All right. Good afternoon. Good afternoon colleagues, distinguished delegates, excellencies. And gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen. It's already a few minutes past 3pm. And we are going to resume the plenary session that is dedicated to chapters six through nine. I think people are still coming in to the room but because of the fear limited time, today, we're starting the deliberations Agenda Item three draft text of the convention
and we are addressing the chapter six to nine All right, before we begin, I would like to make us a very brief but important comment or maybe announcement I should say.
Thursday and Friday
May I may have your attention because this is a very important comment, important announcement. So, as we discussed last week, in this room at the plenary there are we have observed that there are a number of paragraphs that contain the language offenses covered by this convention, all offenses established in accordance with this convention. And now, as I discussed this thing, this question with the chair and we came to a conclusion that given the deal given agreement that is appearing, in ah see, we have this standardized expression that is offenses established in accordance with this convention, offenses established in accordance with this convention, without special reference to articles six to 16. This is throughout the text, cross cutting coherently throughout the text of the convention, except for a specific chapter, which is about technical assistance and capacity building. Which means articles 54 to 56. On those articles, under that chapter, we all have a standard expression of offenses covered by this convention because of the anticip prescribed scope of this chapter. So I'll repeat it again. We have offenses covered by this convention in Chapter of have technical assistance, capacity building. But without exception.
Thank you, thank you for suggesting that I should clearly articulate the end of the chapter it is chap technical assistance and information exchange. Okay. So, for technical assistance and information exchange, we will have offenses covered by this convention in articles 54 to 56. But with that exception, where you will have offenses established in accordance with this convention in other all the other chapters Okay. So, this is a standardized expression. The second thing I would like to share with you is that the we had the discussion on certain number of States Parties to this convention that is required that are required for for the convention to take effect or for a convention to be amended
after they enter into force on this question, which is about the articles 64 and 65 We will not address these articles in this room today
we will leave this question for for some time until we have an agreement in other issues such as scope of the cake application and other issues that are under discussion informally in other room.
So, I will go through the text today in this session from the beginning of the chapter six, but we will not address the articles 64 and 65 today. So, having said that, we will directly go to the article 53 preventive measures under Chapter Six preventive measures oh yes one more thing, one more thing before before we go to the preventive measures. Last week, we also have discussions about the stakeholders their stakeholders appear in many articles, many paragraphs in these chapters these are 53.2 53.3 a 50 point 54.4 54.6 55.1 55.3 56 point 2.2 D, and 56.4. And so, we have 57 Five B five c six and seven under 57 on these articles on these paragraphs, we will address it I address them at the same time not let us whole but a one by one. But we will address this and whatever remaining time in the latter half of this session to the end towards the end of this session. So, having said that we will start from article 53 Leaving the paragraph stats contain stakeholders which means that we will address article 53 para three sub para de. So this is again new introduced a new afresh after the age six. And we have been considering the delegations are expected to have considered this paragraph sub para from well, at least last week and those that we held a week in the past to consider this paragraph stop out. And also there was a proposal from the delegation of the United States which is debase I reflect that proposal for the sake of the old consideration. This is not to mention this is not to take any no judgment or anything inside. Here. This is for your consideration sake and I couldn't For over two years the United States delegation this d this is not intended for the replacement of the South parody, but it's additional South Para after that comes after South Para de so.
Thank you. So we will address these top para this hyper D and the proposed sub para debase at one time. And I would like to open the floor now for you to so if intelligent gathered delegation of wishes to take the floor, please indicate, as you always do.
Perhaps we could invite the delegation of United States if you're ready to make additional case for your rationale about the GBS if you're ready. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to a number of delegates that worked with us to craft this language and introduce it into the discussions. As mentioned previously, we think that it's important to recognize the contributions from the legitimate security researchers. And so we propose this language in that spirit. We think that it provides the right balance here. It's not requesting a specific action. But really just recognizing the contributions of those researchers and tying it specifically to the efforts to strengthen and improve the security of service providers, products, services and customers. We did have a number of consultations, we worked on the language some more. The strikethrough on valuable it was not part of our original proposal, but we certainly are flexible there. And we hope that it meets with agreement in this room. Thank you very much.
