information sharing, and help ensure that responders are focused on essential threats.  Thirdly, Information sharing should always be designed with privacy protections in mind. States should include strong privacy protections for the legitimate sharing, receipt and use of information in any cyber threat information sharing proposal.  Fourthly, on the international level, and as mentioned above, we believe the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, i.e. the Budapest Convention, represents the most comprehensive and widely accepted international framework aimed at prosecuting the criminal use of ICT. We therefore urge states to adopt it and utilize its information sharing mechanisms to foster efficient information exchange.  Finally, multistakeholder agreements, like the Christchurch Call to Eliminate Terrorist & Violent Extremist Content Online, can help set expectations and coordinate efforts across stakeholder groups to address dynamic challenges – including combatting extremist content online. (e) States, in ensuring the secure use of ICTs, should respect Human Rights Council resolutions 20/8 and 26/13 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, as well as General Assembly resolutions 68/167 and 69/166 on the right to privacy in the digital age, to guarantee full respect for human rights, including the right to freedom of expression; Australian Strategic Policy Institute, International Cyber Policy Centre Global Partners Digital  Implementation of norms are demonstrated by states’ actions, capabilities, and strategic policy direction. As this norm deals with including respect for human and privacy, examples of implementation include: - States’ support for civil society organisations that promote digital freedoms, domestically or internationally, like the Freedom Online Coalition or the Digital Defenders Partnership - States sponsoring or co-sponsoring relevant cyber and ICT-related resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council as a consequence of ratifying existing human rights conventions. - States’ domestic framework that oversees and controls activities of law enforcement, defence, intelligence and other security agencies - States’ privacy, data protections and human rights legislations, like the EU Global Data Protection Regulation; States endorsing principles like the right to be forgotten, and States entitling citizens access to public information (e.g. Indonesia’s law on public information disclosure). - States’ efforts to protect citizens (users), in particular vulnerable groups like children, indigenous people and elderly, in terms of e-safety. States assigning social and due diligence responsibilities to industries and internet services providers, like in the UK Online Harms paper. - States’ efforts to provide relevant advice on e-safety and cybersecurity for human rights defenders, privacy watchdogs and whistle-blowers  With regards to this norm, the resolutions referred to provide guidance on actions which states should take in order to comply with the resolutions. These include the adoption of comprehensive human rights legislation (or the existence of provisions in a constitution) which enable individuals to challenge acts which violate their human rights and obtain remedies.  States can also recognise in their national cybersecurity strategy, or other documents relating to the secure use of ICTs, the importance of ensuring full respect for human rights.xxi  In order to comply with this norm, states could adopt national internet-related public policies that have the objective of universal access and enjoyment of human rights at their core (HRC Res. 26/13) and take steps to identify and bridge any digital divides that exist in the state (HRC 32/13). This includes adopting measures, including legislative measures, to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to access information and communications technology and systems on an equal basis with others (HRC 32/13) and promote digital literacy among its population (HRC 26/13).  The state should also prohibit measures which intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online or publicly commit not to take such measures (HRC 32/13). It should also adopt a comprehensive legislative framework @DFAT DFAT.GOV.AU