Webinar session

Summary

This webinar discussed the achievements, failures, and future of the UN Cyber Dialogue, specifically focusing on the outcomes of the five-year UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on cybersecurity and international peace and security. The discussion featured experts from government delegations, civil society, and the private sector who had directly participated in or closely followed the negotiations in New York.

The participants generally viewed the achievement of consensus on a final report as a significant success, particularly given the current challenging geopolitical climate and deep divisions between states on cyber issues. They highlighted the inclusive nature of the process, which allowed unprecedented participation from developing countries and featured strong representation from women through the Women in Cyber Fellowship program. The process itself was praised for serving as a confidence-building and capacity-building mechanism, enabling states to develop deeper understanding of cyber threats, norms of responsible state behavior, and the applicability of international law to cyberspace.

However, several disappointments were identified. The treatment of international law in the final report was considered particularly weak, with participants noting that the document failed to reflect the depth and richness of discussions that occurred over five years. The report essentially ended where it began on this crucial topic, despite 40 states publishing national positions on how international law applies to cyberspace. Stakeholder participation modalities remained largely unchanged, limiting meaningful involvement of non-state actors in future processes.

Looking ahead, participants emphasized the need to build upon the established foundation rather than starting over, while ensuring the new permanent mechanism becomes truly action-oriented and maintains the inclusive spirit of the OEWG process.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This webinar was designed to reflect on the achievements, failures, and future of the UN Cyber Dialogue, specifically focusing on the outcomes of the five-year Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) process that concluded with a consensus report on July 11th. The discussion aimed to evaluate what was accomplished, what fell short, and what priorities should guide future negotiations in the upcoming global mechanism.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Consensus Achievement vs. Content Quality**: Participants debated whether reaching consensus in the current geopolitical climate should be considered a major success, even if the final report was “anemic” or “diluted.” Most agreed that achieving consensus was significant given global tensions, though some felt it came at the expense of substantive progress, particularly on international law applications.

– **Stakeholder Participation and Inclusivity**: The discussion highlighted both successes and failures in multi-stakeholder engagement. While there was praise for increased participation from Global South countries and the Women in Cyber Fellowship program, disappointment was expressed about limited formal modalities for non-state actors and the continued barriers to meaningful stakeholder involvement in future mechanisms.

– **International Law Application Challenges**: A persistent area of division throughout the five-year process, with participants noting that despite rich discussions and 40+ countries publishing national positions, the final report failed to adequately reflect the depth of these conversations or advance understanding of how international law applies in cyberspace.

– **Capacity Building and Regional Cooperation**: Recognized as a major success area, with emphasis on how the process facilitated learning, knowledge transfer, and regional cooperation initiatives. The establishment of dedicated thematic groups for capacity building was seen as a positive outcome for developing countries.

– **Future Mechanism Structure and Priorities**: Concerns were raised about the vague structure of the upcoming global mechanism, particularly the broad mandate of thematic groups and questions about how to ensure the new mechanism is truly “action-oriented” rather than continuing endless dialogue without concrete outcomes.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a diplomatic and constructive tone throughout, with participants demonstrating nuanced thinking about complex trade-offs. While there were clear disagreements about the level of success achieved, the conversation remained collegial and forward-looking. The tone was cautiously optimistic, with speakers acknowledging disappointments while emphasizing the need to build upon existing foundations rather than starting over. There was a notable spirit of collaboration among the panelists, reflecting the cooperative atmosphere that characterized much of the OEWG process itself.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Vladimir Radunovic** – Director of Cybersecurity and Diplomacy at Diplo, host and facilitator of the webinar

– **Anastasiya Kazakova** – Colleague at Diplo, following discussions in chat and bringing chat discussions to mainstream conversation

– **Emmanuella Darkwah** – Senior Manager for International Cooperation at Ghana’s Cybersecurity Authority, delegate in the UN Open-Ended Working Group

– **Catalina Vera Toro** – Alternate Representative, Permanent Mission of Chile to the Organization of American States, specialist in cybersecurity, digital governance, and public policy, with hands-on experience in negotiations on behalf of states

– **Rose Payne** – Policy and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital, representing civil society organizations involved in following UN negotiations in New York

– **Madeline Murphy Hall** – Senior Program Manager at Microsoft, representing private sector involvement in UN Open-Ended Working Group negotiations

**Additional speakers:**

None identified in the transcript.

# Comprehensive Report: UN Cyber Dialogue – Achievements, Failures, and Future Prospects

## Executive Summary

This webinar provided a comprehensive evaluation of the five-year UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on cybersecurity and international peace and security, which concluded with a consensus report on 11th July. The discussion featured expert perspectives from government delegations, civil society organisations, and the private sector who had directly participated in or closely followed the negotiations in New York. The conversation revealed a complex picture of diplomatic achievement, with participants generally celebrating the consensus reached despite challenging geopolitical circumstances, whilst acknowledging significant limitations in substantive outcomes, particularly regarding international law applications and stakeholder participation modalities.

## Introduction and Context

Vladimir Radunovic, Director of Cybersecurity and Diplomacy at Diplo, opened the webinar by establishing its purpose: to reflect on what was achieved, what failed, and what priorities should guide future negotiations in the upcoming global mechanism. The timing was particularly significant, as the OEWG had just concluded after five years of negotiations.

The webinar brought together diverse perspectives from key stakeholders. Emmanuella Darkwah represented the state perspective as Senior Manager for International Cooperation at Ghana’s Cybersecurity Authority and a delegate in the UN Open-Ended Working Group. Catalina Vera Toro provided regional organisation insights as Alternate Representative from Chile’s Permanent Mission to the Organization of American States. Rose Payne offered civil society perspectives as Policy and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital, whilst Madeline Murphy Hall represented private sector involvement as Senior Program Manager at Microsoft. Anastasiya Kazakova facilitated integration of chat discussions and shared poll results throughout the session.

## Major Achievements: Building Consensus Against the Odds

### Consensus Achievement and Inclusiveness

The most significant achievement identified by participants was reaching consensus on a final report despite the current challenging geopolitical climate. Catalina Vera Toro emphasised this point particularly strongly, noting that “multilateralism is getting very questioned nowadays” and that achieving “tangible results by consensus is also a way to prove that multilateralism is alive and striving.”

Emmanuella Darkwah reinforced this view by highlighting the unprecedented inclusiveness and Global South participation that characterised the process. She noted that “to have this with all member states there to have that dialogue” was itself a significant accomplishment, particularly as “many developing states feel that it’s become a process… it’s a learning curve.”

However, this celebratory view was challenged by Madeline Murphy Hall, who argued that “sometimes in the UN spaces, there’s a little bit of, too much kind of success hinges on consensus, recognising that this is not an ordinary time in history.” She contended that whilst consensus was achieved, “the report for five years process ended in a pretty anemic way, especially on the bit about international law.”

### Women in Cyber Programme and POC Directory

One area where all speakers expressed unqualified praise was the Women in Cyber Fellowship programme. Madeline Murphy Hall described it as an “outstanding achievement transforming participation,” noting that “gender diversity in panels now normal rather than exceptional.” Emmanuella Darkwah reinforced this assessment, highlighting how “gender-responsive capacity building integration” had become a significant part of the process.

Participants also celebrated the establishment and maintenance of the Points of Contact (POC) directory as a concrete achievement that facilitated ongoing cooperation between states.

### Single Track Mechanism

Participants also celebrated the establishment of a single track mechanism for future negotiations, which Madeline Murphy Hall noted “prevents resource waste and process fragmentation.” This was seen as an important structural achievement that would avoid the inefficiencies of parallel processes competing for attention and resources.

## Significant Disappointments and Limitations

### International Law Application Challenges

The treatment of international law in the final report emerged as the most significant disappointment across multiple speakers. Despite five years of discussions and the publication of national positions by around 40 states, the final report was seen as failing to adequately reflect this depth of engagement.

Madeline Murphy Hall was particularly critical, arguing that “if you look over the five years, that really hasn’t been advanced very much, at least in how it’s reflected in the report, and I don’t think was a really accurate reflection of the discussions, the deep and rich discussions that took place specifically on this topic.” She noted that the document “essentially ended where it began” on this crucial topic.

Rose Payne noted that “deep divisions remain” on international law issues, though she offered a more nuanced perspective, arguing that “if the goal of the OEWG was to bring state positions closer, then sure, it hasn’t necessarily fully succeeded. And I don’t think in some areas, it could succeed totally. But if the real purpose was to facilitate international cooperation, then alignment isn’t the whole point.”

### Stakeholder Participation Modalities

Another area of significant disappointment was the limited progress on stakeholder participation modalities. Madeline Murphy Hall was particularly critical, noting that “stakeholder modalities remain largely unchanged with continued limitations.” She provided a stark personal perspective, stating that “as a stakeholder that was vetoed time and time again, and by several states at several times with no ability to push back, I don’t think that the process was inclusive for stakeholders.”

This criticism was partially countered by other speakers who emphasised positive developments in stakeholder engagement, though even they acknowledged limitations remained.

## Process Value and Capacity Building

### The Process as Achievement

A significant theme that emerged was the value of the process itself, independent of the final document outcomes. Vladimir Radunovic noted that the process served confidence building and capacity building functions, whilst Emmanuella Darkwah emphasised how corridor talks and informal interactions brought states closer on many topics.