Thank you, David states. Now the delegation who wishes to take the floor?
Yes, yeah, yeah, I'll try it. Yes, I see around. So I'll give the floor to round.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a lengthy discussion about this proposed paragraph by us. And yesterday and today, we believe that this paragraph is not fit for this chapter. Secondly, the issue of the security researchers as we we said in the formals, it is not clear this is Ignatian. What does it mean is covered, which person which, you know, individuals, and also the world, the legitimate, it's very subjective and vague, because it used to be illegitimate, it depends on you know, who considered legitimate or non legitimate and also the word recognizing, if we look at the local organism, when we say, when we can see when we can recognize something, when we have, you know, information, we have experience, and we have made the evaluation and assessment after that we can say we can use recognize them, but we have not concluded the convention yet. And we have not made any assessment or evaluation of the security researchers that we don't know who should include whom. So based on the this concern, my delegation cannot go along with this proposal. Thank you.
Thank you very much around now, we had a couple of questions raised by the district, distinguished delegate of Iran. And my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but in my understanding, you're raising a question about the exact meaning of the terms that are used in this propose the paragraph sub para when the issue is about the language or expression or words. I take it from the explanation made by the district's delegate of the United States. I think they're flexible on the words they use in the proposed language in a proposed or sub para. And I, if that understanding is correct, I would like to recommend to do today's states to come up with possibly agreeable language based on the questions that was raised by the distinguished delegate of Iran. And I also would like to recommend to Iran if to ask Iran, if there is any more fundamental questions during in this self Hara, other than the question about the exact meaning of each word. So I just would like to identify the questions before us so that we can move forward, because as Iran indicated, we have the considerable time to discuss this proposal, both in informals, and informally follows. At the plenary, possibly, yes, from last week, it was actually raised the last week. And I would like to really look forward, not just on this, but also for other paragraphs as well. So while we wait for possible reaction from the United States, or maybe your or others Yes, I would also like to invite other delegations to to express your views expressed your suggestions or maybe proposals or yes or no, because we need to move forward. This is not a single essay, we need to we need to address more than 10. Paragraphs today. And our time is very much limited.
Yes, I see Russian Federation around so first Russian Federation, please.
Especially. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion dedication would propose that we add screens going off would add to this wording and ended with within its territory, as we discussed yesterday at the informal consultations. Thank you.
Thank you very much Russian Federation. I have Iran next year and you have the floor.
It's regarding the paragraph D. My delegation proposal in order to make using stronger terms we propose urging to be repeated encouraging, replaced with urging. Thank you.
Thank you very much around and I have United States on my list. United States, you have the
thank you very much chair. And as I mentioned, we are certainly flexible in the terminology that we're using here in this proposed paragraph. I think we are amenable to the the recently proposed addition regarding within its territory that that certainly seems like a good addition. If the term security researchers is problematic. We could look at an alternate formulation. Perhaps cybersecurity professionals. Perhaps that is a little more specific fors this paragraph and helps eliminate some of the ambiguity. So again, we're open to suggestions for this paragraph and would offer the alternative to security researchers as cybersecurity professionals. Thank you.
