Presentation of the Chair’s proposal of the interim report

7 Jun 2024 09:30h - 09:45h

Table of contents

Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

Full session report

Delegations deliberate chair’s draft proposal amid language and accountability concerns at plenary session

During a formal plenary session, the Chair resumed proceedings and thanked the participants for their constructive contributions. A draft proposal from the Chair was circulated for consideration, aiming to represent the collective concerns and interests of the delegations and to serve as a basis for convergence and common understanding. The Chair suggested that delegates take time to review the draft before reconvening to discuss potential adoption or amendments.

The delegation of Orange then presented a proposal advocating for the continuation of regular institutional dialogue under the United Nations, emphasizing its importance for inclusivity, transparency, and alignment with the First Committee’s work. They supported the immediate implementation of the Programme of Action (POA) after the current Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) concludes, arguing that the POA complements, rather than duplicates, the OEWG’s efforts and strengthens the UN’s role in security and the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Orange also highlighted the need for a single, inclusive, and action-oriented mechanism to prevent duplication and financial burdens, particularly for small delegations.

Team Purple raised a procedural concern about the draft proposal being available only in English, which disadvantaged non-English speaking delegations. They requested a French version to facilitate informed contributions.

The Chair acknowledged the logistical challenges but assured that the Secretariat and interpreters would assist in clarifying any ambiguities in the draft. The Chair emphasized the necessity of maintaining a single draft in English to avoid discrepancies between different language versions.

Team Pink then took the floor to express concerns about the absence of accountability in international human rights and humanitarian laws within the OEWG’s framework. They noted that objections from certain countries, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela, had previously hindered the adoption of consensus reports due to disagreements over the applicability of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to cyberspace.

The Chair responded to the interventions by encouraging the delegations to propose specific language within the existing draft rather than adding new sections. The Chair emphasized the goal of achieving a draft that could be adopted by consensus, whether it was satisfactory or equally unsatisfactory to all parties.

Concluding the session, the Chair suspended the meeting to allow delegations to review and analyze the draft report, with the provision of French interpretation for non-English speakers. The Chair designated a specific area for consultations with interpreters to ensure full participation from all delegations. The meeting was adjourned with the understanding that delegates would be called back to a formal session in due course.

Session transcript

We may now resume the formal part, we are now continuing with the plenary session, the agenda item that was left a moment ago. So we’re back into formal session. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for again your constructive input into this process so far. You will have received right now a draft of the Chair’s proposal for our consideration right now. It’s an attempt by the Bureau to really try to convey and try to put together all the voices that you have put forward, all the interests, all the concerns, and this is an attempt at some point of convergence, a common understanding. What the Chair proposes at the moment is, again, to give you some time to digest it, to be able to really take it in and then come back into a formal session and see if we can find a way for us to adopt the reports as proposed or amend, possibly. So with that, I see that, if you can just, so I can see which delegation this is, it’s the delegation of Orange, if you’d like to say a word, please, you have the floor.

Team Orange:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Orange delegation would like to put forward a proposal under the regular institutional dialogue. We believe that a regular institutional dialogue should be continued under the auspices of the United Nations in order to ensure its inclusivity, transparency, and its conduct in synergy with the First Committee. My country supports the implementation of the Programme of Action immediately after the end of the current OEWG. It is our belief that the POA is not a contradictory mechanism that duplicates the work of the OEWG, rather, for us, and together with the OEWG, it will help strengthen the driving force, the role of the UN in security, and the use of ICTs. Moreover, the POA is an additional response to continuing and deepening regular institutional dialogue as part of this group. The establishment of a permanent, inclusive, action-oriented mechanism could help strengthen the existing framework developed to be able to adapt any change with respect to our responses over the course of time. This is why we believe that the future mechanism can be modelled on the Programme of Action as proposed, and my delegation is particularly supportive of including capacity building for developing countries as a key pillar of the POA. My delegation takes notes of different proposals and options for future mechanisms. However, it is important to prevent duplication of our work. The establishment of parallel initiatives would be financially costly for the Member States and would generate an additional workload, which could be difficult for small delegations to follow. This is why we call for the establishment of a single mechanism in the Programme of Action format. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This has been my delegate called Orange. I see that the flag of the delegation of Purple went up, so Purple, you have the floor. Let’s hear what you have to say.