When Vladimir asked specifically about corridor talks and whether states came closer together, participants confirmed that significant relationship building and understanding had occurred through informal interactions, even where formal positions remained divergent.

### Capacity Building and Learning Opportunities

The five-year process provided necessary time for understanding complex issues, which was essential for countries that were new to these discussions. Emmanuella Darkwah explained how the process facilitated “cross-regional cooperation and learning,” enabling states to develop deeper understanding of cyber threats, norms of responsible state behaviour, and the applicability of international law to cyberspace.

The establishment of dedicated thematic groups for capacity building was identified as an important achievement, providing concrete frameworks for ongoing cooperation.

## Future Mechanism Structure and Participation

### Structural Framework

Looking towards the future, participants expressed both optimism and concern about the structure of the upcoming global mechanism. The establishment of two dedicated thematic groups was seen as positive, but significant uncertainties remained about their practical operation.

Catalina Vera Toro raised practical concerns about facilitator selection and scheduling for thematic groups, whilst participants questioned how thematic group discussions would meaningfully feed into formal plenary outcomes.

### Participation and Resource Challenges

Questions raised during the discussion highlighted ongoing concerns about resource constraints limiting participation, particularly for developing countries and Global South civil society organisations. The discussion touched on voluntary funding programs for participation, though sustainability concerns remained.

Emmanuella Darkwah emphasised the “importance of maintaining institutional knowledge transfer to ensure continuity between processes,” noting the risk that accumulated expertise could be lost if new delegates were not properly briefed.

## Stakeholder Perspectives and Poll Results

### Divergent Assessments

The state representatives were generally more positive about the outcomes, emphasising the value of inclusiveness, consensus achievement, and learning opportunities for developing countries. The non-state actors showed more mixed assessments, with the private sector representative being notably more critical regarding stakeholder inclusion and the gap between discussion quality and document outcomes.

### Participant Feedback

Anastasiya Kazakova shared poll results and participant feedback throughout the session, indicating diverse views among the broader participant base about the success and limitations of the OEWG process.

## Looking Forward

### Building on the Foundation

Participants emphasised the importance of building incrementally on the established foundation rather than starting over. As Vladimir noted, referencing older Dutch diplomats, the approach should be that “everyone left the room equally unhappy,” suggesting a balanced compromise had been achieved.

The discussion highlighted the need for the new mechanism to become truly “action-oriented” rather than continuing endless dialogue without concrete outcomes. The success of focused initiatives like the Women in Cyber Fellowship demonstrated that concrete progress was possible when there was sufficient political will and dedicated resources.

### Continuing Analysis and Engagement

Vladimir announced that Diplo had released detailed AI reporting and analysis of the OEWG process, and that a second webinar was planned for early September to continue the discussion and analysis of future priorities.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a complex picture of diplomatic achievement that defied simple success or failure categorisation. The consensus reached represented a significant accomplishment in multilateral diplomacy during a challenging geopolitical period, whilst the inclusive process had provided valuable capacity building and relationship building opportunities.

However, significant limitations remained, particularly regarding the substantive treatment of international law and formal modalities for stakeholder participation. The challenge for the future mechanism will be translating the trust, understanding, and capacity built over five years into concrete improvements in global cybersecurity cooperation and governance.

The webinar concluded with recognition that whilst the OEWG process had not achieved everything participants had hoped for, it had established a foundation that, if properly built upon, could support more substantive progress in the future. The key would be maintaining the inclusive spirit and institutional knowledge whilst finding ways to translate ongoing dialogue into concrete action.

Vladimir Radunovic: Good morning, good afternoon. Good evening, everyone um, thank you for joining and welcome to the webinar, first of the two, five years old, achievements, failures, and the future of the UN Cyber Dialogue. My name is Vladimir Radunovic, I’m Director of Cybersecurity and Diplomacy at Diplo, and I’ll be the host, facilitator of today’s discussion, together with my colleague Anastasiya Kazakova, who will follow the discussions in the chat, stimulate the reflections there, but also bring main bits of discussions from the chat to the mainstream. A quick reminder of what this is, so this is, let’s say, two parts webinar, where we try to reflect on the main achievements of the current negotiations on, let’s call it cybersecurity and the impact on international peace and security, because there are so many different formal names that they can be confusing. And we have just had the final round of the open-ended working group in New York, and within the UN’s first committee, which managed to come up to the consensus report, which is quite the news in these times of geopolitical rifts. So the first webinar today will focus on what actually is the outcome of the open-ended working group after these five years, especially the final report that we got on 11th of July, what it brings, what are the, let’s say, the successes of the report, what are the failures, what are the opportunities, maybe pitfalls? And we’ll scratch the surface of what comes next, but then we’ll be the focus of the second webinar, which we expect somewhere in early September. We’ll let you know, of course, of when we put it on the schedule. The format of today’s discussion should be, and that’s why I say discussion, should really be interactive. So we do have some distinguished guests today, and I’ll introduce them in a minute, but we invite all of you because we know that the room is full of people that have been following, that are experts in their fields, and we invite you to really share your thoughts. reflections on the subject. When it comes to the open-ended working group, there’s a background of this discussion. We have released maybe, let’s say, a detailed analysis of the final report and the final round of negotiations that we can share in the chat, the link, if you haven’t seen. And we also have followed with the AI reporting the sessions, the discussions in New York. So you can also reflect on that in transcripts if you want a bit more. Without taking much more time, before I introduce the distinguished guests today, we have a question for you. So Anastasiya , you can put the poll on. That’s one of the ways we’ll try to stimulate your discussion, but again, not limited. So the question is, how are you satisfied with the outcome of the UN Open-Ended Working Group? Of course, all of you that have been following and know sufficiently now to have the opinion on that, feel free to comment using the Mentimeter. So just scan the code and write the use code over there, and then respond to the question. We’ll reflect on your responses in a few minutes when we collect some. And in the meantime, let me introduce the speakers. I always prefer to read the positions so as not to make a mistake. So with us, we have Emmanuella Darkwah, who is a senior manager for international cooperation at Ghana’s cybersecurity authority, also delegates in the Open-Ended Working Group with hands-on experience in that. Ms. Catalina Vera-Toro, alternate representative, permanent mission of Chile to the Organization of American States, specialist in cybersecurity, digital governance, and public policy, also another person with hands-on experience in negotiations on behalf of the states. We also have Ms. Rose Payne, policy and advocacy lead at the Global Partners Digital, one of the civil society organizations heavily involved in following the negotiations in New York. And lastly, but not least, Ms. Madeline Murphy-Hall, senior program manager of Microsoft. Microsoft has also been very involved in following and contributing to the UN Open and New Working Group negotiations. Ladies, welcome. And I purposely underlined these ladies because I’m so pleased to have four discontent ladies and Nastia together. I’m really a minority here and I’m happy minority here. And I hope this may lead to some future negotiations on the greater participation of men in these discussions. Let’s see how it goes. So while our participants fill in the question, the query, let me start with you with a quick round, a minute of reflections, some bullet points. Emanuela, you might probably stand and I’ll turn to others. Are you more happy or more unhappy with the outcome? Was it a success or a failure? What’s your feeling, Emanuela?

Emmanuella Darkwah: That is such a broad question, broad for a minute, but I think in general, success is dependent on where you stand. Was it successful in terms of its inclusiveness? Absolutely. Was it successful in terms of the number of people from the global south representation that was present? Absolutely. Just in general, outlining things like common threats, looking at such intangible outcomes, I think it would be considered a success. But of course, if you are looking at certain personal perspectives that you would like to see reflected, that was present, then you might sway towards the other side. But I think in the general terms of what a multi-stakeholder platform it’s supposed to produce, I would say that it was very fruitful and very beneficial. Definitely a success.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thanks. I mean, you started with a diplomatic tone, which is absolutely correct. It really depends what we want. But I think your underlining of the participation and also the multi-stakeholder cooperation is really a good point. Let me turn then to Catalina. Again, another… a state’s perspective. Catalina, what’s your take? How did you leave the room on Friday afternoon in New York?

