D. Rules, Norms and Principles for Responsible State Behaviour Ecuador emphasises on the need for a wider recognition of asymmetries in the capacity to implement norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviour of States; as well as the differentiated effects that an ICT incident, for example, would have on a specific critical infrastructure in a developing country. Ecuador supports the sharing and dissemination of good practices and lessons on norm implementation, as this could serve to identify needs for cooperation but also possible gaps in order to propose eventual additional norms. With resolution 73/27 the UN General Assembly decided to convene the OEWG to further develop the rules, norms and principles of responsible behaviour of States and the ways for their implementation; if necessary, to introduce changes to them or elaborate additional rules of behaviour. Ecuador therefore believes that the draft in addition to the development of new norms could also include guidance elements on how to operationalize the existing ones. In that regard Ecuador suggests, for example, the following guidance on norm 13.b (GGE 2015)1: i) States could establish the national structures, policies, processes and coordination mechanisms necessary to facilitate careful consideration of severe ICT incidents and to determine appropriate responses; ii) then States could develop ICT incident assessment or severity templates to evaluate and assess ICT incidents; iii) transparency about and harmonisation of such templates by regional organisations could ensure commonality in how States consider ICT incidents and improve communication between States; iv) when considering all relevant information in the case of an ICT incident, States should conduct research on possible gendered impacts, and work inclusively with all stakeholders to understand the broader context of an ICT incident, including its impact on the enjoyment of women’s rights. Similarly, the following guidance is proposed for the implementation of norm 13.c2: i) if a State identifies malicious cyber activity emanating from another State’s region or cyberinfrastructure, a first step could be notifying that State. Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) are crucial to being able to identify such activity; ii) given that ICT incidents can emanate from or involve third States, it is understood that notifying a State does not imply responsibility of that State for the incident; iii) the notified State should acknowledge receipt of the request via the relevant national point of contact; iv) when a State has knowledge that its territory or cyberinfrastructure is being used for an internationally wrongful act that is likely to produce serious adverse consequences in another State, the former State should endeavour to take reasonable, available and practicable measures within its territory and capabilities, consistent with its domestic and international law obligations, to cause the internationally wrongful act to cease, or to mitigate its consequences; v) this norm should not be interpreted as requiring a state to monitor proactively all ICTs within its territory, or to take other preventive steps; vi) a State that becomes aware of harmful ICT activities emanating from its territory but lacks the capacity to respond may choose to seek assistance from other States, including through standard assistance request templates; vii) in such cases, assistance may be sought from other States, or from a private entity, in a manner consistent with national law. Commitment by states to cooperate with other nations and assist them in the event of a crisis is instrumental, particular emphasis should be made on the differentiated impact that an ICT incident on a specific Infrastructure could have in a developing country. 1 in case of ICT incidents, States should consider all relevant information, including the broader context of the event, the challenges of attribution in the ICT environment and the nature and extent of the consequences 2 States should not knowingly allow their territory to be used for internationally wrongful act using ICT´s 2