Thank you very much United States
Thank you very much. Now, the Secretary is trying to reflect some of the libraries that have been proposed in Sao Paulo GBS, I very much appreciate those who have made interventions already. For your cooperation and constructive approach for each of each of you. As to the proposal made by Iran, in terms of the SAP parody, replacing, encouraging and urging to urging I would, I would, again, like to draw your attention to the nature of this paragraph, paragraph three in some may provision, the list of preventive possible preventive measures are included in under paragraph three, you may do things like building and making efforts may do promoting may to strengthen cooperation, and you may encourage service providers, that's the essence of this cell power. You have propose to replace urge with replacing encouraged? The question I would like to ask to the room to our delegation is are you comfortable with the newly proposed language urging, because urging sounds more, but stronger than the current draft encouraging? If there is no agreement or consensus on the newly proposed language we will of course, I need to, I need to I need to see what happens and to see what other delegations have to say on the new proposal. But given the nature of this paragraph, you may do you may actually urge service providers to the same extent as you may encourage service providers. Now, this is not the place. This is not staged, where delegations are arguing for whatever you like whatever they like it, this is a stage where we have to think about if we can get by with the proposed language, and if you can, let's, let's move forward. That's my, that's my proposal. So while I give the other delegation to think about to consider the two sub powers, one is, one, it has been modified slightly with alternative wording, thanks to some delegations called Preisen, DDS, that's DBS. And also, I'd like to invite our delegations to consider the proposed alternative language of urging, instead of encouraging on self parody. While we'll do that, I will give the floor to other delegations on my list. The first delegation on my list is Vietnam to be followed by more Tanya. So first, Vietnam, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving us the floor. Some with regard to this objection to chain from encouraging to urging, we support this proposal because we're senior service providers, now, our partners to the government's in delivering services to our citizens, and they should work with the government in order to take preventive measures, in particular service providers who own large online platforms. Regard to the US proposal, we'd like to ask for clarification about the scope of of the legitimate activities. I
just want to be sure that we are talking about how we keep everything within the scope of the Cybercrime Convention, they will not go into the cybersecurity this discussion so like to clarify whether it's the the product services here are limited to civilians, service and products, or they would also encompass governmental ICT infrastructures or even military infrastructures. And to be sure about the scope of this deepest proposal. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. We have bam. Next Door, Tanya, you have the floor. Chakra.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, everybody. I support the Iranian proposal on replacing encouraging with urging because service providers and as I have said, urging is stronger than just encouraging. And given the role of service providers, they must be urged to shoulder their responsibilities. Thank you.
Thank you very much more Tanya. Now I have on my list, Vanuatu, to be followed by United States to be followed by Sharia. So first, Vanuatu, we have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On a couple of points that are being considered now. I turn first to the proposal made by the distinguished delegate delegate from Iran. Iran proposals the the replacement of the word encouragement or encouraging to urging our view on that Mr. Chair is that that particular paragraph must be read in line or consistent with the the opening words of paragraph three, which is cast in a permissive language, not a mandatory language. So all the words from paragraphs eight to F, or sorry, to H must be consistent. Throughout. In other words, the beginning word must be also framed in a permissive language. And we believe that the term urging does not fit into that category. And we suggest that the original language or the expression encouraging should be retained. In relation to paragraph paragraph three, 3d, we support the the formulation, or the amended formulation proposed by the distinguished delegation of the United States. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Vanuatu. United States you have.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In terms of subparagraph D, I think it's the preference of our delegation that we retain.
Microphone for the speaker, please. I
think that the last intervention from the distinguished delegate from Vanuatu made an important point about reading it in conjunction with the Shippo for this section. And so encouraging does seem more appropriate in this case, at the same time to respond to two other questions in the room about paragraph D BBUs. And the language around legitimate activities. I think the intent here is certainly to apply in the civilian context. I think we found utility in keeping the language open and without the level of specificity regarding military or other contexts. Again, certainly we are open to suggestions in this regard, if there is some utility in bringing that in, but we think there is a benefit to keeping it open, especially since this paragraph in and of itself, is not requesting states to take specific action. In part it's a natural flow from from paragraph D above where we're looking at the server As providers and then flowing into the contributions from our these cybersecurity professionals in many instances, thank you.