Catalina Vera Toro: Well, good morning everyone from this side of the world and thank you for this invitation and of course it’s an honor to share this panel with great friends of course and it’s great to see them even if it’s online. How I left that week, actually I was very very tired. There was a lot of work that happened outside the room of course as you probably all know. A lot of negotiations working around language, waiting for the revision papers at very late hours of course to trying to get to that final goal, common goal you could say, that it was this consensus basis final report. So at the end, I mean I do share the views that Emanuela just mentioned. Just getting everybody together in that room in a very open and inclusive way. Also to have a flourishing participation of multi-stakeholders that did great interventions in that final session. I want to highlight the shared paper that was drafted by a group of stakeholders. I think that was very meaningful and it came across of course to many member states of this articulation that was building throughout the years in regards of like the stakeholder community. I mention this because of course as many of you will know, Chile and Canada promoted for many years the multi-stakeholder modalities throughout the process. I think that is one of the things that I think was lacking at the end of the week. However, if you look at the glass half full, you could say I would mention this. You know we had that Like building and flourishing community of stakeholders, also many states having engaged with them outside the room and in like parallel lines, you could say, of the process as well. So there was great work that was achieved in that sense. But of course, the modalities were not there. We did have some minor references, at least for developing countries. And this is something that the Latin American countries also push very much was the capacity building thematic group. And in that sense, my delegation push very digitally in regards of having concrete reference to stakeholder participation in those spaces, because we believe them to be instrumental for this to be like actually actionable and to get the goals at the end of the day. So I think we got some elements here and there. I would say that no delegation left the room like completely happy and satisfied with what was drafted. However, we were able to find consensus very early in the morning. Many people were very surprised. I actually wasn’t because I felt that it was a very, very surgically balanced, drafted APR that managed to get many, many of the elements while also diluting certain language. And we can get onto that further along in the discussion. I think that getting consensus, given like the current state of affairs, it’s a great success, but also because we have something that it’s an instrument to continue to engage states to get us all together to have the proper dialogue that is inclusive, that has stakeholders that we can build upon. I think that multilateralism is getting very questioned nowadays. And I have to say it like being in a regional organization. We also get many questioning, you know, from from member states even. So to have like tangible results by consensus is also a way to prove that multilateralism is alive and striving. So I will just wrap it up because I think that is one of the main highlights of the week. And of course, there is always room for improvement. But we’re still there. We’re still engaged. And we have a long road ahead of us to continue to build upon.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thank you, Catalina. Well, I guess this reflects that the older Dutch diplomats, everyone left the room equally unhappy, which is probably good news. And it’s interesting that you also observe a success, particularly in these interactions in the process, which is which I think sometimes we forget the value of the process, not just the document which comes out and the agreement itself. But we’ll get back to details, certainly. Rose, now switching to to let’s say those that were on the sides of the negotiations, but still quite, quite inactive. Rose, what are your initial takes?

Rose Payne: Thank you so much. And it’s such a pleasure to be here today. Thank you for the invitation. And it’s great to see friends after only a week has passed since we were all in New York. I reiterate what Catalina said about being a bit tired. It hasn’t been quite enough time to recover, perhaps. But, yeah, it’s great to revisit what happened. I won’t say too much because I think both Catalina and Manuel have already captured it very well. It certainly wasn’t a given that consensus would happen at all, let alone so early on that final day. That’s something to be incredibly proud of. And I think that, again, as Manuel mentioned, the inclusiveness of the process is a real strength. It’s something that everyone should point to. I think particularly looking at civil society, we work with a lot of different civil society organisations and have been. trying to make sure that they’re included in this process throughout the years. And I think that it’s really clear that the kind of sophistication, understanding and awareness of this process has grown within the civil society community. And that is evidenced in that joint statement, which illustrated the ways that we’re kind of beginning to coalesce and do more work together. However, I don’t want to preempt what I will say later, but I think after the final session on balance I’m perhaps a little bit unhappier than I was beforehand with how things have gone and we can dig into that. And I would love to hear from other people and see how they are feeling after it has finally come to an end.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thank you, Rose. Excellent. Okay, let’s also hear from the private sector. So Madeline, please, and then we’ll come back to participants to see what they said in the poll. Madeline.

Madeline Murphy Hall: Yeah, great. Thank you so much for having me here. I’m sorry, I’m losing my voice a little bit. So I’m hoping I can hang in here, but yeah, thanks so much for having me for this really important and timely discussion. I think I will be the more dissenting view of the rest, but I’m happy that you invited me just for this reason, dissent is good and healthy, alive and well. So I think that sometimes in the UN spaces, there’s a little bit of, too much kind of success hinges on consensus, recognizing that this is not an ordinary time in history. We’re navigating a moment of truly profound geopolitical tension and knowing that consensus wasn’t necessarily a given. In and of itself, having consensus sure was successful, but I think that having consensus at the expense of where the final report ended, I think that maybe wasn’t as much of a success as the community would like to say. I think the report for five years. process ended in a pretty anemic way, especially on the bit about international law, where if you look over the five years, that really hasn’t been advanced very much, at least in how it’s reflected in the report, and I don’t think was a really accurate reflection of the discussions, the deep and rich discussions that took place specifically on this topic over the course of five years. And if you look at a body that’s really kind of focused on developing international law and cyberspace, and then that part of the report really ends more or less kind of where it started, that I don’t think from that perspective that it was a success. I also think that on the inclusivity, I think it’s interesting that the other members discuss the inclusivity, but as a stakeholder that was vetoed time and time again, and by several states at several times with no ability to push back, I don’t think that the process was inclusive for stakeholders, and I think that unfortunately, the new mechanism really does not change the rules for modalities of stakeholders, so I think that we also will continue to have a not very inclusive process. Sure, it’s inclusive for states, but I don’t think, and ECOSOC accredited members, but anyone else I think really will continue to struggle to get in and have their voices heard, and I think that that will continue to be a difficulty. I think there were some positives here on the, you know, the way that stakeholders can participate in the thematic groups. I think that’s that is good, and the chair handled that really well, and I think that however I’m concerned or I will be interested to see how that evolves, because I know that even though there’s rules that exist right now, all of this can still be up for debate at a later date as well, so we’ll kind of wait and see, and I think I think that I want to also remain optimistic that I’ve been hearing that the future mechanism is an action-oriented entity and I hope can really move beyond dialogue. Because again, I think that the dialogue is really important but we’re not necessarily seeing a decrease in cyber attacks. We’re not necessarily seeing an increase on cybersecurity from the state side. So I think that we’ll have to see how this evolves to be an action-oriented mechanism but I remain hopeful there. And I will say lastly, I do think that the part on the threats. So to end on a positive note, I do think that the part on the threats actually landed quite well. And that that conversation throughout the five years did develop and evolve and deepen. And so I think that is one of the stronger parts of the reports is kind of a base understanding of some of the main threats. And I think that also wasn’t a given. So it was good to see kind of where that landed.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thank you, Madeline. So if I can try to sum up what I hear from you is that to a large extent, most of you are, let’s say happy or you find it successful, the dialogue itself, the process, the tendency and the willingness to come up to the consensus. And that’s a good signal in these times, definitely. Particularly with the so different positions that we could see. Those of you that haven’t been falling open in a working group, you can certainly come back to some of those analysis and see how different some of the positions were. At the same time, certainly with some drawbacks, like some of you mentioned the level of, and particularly formal level of participation of stakeholders and the limitations in that regard, which seem to be staying in the next round. Let’s see how it goes. On the other hand, the unhappiness comes mainly from probably the most, the more watered down document. And as you Madeline mentioned, that it doesn’t necessarily reflect. the depth of the discussions that actually took place in the five years. And that’s something that we’ve heard also from other experts that have been following. That’s probably normal for the diplomatic process. The comforting thing might be that besides the final report, we also have the three annual reports, which is annual progress reports, which are in a way part of the package. And we hope to see more reflections in future. Now, let me come back to Nastia. Do we have any interesting comments from the participants on the poll?

Anastasiya Kazakova: You should be able to see this now. I think there are a lot of people who have actually shared that they’re either satisfied or somewhat satisfied. And some of the responses also echoed the views that in the current geopolitical situation, having a consensus report is at least very much satisfying. However, I found quite interesting to see that someone mentioned that Stasi.net allows non-state actors to participate, and this is not good. And also someone hoped for a legal abiding document. So I think that’s also quite insightful to see here. And yeah, one of the positive outcomes is that we should have a single track process.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thanks to everyone. If anyone wants to elaborate more, feel free to use the chat or raise a hand, and you can always jump in. I also find this comment that we didn’t expect much, given the whole geopolitical situation. I think managing expectations is important, and since we didn’t expect much, I think it’s good to know that we actually achieved. I want to bring us, before diving into depth of what we actually got in the document, to keep a little bit longer on the process, and come back to something that Catalina mentioned, the corridor talks. And then also the results, the successfulness of actually achieving the consensus. So maybe a quick reflection, I don’t know, Emanuela, maybe, and Catalina, firstly, for you from the state side, from the corridor talks, which we know are the essence of diplomacy. there. Did you have a feeling that the positions of the states are coming closer? And I’m not only talking about the big guys, I’m talking generally, also developing countries across regions, among the regions. Do you have this positive feeling that things are moving and we might actually, at some point in the next round, see easier negotiations are coming to some more fruitful outcomes? Emanuela, Catalina, briefly, any sort of your impressions? Emanuela, if you want.

Emmanuella Darkwah: Thank you very much. Like Catalina mentioned, from a state perspective, we definitely had broader understanding of some topics, the significance of certain areas. If you look at how a lot of countries enter the process, even understanding of international law, applicability of international law, even awareness of the existing norms of responsible state behavior, understanding existing threats, commonalities, critical information infrastructure, just things that you would expect should be common understanding to most countries were actually new to a lot of countries who are still building their cyber security architecture. So the product talks were very helpful. We had commonalities and I do think that it brought states together, even if you look at how the conversations evolved in the understanding of critical infrastructure and ensuring that countries have the opportunity to designate their own CII. There were areas that were very uniform across multiple countries, widespread support for the voluntary norms when we were concluding or even, I think, in the middle of the process, we had that as well. Ghana, for example, personally, my understanding of CBMs and the role CBMs can play was a big thing for us as well, especially moving into the sub-regional level where the ECOWAS community decided to also established their own CDMs and sort of taking what is done at the international level and streamlining it at the sub-regional level was very, very, very important for us. For example, we’re able to join the informal cross-regional group, working group of confidence builders and work with other countries, Germany, Singapore, South Korea, and who ideally are in different regional groups, you know, Ghana being part of ECOWAS, you have the ASEAN, you have the EU, but then when you have the opportunity to have these cross-regional groups, understanding what they are doing from their end and how that is implemented into our local context and our regional context could only be made possible with international forums like this. And even having a five-year process, yes, it is lengthy, but some of these topics take time to understand and take time to streamline into your national context. So I think that continuity gave countries sufficient time to understand the issues of time and see the role they have to play as well in some of these issues that were being discussed at the OEWG. Of course, there were differences, there’ll be areas like Madeleine mentioned that we will not all agree on, international law being a huge one, but I think if you weigh the issues that were discussed, we would probably say we had more pros than we did cons, and that is a good way for multilateralism.