Team Purple:
Thank you very much, Mr. President. My delegation would simply like to make a comment in the sense that the project that was presented to us was presented only in French, which of course was presented only in English, which means that if we make an effort to read and understand French, English obviously has disadvantages compared to other delegations to make the necessary observations. So, I understand the logistical difficulties, but it would be good if we could have the French version before we could make our conclusions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So, let me get to that, because this is obviously anticipated, but at the same time, it was not possible to both draft a report for consideration after working on it yesterday and having it ready. But what we will do with the help of the Secretariat is have the help of the interpreters here in the room. So, they will be asked to come in the room with one part and to be able to go over the document with you, so that it is possible to clear any ambiguities. At the same time, the document has been sent both by email and is there on Google Drive. If that is of any help, to be able to put it either Google Translate or whatever it is, to quickly have some machine interpretation, at the very least to produce a document, then that will be so. The working language remains English, because at the end of the day, we need to have one draft. And because the working language has been English, that final draft must be in English, so that there are no two official documents where there are different interpretations. So, hopefully this clarifies things and all efforts will be made to ensure the participation obviously of all delegations. And this will be done through the ways that I have just described. But at the same time, we also press the time to be able to put something forward. The Chair in the meeting has noticed that the delegation of PINK wishes to take the floor.

Team Pink:
Once again, let me say good morning to everyone. And let me use the time to say thank you for your privilege and opportunity for us all to be in PINK to speak on issues. Having listened to fellow delegates, what are their concerns and those proposals into civil societies, and having been doing thorough research and reading, we have come to realize and PINK has come to realize that the reason for which the OEWG norms and law have been a struggle over time, we have cut a lot of few things, I mean two things that we think is missing, and if considered, would be a proposal to you, Honorable Chair, for further discussion. We are looking at the missing accountability in international human rights and humanitarian laws. If you’ll permit me to go further into explaining what I meant to say, the purpose of the OEWG as articulated in the resolution The lack of reference to the IHL, the legal regime designed to protect civilians during times of armed conflict, is equally troubling. The growing numbers of states have developed or are developing, for instance, cyber capability, for example, using cyber weapons to incapacitate water, power, or health systems. As I said, during armed conflict, the potential human cost of cyber weapons may be essential to incorporate IHL into the cyber norms. Discussion, yet in reference to the IHL, is missing from the OEWG consensual report, likely due to our objections by a few countries that are powerful in the world. It will allow China, Cuba, Venezuela, and others who have argued against its applicability to cyberspace opposition to the incorporations of IHL by these countries, as articulated by Cuba, have also prevented the adoptions of the 2017 GGE consensual report. It was also by China and Russia, argued, that incorporating IHL will normalize the humanitarianization of cyberspace and legitimize cyber yet. Because of time, I will break there and listen to you. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much, Cuba, or pink. So, we have a draft right now, and the best way of going forward, in the chair’s opinion, is to work with that draft. Adding any new language is possible, not necessarily as sections, but within the draft as it is. So, in terms of, first of all, the delegation of Orange’s proposal, what is recommended is that Orange tries to find a way of proposing specific language within the draft as it is, not as a separate section, but within the draft as it is. If it is possible to find a way of having that institutional dialogue, action-oriented mechanism, as they were mentioned, within the draft as it is, then please do so. Please do so both in a written format, so by writing and sending it to us, when we establish channels. And then, when we come back in a bit of time, again in a formal setting, we will suspend right now, and we will come back to it, reintroducing that in that formal setting as such. In terms of the other interventions, the chair would say the same thing. That, similarly to Pete, try to find a way of finding language, specific language, if you have that, and see how you infuse that into the existing draft. If it is acceptable by the delegations, then so be it. If it is not, then so be it. We will try to find a way of finding a way to a draft that is either satisfactory to all, or equally unsatisfactory to all. But good if we have a final draft that is adopted by consensus. So with that, allow the chair to suspend this meeting, this formal part, for delegations to look at and analyze the draft report that has been proposed to them. Help with the French translation, with interpretation will be given. It is recommended, with the kind assistance of the interpreters, that that corner over there is reserved for consultation with the French, so with the English draft, but with French interpretation, so that any ambiguities are looked at. With that, the chair suspends the meeting for the time being, and please be alert to be called back into a formal session in due time. The meeting is suspended.



Speech speed

134 words per minute

Speech length

947 words

Speech time

425 secs


Team Orange

Speech speed

138 words per minute

Speech length

303 words

Speech time

131 secs


Team Pink

Speech speed

132 words per minute

Speech length

357 words

Speech time

162 secs


Team Purple

Speech speed

116 words per minute

Speech length

99 words

Speech time

51 secs