Thank you very much United States, I have no China on my list. So China, you have the flu on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to the proposal depose by distinguished representative of the US, we agree with what was mentioned by a number of distinguished delegates in this paragraph. Legitimate activities and cybersecurity professionals as well as other expressions may not be very clear. Considering that we do not have much time we only have limited time to finish our negotiation, we do have a daunting task, I will suggestions that we should refrain from submitting additional paragraphs that like broad consensus and agreement that is why China needs to further study this paragraph. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much China. And now I will give the floor to Nigeria.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Nigeria would like to support the proposal by Iran to replace and call aging in this paragraph. Our reasons are that the way the paragraph reads, now, there's a lot of caveats. And it does appear. The service product providers are not being requested to do anything at all, despite the fact that they shall put paragraph may take a permissive tool. We do not think that it is proper to have in a paragraph and courageous and you also uncertain where feasible and also to the extent permitted by domestic law. We think that both of these and what shouldn't go together if we find all this very strong, but we think that with orgies and with the caveats you'll have, it could still read fine. But if we think that audience is strong, perhaps we could use them a word that is far better than encourages perhaps inviting service providers if we cannot use request and service providers. But there is appropriate caveat in this paragraph to still live encouraging. We do not think that given the fact that we're talking about ensuring security of the products that service providers make available. And we think that is something that perhaps we should have some word that gives kind of by email may be permissive, but let it confer some form of responsibility. Thank you very much.
Thank you nice area. Now, before I give the floor to the next delegation on my list, I would like to share with you my thoughts at this moment. It is now clear that we do not have consensus on both of the proposed language both self parody and separate DBS. And in the case of that, we will stop the consideration of this help Paris for a moment because there are still other paragraphs that we want you know, that are waiting for discussion. And the time is limited as I repeatedly say. So, unless unless those delegations who propose the language for TBS, which is the United States and also the distinguished delegates of Iran, who proposed the replacement of the verb in de Paris out per D, unless they have anything additional to say, on this instance. I will, at my discretion as chair, I will stop the discussion about these powers and then move forward. Okay. So for those delegations who are proposing who proposed these alternative language and the cell power if you have anything to say At this moment, please indicate that to would like to take the floor. Otherwise I will give the Yes, I have no delegations on my list. So unless the US and Iran have no additional comment, I have a minimalist. So this Yemen will be the last speaker apart from possible interventions by US and Iran. For the consideration of the South Paris, okay, I will give the floor to Yemen now. Should say device.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to subparagraph D. Encourage versus urge are not binding, neither one of them is.
Rather, they're more permissive. So there's no problem, whether we choose encourage or urge. And here when we're talking about preventive measures if we want to be more permissive in our approach, encourage or urge either term would work neither is problematic, since we're not talking about it being binding in this paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Amen. Now, I think we can move on to the next item.
Yes, we will move on to the next item. Next paragraph, which will be article 54 Sorry, 53.3 sub para G 53.3 sub para G. We have the tremendous discussion last week on the particular expression of gender based violence. This is in context of the person's in vulnerable situations and states taking preventive measures to protect these people from cybercrime, cyber crime, for crimes that are committed through the use of ICT. Now, we have we saw that there were different perspectives and different views centered around centering around the wording of gender based I rather would not like to repeat the same situation again, because we already know that we had a different perspectives arguing against each other last week, but of course, this room various deliberation, this consideration is yours. It's your responsibility as our committee.
So, I would like to open the floor for you to share your views and if possible, possible potential resolutions for us to better deal with this. self powered she so as to reach consensus.
With that, I would like to open the floor for you on cell perigee under Article 53.3.
I'm seeing though delegations. No Speaker Oh, yes. I have Russian Federation on my list Russian Federation you have, especially with this one.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. The Russian delegation and is in good since the wedding gender based, and we propose that this will be deleted and we just left with eradicate violence. Thank you.
Thank you very much Russian Federation. And I have Iceland on my list Iceland, followed by Nigeria. So Iceland first you have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and for trying to get us past the finishing line. You were asking us for solutions. But I just want to be extremely clear. This is a high priority issue for Iceland. Gender Based Violence absolutely has to stay in there. And I believe my my colleague has already explained why. So I won't repeat. But but just to reiterate, this is of the utmost importance. Nothing else makes sense. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Iceland, for a very clear explanation of your position. Now, I will give the floor to Nigeria, followed by Columbia, to be followed by European Union to be followed by Costa Rica and then United States. I will give the floor to Nigeria first.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Nigeria would like to end thus, the proposal of the Russian Federation. Thank you very much.