Vladimir Radunovic: And I guess what I can also read from your impressions is that, which has been said many times in negotiations, that the open-ended working group as a process serves the role of the confidence building and capacity building in a way that even these interactions between people help hold the positions. Excellent. Catalina, if you wish quickly to reflect on this atmosphere of states and cooperation.

Catalina Vera Toro: Of course, I agree with probably 100% of what Emmanuel just mentioned. I just would like to come in very quickly from a developing state when we… mentioned inclusiveness to explain why inclusiveness is important, right? The evolution of the processes because it’s not only the open and the working, right? This is a long coming process that has been like built by blocks of other processes that have proceeded and that have not been very inclusive. So to have this with all member states there to have that dialogue, that’s what I would highlight and many developing states feel that it’s become a process like Emanuela mentioned and you Blara, it’s a learning curve. Like the process has benefits in itself, right? Because you learn from each other and the importance of multilateralism, especially for developing countries, comes from the common goal of not leaving anyone behind, right? So that is a very key thing to have to keep in mind when we say that it needs to be inclusive and I think the open and the working group through many different like there were funds for like developing states participation, the WIC fellowship for women participation, I think there were many elements that make this process very unique in itself. But from like corridor you could say works, I would highlight even though that the report didn’t include like good and accurate reflection of international law discussions, there were many many incremental you could say successes, for instance the national positions on it like international law from member states and regional organizations. We saw the EU regional position, the African Union regional position, 37 member states came up with their national positions when it came to international law and that in most cases happened in the sidelines throughout the five-year process. So there was a lot of like networking. that had concrete results that not necessarily were part of like the final APR, but happened because we all convened in that room. And coming from representing a member state of a regional organization, I think there is great value in that discussion because regionally we provided a mandate for like CICTE, our committee that covers cyber, to venture and engage with other regional organizations when it comes to, for instance, collaboration on CVMs, capacity building. So we have an integrative approach, but it’s on implementation of the norms, for instance, collaborating with other regions. So that happens because regional organizations also were able to participate in a way in those discussions, but of course the results are going to happen outside of that room. So I think that having that instrument or that space that brings us all together also helps us continue to build upon in the different levels. I mean, the UN is not the fora to do absolutely everything. And I agree with Maddie, what she mentioned, like how is this going to be action orientated? I had a view of what I ambition of action orientation for the global mechanism, but of course it’s not going to do what other forums or like regional organizations do when it comes to implementation. So we’re not thinking about duplicating. We’re thinking about how we build like a governance or ecosystem around cyber that has different levels, of course. And that is the success of the whole process. And that end goal will depend, of course, of how this comes to life in the global mechanism.

Vladimir Radunovic: Excellent. Another point I heard from both of you actually is the importance of regional cooperation and the depth and the contribution of the regional cross regional cooperation. And there, there were some papers which came from regional organizations and together and so on. And we hope there might be a strong component of the future mechanism, even though not formally, necessarily. Turning to, to Rose and Madeline, Rose, if you if you want with additional sub questions, certainly reflect on the previous one. But with additional sub questions, to what extent you have a feeling that because of these, let’s say, face to face meetings or online meetings between the non state actors and the government, to what extent you feel there might be more understanding or more willingness by the states to listen to the non state actors and their expertise and involve that in positions and whatnot. Do you see the progress there, Rose?

Rose Payne: Thank you. So this is a bit of a tricky area. So I will reflect on the previous question as well. But I think in terms of the willingness of states to interact with and understand some of the positions of non state actors, I think that this has definitely been an area of development. I think that that’s been, we’ve been very happy to see how willing states are to not only interact informally on the sidelines, but also in the room, I think that we saw a really good showing of states at the informal stakeholder session during the last meeting, which hasn’t always been the case. And you know, we’re grateful for that. That being said, there are still some states who severely questioned the value of stakeholders being in the room. There are also states who suggested that certain stakeholders kind of act as a state mouthpieces, which was disappointing, because there’s been a huge amount of work to try and challenge that point of view and to try and really make sure that our work is valuable to states. the negotiations. So that’s a bit of a mixed bag, I would say. But yeah, I guess just to kind of come back to the question about bringing the positions of states closer, or whether it’s deepened existing divisions, and I think it does come back again to that kind of divide between there being a bit, a little bit of two camps. I suppose that the question for me is, to what extent, that’s kind of the right question to ask. If the goal of the OEWG was to bring state positions closer, then sure, it hasn’t necessarily fully succeeded. And I don’t think in some areas, it could succeed totally. But if the real purpose was to facilitate international cooperation, then alignment isn’t the whole point. And here, I want to dig down a little bit international law. So this has been a key area of persistent division throughout the OEWG. And there are kind of broadly a couple of camps. So the majority position is that international law fully applies online as it does offline, and that the focus should be on understanding how it applies in complex situations. And apologies for anyone, I’m sure many people in the audience know this back to front, but just in case anyone doesn’t. And then the kind of minority position is the existing international law is insufficient, and that what’s needed is a new binding mechanism. And some states are still exploring whether there are gaps, or may not have yet taken a firm stance. So I’m not saying that everyone falls into these two camps. But I think there are a huge sign of progress, as Catalina mentioned, has been the fact that around 40 states now, plus the EU and the AU have shared formal national positions, either in the room as a kind of oral statement, or through non papers. And that these reflect a really kind of good shared understanding of how states believe that approach the application of international law, even if interpretations and conclusions differ. So, and there’s also been a huge amount of work across the community, within stakeholders as well, who’ve produced many, many guides on the application of international law, including GPD. There’s been a huge body of work to kind of advance understanding. And this is still huge, this is really valuable. It builds trust, predictability, understanding how another state interprets international law, helps to anticipate their behavior during an incident. And this is a concrete step, even if that alignment of positions hasn’t necessarily always happened. And I think just to pick up on something which someone said in the chat, which was about the kind of dedicated thematic group focused on international law really, really quickly. So some of the agreement, the kind of rationale behind that is that this division between these two camps does still exist. And some people were worried that if there’s a group to discuss international law, then that opens the door to conversations, further conversations about the need for a binding treaty. Some people were saying that actually they just wanted a group to discuss in a more in-depth manner how international law applies. So I think that it was one of those areas where it was clear that there wouldn’t be consensus. So it kind of just didn’t end up in the final APR. But I will say that a bit of a caveat, given what I’ve just said about how great it is that all of these positions have been published, the depth of these discussions just wasn’t recognized in the final report. And that is because these deep divisions remain. Specifically for us, there was a reference to the applicability of international humanitarian law, which was removed despite it being in the 2021 GGE report, a reference to the ICRC’s resolution on protecting civilians and people during armed conflict, which could provide a really… basis for future discussions on international humanitarian law was also removed and that’s really really disappointing for us. So I think that you know there’s been this work which is all about perhaps not bringing positions closer but about understanding one another’s positions that has been incredibly valuable but it’s really disappointing to see that that hasn’t necessarily ended up in the APR and yes we have previous APRs to draw on this the kind of body of documents but it’s worrying that that wasn’t in there because it raises the question of what will come next and yeah to quote Madeleine I think we kind of have ended up at the point where we began.

Vladimir Radunovic: Based on the international law yeah that’s true. Thank you Roswell and also thank you for opening up helping me to open up to open up the second question which I think is the Pandora’s box which is actually what’s one of the main achievements and I think what we had in the chat I think Geoffrey put it very well. The question would be according to you what are the main achievements and let me say disappointments when it comes to the outcome. I think all of you many of you reflected on international law and I think particularly in the second webinar in September we’ll have to put more emphasis on discussing what is possible in future on that topic but let me first before going back to Madeleine invite all of you in the chat just write three bullets what are for you the main achievement if you have been following obviously what are the main achievements substantial achievements and perhaps disappointments of the final report or the outcome of the open-ended working room so just feel free to write a couple of bullets in chat and we’ll reflect on that. In the meantime passing back to Madeleine certainly Madeleine feel free to reflect on the previous subject as well but then also open up this I think you touched upon some things initially when it comes to the threats which we recognize, international law. But I’ll let you try to come up to your bullet list of successes and disappointments. Madeline.