Thank you in Nigeria, Columbia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair and good afternoon to you and to all the colleagues in the room for Columbia. It's also of the utmost important importance to keep the language as it is now. Thank you.
Thank you, Columbia. Now, European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The European Union will also like to keep this language we already have very few references to gender mainstreaming and gender in the texts. We would like to see even more references deleted from it. Thank you.
Thank you very much European Union. And next speaker will be Costa Rica. Gracias in Europe.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd like to reiterate what we already said. On this. For Costa Rica, it's fundamental that we maintain the reference to the gender perspective in this subparagraph G. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I have a handful of the allegations on my speaker's list will first give the floor to the United States followed by sorry, I was made mistake. Tanzania first Tanzania, followed by Chile to be followed by El Salvador. And then Iran, followed by Switzerland and Albania, followed by Egypt followed by Mexico to be followed by United States to be followed by Panama, Peru, followed by Republic of Korea and Senegal. I will give the floor to Tanzania first.
Thank you chair. My delegation has also maintained consistent position with regard to that preference, but I understand we have very limited time to attend consensus. So we would propose the similar formulation that has worked in other provisions by subjecting the formulation with the domestic legal system in I'm saying domestic legal system, because when it comes to strategies and policies, it goes beyond the rules and the laws of the country. It encompasses various legal and institutional frameworks when it comes to to that regard and therefore, we would support the retention of the the words gender based, as long as there is additional words in accordance with with its domestic legal system. So having put in place the search words, we would propose its retention. But if there is no that if there is no such qualifier, then we would also support the position of deleting the words. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. I will give the floor to Chillida.
Which I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for giving me the floor. My delegation would like to join in the calls by the delegations by Iceland, Columbia, you European Union and Costa Rica. And support maintaining the gender based in this paragraph. Thank you
Thank you very much. I will give the floor to El Salvador now.
Which aggressive. Thank you very much chair for El Salvador. It's completely acceptable that subparagraph G remain as it currently is worded. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next round, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation believed that the content of this paragraph in one way or another, almost has been covered by some other paragraphs and provisions. So my delegation would like to propose deletion of this paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Before I give the floor to the following other delegations on my list, because there are more than 10 validations on my list now, we have already used our very precious time on this important question, this is important as important as other questions are, we have other issues that are still waiting to be addressed after this. And I will say, I would, again, I would like to draw your attention to the nature of this provision, which is paragraph three, article 53. This is a May provision, this is permissive permission, just as we saw in another sub para. You may do this as preventive measures in cybercrime. But you may, if you don't, that is okay. This is just a May provision. And also some delays and asked pose the question what gender based violence means, but gender based violence is a established word established language agreed by consensus. In the agreed to conclusion of the Commission on the Status of Women, this language has been adopted by consensus. And also, they are a proposal to widen the scope of the violence. So gender based, should go away. That it is included, of course, it's violence, it's a form of violence, or logic or maybe a type whatever it is, it is included. And I do not understand the logic of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. So I am not taking sides, but I sincerely request two member states delegations to think about, in light of the nature of this paragraph, the whole list of this. Is this really unacceptable for you? Or do you have other alternative language to replace it? The other delegations can agree on. If you're not ready to answer these questions, this is, you know, we're not getting anywhere. But having said that, I will. No, this is my turn. That's just my personal observation. I'm not taking the side at all, but I'm just saying from the chair. We need to we only need to move on otherwise, we're not, you know, capable of dealing with other issues as well. They are equally important. But I will stop there and I will give the floor to Switzerland to be followed by El banya to be followed by Egypt to be followed by Mexico, United States, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Senegal, and Cabo Barrett Cabo Verde, Sweden, Australia, Kiribati, okay, so I will give the floor to Switzerland first.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Switzerland also strongly supports the retention of the original wording of this sub paragraph. The language regarding gender based violence is well established you in language that is also used in several GA resolutions. This should not be a contentious point. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Switzerland for a very productive comment. Next will be Alberoni. Albert, you have the floor. Thank
you, Chair for being in litigation, also the support the retention of the original text of this sub paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you, elberon. Yeah, now is you have the floor now.
Thank you very much chair and we wouldn't be able to support this paragraph. If we can stop at technologies. So we can remove, taking into consideration the special circumstances and needs of persons in vulnerable situations. So if we can take out that last part, we will be in a position to support the paragraph. Otherwise, we would join those requesting for installation. Thank you.
Thank you, Egypt. I will give the floor to Mexico. Glass. Yes,
thank you, Vice Chair from Mexico. The reference to preventing gender based violence is something that's been agreed here by consensus in the United Nations. It's extremely important. And the same applies to the reference to groups that are in vulnerable situations. And we can't really have a text without those references in it, we can't imagine that Thank you.
Thank you, Mexico, next to the United States, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. For this paragraph. It is also a priority of my delegation to retain the wording as it is on the screen, we to place deep importance on the issue of gender based violence, and also find it difficult to understand why this term is controversial in this context, especially as has been stated, it is a consensus based term of the General Assembly and within many other UN contexts. So again, our preference is to strongly retain the language we have on the screen. Thank you.
Thank you United States. I have Panama, followed by Peru. So I'll give the floor to Panama first.
See a thank you. The delegation of Panamas also supports maintaining the original text, referencing gender based violence and persons in vulnerable situations.
Thank you. I will give the floor to Peru next. Mujahid
ISIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. For Peru. It's also very important to maintain the paragraph which has strategies to prevent gender based violence that uses information technology, and also to consider vulnerable situations. Thank you.
Thank you. I have Republic of Korea. So I'll give the floor to Republic of Korea.
Thank you chair to eradicating gender based violence, particularly in cyberspace is a key priorities to my delegation. And I believe too many other delegations, we think that this soap paragraph constitute important part of of you're going to achieve basically through this convention. So I also like to request the retention of this paragraph as it is. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I have Senegal, I'll give the floor to Senegal. So what a missing Thank
you, sir. Senegal would like to have take a reservation on the wording for paragraph G. And we'd like to underscore that gender based violence could only be accepted if it references to domestic legislation and states. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I have Kabul very gay, I will give the flood Kabu 31st.
Thank you chair. Again, we support the maintenance of this paragraph as it is with referrals of gender based and parcels in vulnerable situations.
Very much, I'll give the floor to Sweden now.
Thank you very much share. Sweden would like to also in our national capacity add our support to keeping this paragraph as it is formulated. Many speakers before me have elaborated on the reasons why this is important and should not be controversial. I can only add that we are here to create the Cybercrime Convention. Its purpose is to combat cybercrime more efficiently and efficient effectively as its stated in Article One. In order to take on this task in a serious manner, we should develop strategies and policies to prevent an era dark era decayed gender based violence violence, which is Unfortunately a significant part of cybercrime. We do not understand how the allegations can be against this paragraph. Should states refrain from developing such strategies and policies to prevent the narrow eradicate this form of violence. Should states disregard the special circumstances and needs of persons in vulnerable situations. For us, it's clear it should stay. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Sweden. I'll give the floor to Australiana.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. Australia would like to join the many other distinguished delegates who have noted that this tech should remain as is, as you just said, Mr. Chair, this is established language which has been agreed by consensus and the agreed conclusion of the CSW we would like to maintain the current wording as we do not think it is sufficient for this paragraph to address only violence is of particular importance to take into account the forms of gender based violence that occurs through or is amplified by the use of information and communications technologies. Australia recognizes that women and girls are predominantly affected by violence that occurs through or is amplified by these technologies, and that the use of such technologies can amplify harm caused through the reach of transmission, distance, speed and rates at which violence happens. That is the perpetration and propagation and the duration for which harmful content is available. We would also like to maintain the reference to the consideration and the special circumstances and needs of people in vulnerable situations. We think this is absolutely necessary to capture the vulnerability of different people in all contexts. And for this reason, we don't think this half the paragraph can be removed. Thank you.