Madeline Murphy Hall: Yeah, I think as mentioned by everyone, one of the successes was that we had a consensus at all. And I think that in the beginning, I said that sometimes we hang our hat, I think a bit too heavy in the UN space on that this was a success having consensus. But I do think that in this geopolitical climate, that in and of itself on this very sensitive topic, I think it is a success to come out of there having consensus. And was the document more anemic than we would have liked to see? Yes, but I think that ending at a place where we also secondly, so having a consensus at all that wasn’t a given and secondly, having a single track mechanism that was really important to us as someone mentioned in the track, doing the analysis and attending and following two separate mechanisms on the very same conversation and topic would have really been a waste of resources and time. And I think eventually would have fallen apart. We saw it in the space context not too long ago where there were two separate processes and then eventually in the backend, they kind of weaved them together to then make one single track. So I think that that can’t be taken for granted either that we ended with one mechanism moving forward. And so I think that’s a pretty big relief. I think that from our perspective, one of the anemic treatment of international laws everyone’s kind of touched on, I think is a huge disappointment. I think that the second one is the stakeholder modalities and where those ended. We really kind of have modalities as usual. They really haven’t changed all that much from where we are currently. I think that there was a really strong push from Chile and Canada, and thank you so much for the work that you did to put forward the stakeholder modality paper, and really there was a lot of momentum there. And I think that it was frustrating because, you know, hearing and following the conversations in the room, there was a lot of support for better inclusive modalities, and so it’s frustrating to see, of course, in a consensus process that a small number of states can really impact the process moving forward in a way that kind of feels unfair when it seems that it has so much support for having a stronger modality. So I think that that’s pretty disappointing, and I think that the other kind of in the middle camp, I guess, not disappointing, not a strength, not a weakness, kind of what we will see is kind of the true vagueness of what these groups are going forward. I mean, there’s the capacity group, capacity building, and then there’s a catch-all that seems like it could be anything and nothing at the same time, and so I think that that, on one hand, is a bit disappointing that there’s not more clarity around that, but on the other hand, maybe it is an opportunity to, over time, have more clarity, maybe at a time when there’s better, you know, more geopolitical, less geopolitical tension, more political will. That’s the optimistic side of me, so I’m not sure. I think there’s a few things that kind of land in that gray zone of, we will see. But I will also like to note, and I mentioned in the chat, and I think this women in cyber program truly was astounding, and I think that in the cyber security circles now, we joke of, like, if there’s a guy on the panel, they’re the gender diversity, but… I think that, you know, we can’t take this for granted because as someone that’s worked in the diplomatic space security space for over a decade, it was always so exciting to be in the cyber security space and be on a panel where I knew for certain, there would be another female on the panel, if not all of us would be female participants, and this is so rare. Oftentimes, in these circles, I was the only female on a panel. And so coming into the cyber security space and, and really seeing that shift over the five years, really showed me that when states want to have a can take a concerted effort on an issue, and truly move the needle along. They can, and I think that’s still exciting to see happen in such a tense geopolitical time that on a really focused issue, the needle can be moved, and I think that that shouldn’t be taken for granted and shouldn’t be under counted how successful that program was.

Vladimir Radunovic: Yeah, I think this is a good observation or a positive note that there are things we maybe we don’t see them necessarily in the final document, but you actually see the progress and I think this is definitely a good one. It’s not just related to women in cyber which is absolutely amazing program you also have support for developing countries and I think someone in the chat also mentioned the increasing support for developing countries, probably one of the failures is that this final outcome is is not coming to sort of a voluntary funding program for participation, there is a mentioned still be discussions on that. But with that, maybe, maybe coming back to Emanuela and certainly if any one of you wants to jump in further, come back to Nastia soon to see what’s in the chat. If anyone wants to jump in, feel free. Emanuela, what would be briefly your disappointments and, and, well, let’s say success points of this Open Ended Workgroup substantially, basically.

Emmanuella Darkwah: I like how you started with disappointments before successes. I do like to be an optimist, but disappointments, I mean, basically everyone has touched on. a little bit of what they would like to see. But for me, for example, I know that moving forward, we were hoping for more elaboration on the dedicated thematic groups to sort of see what that would look like, have a visual of how that will be discussed moving forward, how time will be allocated, sort of a structure in terms of what to expect in the future, permanent mechanism, which unfortunately did not happen that way. So we sort of foresee a lot of conversations around structure moving forward and how we’re going to allocate time. As was mentioned earlier, if you take a thematic group like international law, that can open a Pandora box of multiple conversations. But then you cannot also let that outweigh a conversation like capacity building, which is important to a lot of developing countries and small island states and etc. So it’s more of a question of how we’re going to prioritize different conversations moving forward. And I think I would have, or Ghana would like to see some sort of outline, some sort of structure, but then even get in again to this process and get into this point and get into a point where we have even a single track mechanism in itself is an achievement. So we sort of have to take our wins and then keep moving forward. Definitely having more gender diversity was incredible. Like Madeline said, I know she’s been in the space longer, so she kind of tested this, but for someone like me, who even started the International Cooperation Team from the very beginning, we did not see these numbers when you have a panel discussions. This is the first time I’ve sat in a panel and we are all women and just seeing that growth, seeing that evolve, seeing the intentionality of gender in the document in terms of gender responsiveness to capacity building, integrating gender perspectives, international ICT policies for countries that have not yet drafted or are looking to revise. the drafting of their national cybersecurity policies, bringing their awareness to these areas, bringing their conscience to these areas to ensure that it is considered moving forward, I think was an incredible success. Conversations around capacity building cannot be left, I cannot receive it without saying that definitely was incredible as well. So I think that again, success is dependent on where you stand, but then there are areas that we could have improved, there are areas that we could have talked more about. But if you look at the vastness of capacity building threats, norms, international law, CBNs, there isn’t sufficient time within a week to discuss all these topics. So if we have some tangible items, like even the POC and the eight agreed norms, I think we should take that as a good thing.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thanks, Emanuela. And I come back to what Catalina mentioned before, is that the UN is not the only venue where things happen. It is some sort of a multiplier as well. So we hope things will happen elsewhere. One of my disappointments in a way is the way the global mechanism is structured, again, with a very limited time for discussion, unless they change something with more ad hoc discussions and so on. And I’m not sure that so deep questions like the international law applicability can be tackled in such a short time, especially matched together. But we’ll come back to that. Let me firstly ask Nastia to just briefly summarize what’s in the chat, and then run the next poll, which drives us to the last question of what comes next. So Nastia, a quick summary from the chat.

Anastasiya Kazakova: Sure. To your questions, what will be the main positives and negatives as an outcomes of the UN OWHD? I think two participants have mentioned the POC directory and the single track process. For the future, there’s been also, I think, a really interesting point about the more voices in that list. And I think delegations from the global South who increasingly who increased their participation in this OIWG comparing to the previous processes. And the two questions on civil society, probably some of the speakers would be interesting to address. How can we expect more civil society, especially from the Global South, to be present and more involved in the OIWG, sorry, in the future process? And what could be the solution for the states that have little resources to be engaged in this process as well?

Vladimir Radunovic: Thank you, Nastia. Excellent points. Keep discussing in the chat. We’ll bring it back. And this in a way leads us to the third question, which is what we should focus on in the next rounds. What is left for the next negotiations? We touched upon a lot on international law, but there are certainly other things. Before I come back to the speakers, Nastia, can you put on the second poll? So this is again the invitation for all of you. In your view, what should states prioritize in the UN Cyber Dialogue? And we have suggested some of the topics there, and we’ll be seeing how the things move. But if there is anything that we didn’t mention there, feel free to add in the chat as well, so we try to get a general picture. Now, coming back to this question, back to Catalina now, certainly feel free to reflect how you already did to a large extent on the successes and failures or disappointments, but feel free to add to the previous one. But maybe extract from them what you see as is the priority to be left for the global mechanism that inshallah starts next year. Catalina.