Thank you Australia.
Now, before I give the floor to other delegations that are on my list, still, more than 1015 delegations are on my list. I would like to pose another question here. Which is some delegation asked if it is possible, acceptable for the room to in a suggestion made by some delegation, I would like to pose a question if the room is ready to accept language, if additional wording inserted after gender based violence, which might be or might not be a solution to the situation. This might this will be gender based violence, as defined by domestic law. This is one way to look at it. If some, you know, the allegations are in favor of keeping this wording, gender based violence contained in this paragraph. So having said that, I will give the floor to other delegations. I have carried Abadi followed by Pakistan, to be followed by Vanuatu to be followed by Lebanon to be followed by Nigeria, to be followed by Rwanda to be followed by Saudi Arabia, followed by Mauritania, followed by Qatar, followed by Ecuador, followed by Paraguay, followed by no way and followed by Moldova Republic of Moldova. Okay, so that's all I can see in this. Oh, yes. After that we have human, followed by Burkina Faso. That's the end of my list now for now. So I will give the floor to care about the first.
Thank you, Jeff, for the giving us the time to deliberate on this. GitHub is also like other distinguished call delegates who have spoke before me. But great, paramount importance to this paragraph and we are the cannabis wants to paragraph as as it is. Given that the betta three as you rightly mentioned before, on require that state may impose Most preventive preventive measures that may or may include. So there's no obligatory. So I don't understand why other countries one or other state wants to delete altogether this paragraph, but forget best is is quite very important. And we want this routine as it is. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now Pakistan, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. My delegation would like to reiterate that we do not support the inclusion of this paragraph in its current form, and call for its deletion. In case of retention, we can also support the shin boozer Thank you.
Thank you very much Pakistan, and I have Vanuatu I have I give the floor to Vanuatu that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. One I want to indicate its support for the retention of the original language of the paragraph in its entirety. Without any amendments save for and will be flexible to considering the amendment proposed by the chair in relation to the term gender based violence with a qualification that it be defined by domestic law of each state. OneWeb also wishes to underscore the fact that this is again a permissive accosting in a permissive language, noting your chairs reading earlier on, and a member state has a choice whether or not to adopt or not adopt. So additionally, this particular paragraph is quite important to small island developing states given the struggles they have with the problem of gender based violence, and for them, it is important that this be retained as a basis for requests for technical assistance for small for small island developing states. There's a connection between this chapter in the next chapter, particularly paragraphs 5254 to 56. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Vanuatu. I will give the floor to Lebanon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation strongly supports the tax as it was presented. You have mentioned the CSW a great conclusion. Last year, I was negotiating it on behalf of my country. And we were talking about technology and gender equality. And there is the term of gender based violence 14 times and the text that was adopted, as you correctly mentioned by consensus, without any caveats for us, this is the first time we see such a caveat as defined by domestic law and we cannot support it. So we support that access data. Thank you.
Thank you very much for pointing that out. I will give the floor to Nigeria.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Nigeria believes that when certain facts are put out, you know, they should actually be placed in proper context. We have tried to look at the criminal justice conventions and we are unable to find the weddings in this paragraph at couched and Mr. Chia, like the desegregation of Zimbabwe had mentioned, I think, Tanzania rather, there are different contexts, different interpretations to different terminologies. And it is important that we acknowledge that these differences do do exist. We understand and we use the term gender based violence in Nigeria, but do we understand what that terminology means? And we have also noticed that in this paragraph, we are dealing with two issues as it were. The first part of this paragraph ends with communication technologies as observed by the delegation of Egypt. And then we have also matched the issue of persons in vulnerable situations. Sometimes some of these terminologies are not consensual and they pose a lot of difficulties for domestic legal systems. That is why in a bid to make progress because we have seen that a number of delegations would like to see this paragraph returned. I think that your proposal which was earlier Amid by Tanzania could be a way out so that delegations will have the flexibility to appreciate interpret and apply these measures is a preventive measures within their domestic legislations, the way they understood the terminologies. So Nigeria would like to endorse, we could use us defined by domestic law or in accordance with domestic law. And that would be perhaps, enough for us to join consensus. Thank you very much.