Catalina Vera Toro: Well, let’s be hopeful. So in March, we shall all reconvene. There will be election of chair, right? And there are many elements that are in the final APR and that are drafted as part of the structure of the global mechanism. I like how Maddie mentioned it as anemic. I would say that somewhat diluted in some elements. And that is one of the concerns that I personally have, because when you have some diluted or open to interpretation, when we reconvene, I mean, the divergences are still going to be there, right? So they’re not going to magically disappear. So I like how this this poll is going on, like how we should prioritize. But there are something very practical things that need to be addressed, right? We have two dedicated thematic groups. We need to assess facilitators, for instance, for those to get them working. So we have like a schedule of a process that needs to be assessed. There are practical elements that need to be also discussed and agreed upon. And that could actually open a very long discussion that could stall some very meaningful discussions that need to be had, for instance, in capacity building, in the implementation of norms, right? We might like, because this is the UN and it happens, when we discuss modalities, it gets tricky because it also underlines with political elements that come into play and some like tokens of negotiation that come back and forward in order to have the mechanism actually doing what it does, mechanism, right? Working, a machine working. So that’s one of the concerns that I have. Also, in regards of like, we had a great chair that was great into getting very creative on with the modalities that we had to get participation of stakeholders, right? And to have those town halls and to have a very inclusive nature of dialogue to get everybody engaged. But that is not a given because how that the APR and the global mechanism is drafted. is somewhat left to as a tool for the chair to use, right? So those are like the practical concerns that I have. When it comes to things that are like somewhat disappointing you could say, of course, and I like my delegation is probably gonna push is of course, get back in the references to IHL and international law, because of course there are several like concrete examples of cross-regional efforts on the interpretation of this. There is one led by Switzerland, but there are other cross-regional that was like consensus language, very mild down language when it comes to like minimums on international law that was delivered by Vietnam in representation of a cross-regional group of states. My delegation being represented by that. Of course, there was great work being done on this by the African Union and Middle East countries and also led by Egypt, for instance, when it came to international law and what they envision. So I imagine they will try to bring out those like priorities back again and the divergences are gonna still be there. But like on more practical things, like we have deliverables. Of course, the POC is one of those and the global mechanism in itself. But of course there is the lacking of the voluntary fund. There are references to this also to the portal, but nothing concrete. So maybe we’ll go back on this, right? We had the WIC fellowship, a great program that got us to have meaningful participation of women that is also not a given as we get back to the global mechanism. And we have to say that is funded by donor countries. It’s not a UN process. So we did manage to get the gender references in the final APR. That is good. It gives us the ground to build upon. And also a testament of what happened in these five years because of the week, but it’s not a given as I said. And also I think that we’re also lacking, and this is something that my delegation is completely committed, is the lack of reference of key resolutions and instruments on, for instance, human rights. And that is structural. When I mentioned that there are things that the UN does and that are not done everywhere else, one of the things that the UN should do, and this is something that Chile believes, is the promotion of human rights and the progressiveness of human rights. And when we’re talking about discussions of technology and the application of technology, the implications of technology, of course the human rights references need to be there. So those are somewhat lacking and we would have wanted to have them very reflected. And then something that is very, very careful myself, because I do value incredibly, and from my personal experience, the value of stakeholders, better modalities. We didn’t have a great improvement on modalities. I mean, we still have the same modalities with some references of how we can get them in the room in some way. Of course, the dedicated thematic groups, because they will be hybrid and informal, gives us room for being creative on having stakeholder participation. And I saw in the chat how we get civil society stakeholders from the Global South in that room and in that discussion, maybe through those venues of informal meetings and hybrid meetings could be a way. to get more Global South voices from stakeholders. But of course, because they are informal, they’re not gonna have a concrete, like formal consensus basis outcome. So how we link the discussions to the plenary are set by the facilitators in a sense. And that in one way could be improved, you could say, once we get to the global mechanism. So we have a good like floor, like stable floor. We have a house. Now we need to think about how we improve it, how we furnish it in order to be what it, like the best way, like the best thing that could come out of it. But of course there are many elements there. And when it comes to capacity building, of course there is this dedicated thematic group. There are regional proposal for Latin American countries was very concrete on what we envisioned for this to not duplicate what was happening in the plenaries, to have like a very apolitical, very straightforward, action-orientated, prioritizing the needs of states in a technical way. That was not part of the final APR. That is also gonna have to be discussed by member states and agreed upon. And we also have a dedicated thematic group that is, as Maddie mentioned, like everything and beyond. So what is that gonna come to become? That is also gonna be part of the discussion because we have it there. And of course we have many, many elements to play around with and to build with. It’s just that getting back together, getting quickly that discussion on modality sorted and then onto work could take a little bit of time, maybe more time that we are anticipating. And that is something that… you could say it’s somewhat concerning from my part, but of course I’m always positive and I think that we managed to get consensus this time around. Let’s hopefully get consensus and get on to work because it is much needed.

Vladimir Radunovic: The problem is that the agenda that we are putting ahead for the global mechanism is so wide and ambitious that it’s a good question to what extent these two thematic groups will be able to tackle that, but that’s something we’ll also touch more deeply in the second webinar in early September. We have a few more minutes left and thank you all for sharing the excellent reflections. I see capacity building obviously reflects the thematic group that we have and everything else will have to be put in that one thematic group. Now probably two minutes if you can try to reflect and close with what’s left for future negotiations. Rose, then Madeleine, then Emmanuel if okay.

Rose Payne: Rose. Thank you, I’ll do my best to be short. I guess that a bit of a call to action perhaps. Of course we regret the lack of progress on stakeholder modalities, but they are the modalities that we’ve ended up with. So we need to get organized as non-governmental stakeholders. We need to work together more closely and particularly I want to pick up here on what Catalina was saying about the thematic groups. They’re very broad, it’s a little bit hard to understand exactly what they’ll look like, but if we’re going to put our kind of optimist hat on, that’s an opportunity in itself. It’s a chance to really support states in thinking through what questions should be addressed in those thematic groups. It’s a chance to really think again about what that link between the thematic groups and the plenary and how the work of the thematic groups will be reflected in the plenary. And here I would really appreciate on a personal the chance to think through with anyone strategically how we can make sure that stakeholder engagement isn’t in the thematic groups isn’t used as a bargaining chip once again. And I think it’s also an opportunity for us to think about how we get more visibility for all of the fantastic work that does happen outside of the UN and to really think about how we can further help states to understand what resources are out there for them to draw on. I am personally very keen to collaborate further on this with other stakeholders and across different stakeholder groups. I think that kind of cross-stakeholder work is really important so please do reach out following this and I’ll pop my email in the chat if anyone would like to do that. But yeah just to kind of, I don’t think I’ve got time to concentrate too much on the substance but just to reiterate the kind of call to focus on the real work in the future mechanism which is thinking through the application of international law, building cooperation, delivering capacity building where it’s particularly needed and hopefully not to get distracted either by kind of the process element of it but also by suggestions which may be put on the table to create ambiguity around the application of the existing body of international law and international humanitarian law. Great, thank you.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thank you Rose and please you can also in the chat reflect on that excellent question on how to get more involvement of the Global South civil society organizations because I know GPD has been very active in this field and connected so you can probably reflect give some ideas and certainly your contact. Madeline.

Madeline Murphy Hall: Sure I’ll be quick recognizing we’re kind of we’re close to time or at time here so I think one making sure that we don’t backslide and I think that Catalina had a good vision for it that we have the foundation now let’s add the curtains and add the decoration and I I think that we have, whether we like it or not, this is kind of where the OEWG APR ended. The OEWG mandate is done and we have to kind of look forward and I think make sure that we truly do build off of the work that did happen in the OEWG and try and find ways that we can bring back those truly rich discussions that did happen over the course of the five years into the permanent mechanism. So making sure not all is lost, for example, on international law and trying to figure out even though those discussions weren’t reflected in the final APR, all the states know they happened. And I think continuing to find ways to make sure in the permanent mechanism that those discussions are not just reflected but are deepened and continue. And so I think the first one is to truly build from what the OEWG was and make sure that we build from there and not backslide. The second is make sure that the new mechanism is indeed action oriented. What that means, how that looks, I’m not sure, but let’s make that happen. And I think thirdly, what Rose said is, we have what we have now. We can be disappointed, we can be elated with how it ended up, but this is where we are. And so how can we truly look forward and find creative ways for the stakeholder community to participate better, to participate more? I think the thematic groups and the fact that the chair made those informal was helpful so that stakeholders could participate and trying to find a way. to use those thematic groups to kind of then inject the, inject information, whether it’s Intel or analysis or whatever it is from the stakeholder community, inject that into the formal process as well. So I think for the stakeholder community to really look at the thematic groups and how those landed as an opportunity to really influence the formal process as well too.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thank you, Madeline. I think, I hope that on the part of the institutional knowledge of the open-ended working group in a way to bring everything back now stays more in the delegations as well, which is good as part of capacity building. So they own that knowledge and bring it back. So that’s hope. And on the practical one, let’s hope that the initiatives that exist like GFC and certainly what we do, the Geneva Dialogue on Responsible Behavior and then the others, and Spiber and so on also find a place to feed into that, the Paris School and so on, so that we have these expert inputs. Emanuela, the biggest burden is on you to close now, to give us some positive thoughts and optimism, what is left for the future negotiations?

Emmanuella Darkwah: The beauty is that I think everything has been said. We need to make progress. The great thing about this is that we have genuinely seen tangible outcomes in every country, every stakeholder, no matter which side of the fence you are on, on whether it was successful or not, you can list tangible outcomes that emanated as a result of this process. Whether it’s from the previous cycle of the OEWG till now, you can see that slowly and steadily we are making progress. I agree with all the points that have been said on the thematic groups, the need for visibility in terms of what goes on outside the room to be incorporated into a lot of the great work that goes on in the room. Moving forward, definitely would like to see a broader, more work on international law. I mean, the AE position. and highlights this very well and very clearly on how there’s a need for more capacity and more understanding in this regard to ensure that we even understand some of the different principles and how they are applicable. Definitely more work, hopefully, on capacity building as well. We’ve been highlighting this for a very long time, but intangibly, what does that look like? How does capacity look like within regional and national context? The good thing is that there’s a lot to build from, truly, and a lot of great work has been done. For the first time, we see countries who can themselves say that this is the first time they got to participate in something so holistic and start a process and see to the end. Ghana is a great example of that. We’ve been there from the beginning. We took different steps. Our knowledge grew, our resources grew, and we saw it to the end because of programs like the Women in Cyber Fellowship. So just seeing these tangible outcomes, it will be really important to ensure that we don’t go back. Like Catalina rightly, perfectly put it, we have a building, we have a foundation, we have a house. Add to it, don’t break down the entire house and then start rebuilding from scratch. There is a great piece of structure to work with, and it will be good to see how that grows over time. And lastly, I think it’s also important to share the knowledge we’ve received to ensure that even if you are not the one who is going to continue in the next process, whoever is representing your country has incredible knowledge and resources from all the work that has been done from the beginning. Because what we see from the technical side sometimes is difficulty with continuity. So ensuring that there is great continuity, shared knowledge, shared understanding, Diplo-GFC doing great work in building capacity of states to ensure that we continue this work as well.

Vladimir Radunovic: Thank you, Emmanuella, for the positive note. And I see that the spirit of the Open-Ended Working Group still keeps you with the analogies that the chair has been putting in the delegations now with the house. So with that final note, I hope that. how we can be happy with what we have so far. There was some success, I think we should recognize it. Whether more could have been done, possibly, but in current geopolitics, it’s a good question, but it is certain that there is still much to be done in future. With that, I really thank you all ladies for joining me today and everyone else in the room. As a follow-up, we’ll provide a short AI-produced report, the recording as well, so we share that with all of you, and we’ll definitely follow up with the announcement on the next webinar somewhere in early September after. I hope all of you will have some good vacation and leave. I think you all deserve it well. Thank you so much for joining and keep in touch. Bye-bye. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

Consensus achievement as significant success despite geopolitical tensions

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Catalina Vera Toro
– Rose Payne
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Success measured by inclusiveness and Global South participation

Consensus achievement despite geopolitical tensions as major success

Process inclusiveness and stakeholder sophistication development as strengths

Consensus at expense of substantive content, particularly on international law

Summary

All speakers agreed that achieving consensus in the current challenging geopolitical environment was a notable accomplishment, though they differed on whether the trade-offs were worthwhile

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Value of inclusiveness and Global South participation

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Catalina Vera Toro
– Rose Payne

Arguments

Success measured by inclusiveness and Global South participation

Learning curve benefits particularly valuable for developing countries

Process inclusiveness and stakeholder sophistication development as strengths

Summary

Three speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive participation, particularly highlighting the meaningful involvement of Global South countries and the learning opportunities this provided

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Single track mechanism as positive outcome

Speakers

– Madeline Murphy Hall
– Anastasiya Kazakova

Arguments

Single track mechanism prevents resource waste and process fragmentation

Single track process viewed as positive outcome by participants

Summary

Both speakers identified the establishment of a single track mechanism rather than parallel processes as an important achievement that prevents resource waste

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Women in Cyber program as outstanding achievement

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Gender-responsive capacity building integration as significant progress

Women in Cyber program as outstanding achievement transforming participation

Summary

Both speakers praised the Women in Cyber program as a remarkable success that fundamentally transformed gender representation in cybersecurity discussions

Topics

Human rights | Development

Limited progress on international law despite extensive discussions

Speakers

– Rose Payne
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Removal of international humanitarian law references despite previous inclusion disappointing

Limited progress on international law despite five years of discussions

Summary

Both speakers expressed disappointment that the final report did not adequately reflect the depth of international law discussions that occurred over five years

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized how the OEWG process facilitated valuable cross-regional cooperation and enabled regional organizations to develop concrete collaboration frameworks

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Catalina Vera Toro

Arguments

Cross-regional cooperation and learning facilitated by the process

Regional organizations able to develop concrete collaboration mandates

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers expressed frustration with limited stakeholder participation modalities and called for better organization among non-governmental actors to work within existing constraints

Speakers

– Rose Payne
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Need for better organization and strategic coordination among non-governmental stakeholders

Stakeholder modalities remain largely unchanged with continued limitations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

All three speakers recognized the inherent value of the extended process itself as a capacity-building and confidence-building mechanism, particularly for developing countries

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Catalina Vera Toro
– Vladimir Radunovic

Arguments

Five-year process provided necessary time for understanding complex issues

Learning curve benefits particularly valuable for developing countries

Process itself serves confidence building and capacity building functions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Process value over document content

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Catalina Vera Toro
– Rose Payne
– Vladimir Radunovic

Arguments

Corridor talks and informal interactions brought states closer on many topics

National positions publication by 40 states plus regional organizations as significant progress

Civil society sophistication and joint statement development as positive evolution

Process itself serves confidence building and capacity building functions

Explanation

Despite coming from different perspectives (state representatives, civil society, academia), speakers unexpectedly agreed that the process itself – including informal interactions, networking, and capacity building – was often more valuable than the formal document outcomes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need to build incrementally rather than start over

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Need to build upon existing foundation rather than starting from scratch

Vague structure of catch-all thematic group creates uncertainty and opportunity

Explanation

Despite Murphy Hall’s generally more critical stance, both speakers agreed on the importance of building incrementally on existing achievements rather than dismantling and rebuilding the framework

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers showed strong consensus on the value of the inclusive process, the achievement of consensus despite geopolitical tensions, the success of gender diversity initiatives, and the importance of building incrementally on existing foundations. However, they diverged on whether the substantive outcomes, particularly regarding international law and stakeholder modalities, were adequate.

Consensus level

High consensus on process value and incremental progress approach, moderate consensus on overall success assessment, with disagreement mainly on the adequacy of substantive outcomes. This suggests a shared understanding of the diplomatic realities while maintaining different expectations for concrete results.

Different viewpoints

Assessment of OEWG success and consensus achievement

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Catalina Vera Toro
– Rose Payne
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Success measured by inclusiveness and Global South participation

Consensus achievement despite geopolitical tensions as major success

Process inclusiveness and stakeholder sophistication development as strengths

Consensus at expense of substantive content, particularly on international law

Summary

While most speakers viewed the consensus as a success given geopolitical tensions, Murphy Hall argued it came at the expense of substantive progress, particularly on international law, describing the outcome as ‘anemic’ compared to the rich discussions that occurred.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Effectiveness of stakeholder participation and inclusiveness

Speakers

– Catalina Vera Toro
– Rose Payne
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder participation flourished despite formal modality constraints

Process inclusiveness and stakeholder sophistication development as strengths

Stakeholder modalities remain largely unchanged with continued limitations

Summary

Vera Toro and Payne emphasized the positive aspects of stakeholder engagement and growing sophistication, while Murphy Hall strongly disagreed, arguing that stakeholders were repeatedly vetoed with no recourse and that modalities remain essentially unchanged.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Progress on international law development

Speakers

– Rose Payne
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Deep divisions remain between camps supporting existing law vs. new binding mechanisms

Limited progress on international law despite five years of discussions

Summary

Both speakers acknowledged limited progress on international law, but Payne focused on the value of understanding different positions and building trust through published national positions, while Murphy Hall emphasized that the final report failed to reflect the depth of discussions and showed minimal advancement.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Value of consensus achievement in current geopolitical context

Speakers

– Catalina Vera Toro
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Consensus achievement despite geopolitical tensions as major success

Consensus at expense of substantive content, particularly on international law

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers acknowledged the difficult geopolitical context, but reached opposite conclusions about whether consensus was worth the substantive compromises. Vera Toro saw it as validation of multilateralism, while Murphy Hall viewed it as prioritizing process over substance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Assessment of stakeholder inclusion progress

Speakers

– Rose Payne
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Process inclusiveness and stakeholder sophistication development as strengths

Stakeholder modalities remain largely unchanged with continued limitations

Explanation

Both speakers represent non-governmental stakeholder perspectives, making their disagreement on inclusion progress unexpected. Payne emphasized positive developments in stakeholder sophistication and coordination, while Murphy Hall focused on continued exclusion and unchanged formal modalities.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement centered on: 1) Whether consensus achievement justified substantive compromises, particularly on international law; 2) The effectiveness and progress of stakeholder participation; 3) The balance between process achievements versus concrete outcomes. State representatives (Darkwah, Vera Toro) were generally more positive about outcomes, while non-state actors showed mixed views, with Murphy Hall being notably more critical than Payne.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While speakers shared common goals around inclusive cybersecurity governance, their different assessments of progress and priorities could influence future engagement strategies. The disagreement reflects broader tensions between process-oriented diplomatic achievements and substantive policy outcomes, which may affect how different stakeholder groups approach the new global mechanism.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized how the OEWG process facilitated valuable cross-regional cooperation and enabled regional organizations to develop concrete collaboration frameworks

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Catalina Vera Toro

Arguments

Cross-regional cooperation and learning facilitated by the process

Regional organizations able to develop concrete collaboration mandates

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers expressed frustration with limited stakeholder participation modalities and called for better organization among non-governmental actors to work within existing constraints

Speakers

– Rose Payne
– Madeline Murphy Hall

Arguments

Need for better organization and strategic coordination among non-governmental stakeholders

Stakeholder modalities remain largely unchanged with continued limitations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

All three speakers recognized the inherent value of the extended process itself as a capacity-building and confidence-building mechanism, particularly for developing countries

Speakers

– Emmanuella Darkwah
– Catalina Vera Toro
– Vladimir Radunovic

Arguments

Five-year process provided necessary time for understanding complex issues

Learning curve benefits particularly valuable for developing countries

Process itself serves confidence building and capacity building functions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The UN Open-Ended Working Group achieved consensus on a final report despite significant geopolitical tensions, which is considered a major diplomatic success

The process was highly inclusive with strong Global South participation and effective multi-stakeholder engagement, though formal stakeholder modalities remain largely unchanged

A single-track mechanism was established for future negotiations, preventing resource waste from parallel processes

The Women in Cyber program successfully transformed gender participation, making diverse panels the norm rather than exception

International law discussions showed limited formal progress in the final report despite rich five-year dialogue and 40+ national position papers

The process itself served valuable confidence-building and capacity-building functions, particularly for developing countries learning complex cybersecurity governance issues

Two dedicated thematic groups were established – one for capacity building and one catch-all group – though their structure remains vague

Regional and cross-regional cooperation was significantly strengthened through the process

The final document was described as ‘anemic’ or ‘diluted’ but represents a foundation that can be built upon rather than starting from scratch

Resolutions and action items

Establishment of a permanent global mechanism with two dedicated thematic groups starting in March

Need to select facilitators for the thematic groups and establish working schedules

Civil society stakeholders should organize more strategically to maximize participation opportunities in informal thematic group discussions

Stakeholder community should collaborate on supporting states in defining thematic group priorities and linking their work to plenary sessions

States should focus on building from existing foundation rather than backsliding on achieved progress

Continuation of capacity building programs and gender-responsive initiatives in the new mechanism

Maintenance of institutional knowledge transfer to ensure continuity between processes

Unresolved issues

How to advance international law discussions given persistent divisions between existing law application vs. new binding mechanisms

Practical structure and time allocation for the two thematic groups, particularly the broad catch-all group

Funding mechanisms for developing country participation and continuation of successful programs like Women in Cyber fellowship

How to ensure thematic group discussions meaningfully feed into formal plenary outcomes

Modalities for stakeholder participation remain largely unchanged with continued access limitations

How to make the new mechanism truly ‘action-oriented’ beyond dialogue

Integration of human rights references and international humanitarian law applications

How to increase Global South civil society participation in future processes

Ensuring continuity of institutional knowledge as delegations change

Suggested compromises

Using informal and hybrid nature of thematic groups as opportunities for creative stakeholder engagement despite formal modality limitations

Building incrementally on the existing foundation rather than attempting comprehensive reforms

Leveraging external initiatives and expert networks to feed substantive input into formal UN processes

Focusing on areas of convergence while acknowledging persistent divisions on contentious issues like international law

Utilizing the vague structure of thematic groups as flexibility for future creative solutions when geopolitical tensions may ease

Maintaining dialogue and relationship-building as valuable outcomes even when formal document language is limited

I think that sometimes in the UN spaces, there’s a little bit of, too much kind of success hinges on consensus, recognizing that this is not an ordinary time in history… I think the report for five years process ended in a pretty anemic way, especially on the bit about international law, where if you look over the five years, that really hasn’t been advanced very much, at least in how it’s reflected in the report, and I don’t think was a really accurate reflection of the discussions, the deep and rich discussions that took place specifically on this topic over the course of five years.

Speaker

Madeline Murphy Hall

Reason

This comment challenged the prevailing narrative that consensus equals success, introducing a critical perspective that distinguished between procedural achievement and substantive progress. It highlighted the gap between the quality of discussions and their reflection in final documents.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from celebrating consensus to examining the quality and depth of outcomes. It prompted other speakers to acknowledge limitations and set a more nuanced tone for evaluating success versus failure throughout the webinar.

If the goal of the OEWG was to bring state positions closer, then sure, it hasn’t necessarily fully succeeded. And I don’t think in some areas, it could succeed totally. But if the real purpose was to facilitate international cooperation, then alignment isn’t the whole point… alignment of positions hasn’t necessarily always happened. And this is still huge, this is really valuable. It builds trust, predictability, understanding how another state interprets international law, helps to anticipate their behavior during an incident.

Speaker

Rose Payne

Reason

This reframed the entire discussion by distinguishing between alignment of positions and facilitation of cooperation, offering a more sophisticated framework for evaluating diplomatic success. It introduced the concept that understanding differences can be as valuable as achieving agreement.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted how participants evaluated the OEWG’s success, moving from a binary success/failure framework to a more nuanced understanding of diplomatic achievement. It influenced subsequent speakers to acknowledge value in the process itself, even without perfect outcomes.

The evolution of the processes because it’s not only the open and the working, right? This is a long coming process that has been like built by blocks of other processes that have proceeded and that have not been very inclusive. So to have this with all member states there to have that dialogue, that’s what I would highlight and many developing states feel that it’s become a process like Emanuela mentioned and you Blara, it’s a learning curve.

Speaker

Catalina Vera Toro

Reason

This comment provided crucial historical context and highlighted the perspective of developing states, emphasizing that inclusiveness itself represents progress from previous exclusive processes. It introduced the concept of institutional learning and capacity building through participation.

Impact

This comment broadened the discussion beyond immediate outcomes to consider long-term institutional development and the value of inclusive processes for developing countries. It helped other participants recognize achievements that might not be visible in final documents but are significant for global governance.

I think there were some positives here on the, you know, the way that stakeholders can participate in the thematic groups… however I’m concerned or I will be interested to see how that evolves, because I know that even though there’s rules that exist right now, all of this can still be up for debate at a later date as well… as a stakeholder that was vetoed time and time again, and by several states at several times with no ability to push back, I don’t think that the process was inclusive for stakeholders.

Speaker

Madeline Murphy Hall

Reason

This comment provided a stark reality check on stakeholder inclusion, contrasting the celebratory tone about multi-stakeholder participation with the actual experience of being excluded. It highlighted the gap between rhetoric and reality in diplomatic processes.

Impact

This comment prompted a more honest discussion about the limitations of stakeholder participation and influenced other speakers to acknowledge the ongoing challenges. It shifted the conversation from celebrating inclusiveness to examining its practical limitations and future vulnerabilities.

I think that multilateralism is getting very questioned nowadays. And I have to say it like being in a regional organization. We also get many questioning, you know, from from member states even. So to have like tangible results by consensus is also a way to prove that multilateralism is alive and striving.

Speaker

Catalina Vera Toro

Reason

This comment elevated the discussion to a broader geopolitical level, connecting the OEWG outcomes to the larger crisis of multilateralism. It provided a strategic perspective on why consensus matters beyond the specific cyber domain.

Impact

This comment helped participants understand the broader significance of the OEWG’s achievements in the context of global governance challenges. It influenced the overall assessment by providing a wider lens through which to view the outcomes and their importance for international cooperation.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing multiple analytical frameworks for evaluating the OEWG’s outcomes. Madeline’s critical perspective challenged celebratory narratives and demanded deeper scrutiny of substantive achievements. Rose’s distinction between alignment and cooperation provided a more sophisticated framework for understanding diplomatic success. Catalina’s emphasis on inclusiveness and historical context highlighted achievements that might otherwise be overlooked, while her observation about multilateralism’s broader crisis elevated the stakes of the discussion. Together, these comments created a more nuanced, honest, and comprehensive evaluation that moved beyond simple success/failure binaries to examine the complex, multi-layered nature of international diplomatic processes. The discussion became more thoughtful and realistic, acknowledging both genuine achievements and significant limitations while providing multiple perspectives from different stakeholder communities.

How can we expect more civil society, especially from the Global South, to be present and more involved in the future process?

Speaker

Participant in chat (mentioned by Anastasiya Kazakova)

Explanation

This addresses the ongoing challenge of inclusive participation and ensuring diverse geographical representation in cybersecurity governance discussions

What could be the solution for the states that have little resources to be engaged in this process?

Speaker

Participant in chat (mentioned by Anastasiya Kazakova)

Explanation

This highlights the capacity and resource constraints that limit meaningful participation of developing countries in international cyber negotiations

How will the dedicated thematic groups be structured and how will time be allocated between different topics like international law and capacity building?

Speaker

Emmanuella Darkwah

Explanation

The final report lacked clear structure for the thematic groups, creating uncertainty about how different priorities will be balanced in future discussions

How will the global mechanism be action-oriented and move beyond dialogue to concrete outcomes?

Speaker

Madeline Murphy-Hall and Catalina Vera-Toro

Explanation

There’s uncertainty about how the new mechanism will translate discussions into practical cybersecurity improvements and measurable results

How can stakeholder engagement in thematic groups be prevented from being used as a bargaining chip in negotiations?

Speaker

Rose Payne

Explanation

This addresses concerns about the instrumentalization of civil society participation for political leverage rather than substantive contribution

How can the rich discussions on international law that occurred during the five-year process be brought back into the permanent mechanism despite not being reflected in the final report?

Speaker

Madeline Murphy-Hall and Rose Payne

Explanation

The final report didn’t adequately capture the depth of international law discussions, raising questions about how to preserve and build upon this institutional knowledge

What will the ‘catch-all’ thematic group actually focus on and how will its broad mandate be operationalized?

Speaker

Madeline Murphy-Hall

Explanation

One of the thematic groups has a very vague mandate that could encompass anything, creating uncertainty about its actual function and priorities

How can continuity of institutional knowledge be ensured when delegation members change between negotiation cycles?

Speaker

Emmanuella Darkwah

Explanation

There’s a risk of losing the accumulated expertise and understanding developed over the five-year process if new delegates aren’t properly briefed

How will the work of informal thematic groups be effectively linked to and reflected in the formal plenary discussions?

Speaker

Rose Payne and Catalina Vera-Toro

Explanation

The mechanism for translating informal thematic group discussions into formal outcomes remains unclear and could impact the effectiveness of stakeholder contributions