Thank you, I will give the floor to Rwanda.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As one law, we are very serious about this bill, gender virus. So that's why we really like to see this paragraph in there. But as my brother from Nigeria said, if it's it has become so difficult for other state. I guess it could be better if we go along with your, your proposal to say as defined by the domestic law of each state party. So for us, we are okay the way it is. It is now, but we can be flexible by your proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much Rhonda for your flexibility. And I will give the floor to Saudi Arabia. Chakra and say you did not arise.
Thank you, Vice Chair. As regards subparagraph G. My delegation is of the view that too, we should be saying eradicate violence related to ITC without mentioning gender based Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now, I have my own allegations on my list still, I will give the flow to Mauritania first, followed by Qatar to be to be followed by Ecuador to be followed by Paraguay to be followed by doorway to be followed by Republic of Moldova. And then to be followed by Yemen. I have Burkina Faso after Yunnan, Canada or women in Japan tell me Jr, Namibia to be followed by Mali. Okay, I will give the floor to Britannia first.
Chakra see the rise?
Thank you chair. My delegation, as a matter of principle, calls for the deletion of this paragraph. But we can be flexible. However, but only if we delete gender based Thank you.
Thank you. I'll give the floor to Qatar now.
She couldn't say the race. Thank you, Mr. Chair. support the proposal paid by Saudi Arabia. In other words as say, eradicate violence without gender based otherwise, the subparagraph as a whole would need to be deleted. Thank you.
much. Thank you very much. It killed all your next speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. For Ecuador. It's imperative that subparagraph G is maintained in its original version. We believe that prevention and eradication of gender based violence are fundamental in order to achieve sustainable development. Goal number five, we think that talking about gender based violence should not cause so much controversy, since it's a language that's frequently used in the context of the United Nations. Moreover, we'd like to call all delegations attention to the fact that in previous versions of the consolidated negotiated texts that we discussed throughout these last two years, there have been other mentions to gender based perspective and the differentiated impact of ICTs on women and girls and this version, we find only this reference in subparagraph G, it's the only one. So at least in this space, we should consider both gender based violence and persons in vulnerable situations. It would be the minimum acceptable level. Thank you.
Thank you. Next paragraph, you have the floor.
Microphone for Paraguay, please. Microphone for Paraguay, please. Microphone
for Power BI, please. I'm sorry.
To press the button again, to read Yes. Yes, you have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Paraguayan delegation would like to see subparagraph G maintained in its original drafting, because it establishes preventive measures to develop strategies and policies in order to prevent and eradicate gender based violence, which takes place using information and communications technologies. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And I No way you have a Florida.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We support the views that you expressed some minutes ago. And we also support interventions of Switzerland, Mexico, and many other delegations who asked to retain this paragraph. We strongly support the retention of this paragraph as it is. And regarding your question on adding the wording, as defined by domestic law, we don't quite see the value of it. Since this paragraph, paragraph is a May provision. And as you chair and several delegations have said, this is agree language in the UN. Thank you.
Thank you, Norway. Next to Republic of Moldova, you have the floor now.
Thank you Chair, just to add our voice to the previous delegations favoring the retention of this parrot as initially drafted. For the many reasons eloquently explained including by you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Amen. You have the floor.
Shadowclan say the base. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. We need to show flexibility, or too much flexibility. preventive measures are permissive, or they're not mandatory. We find here are the measures by the responsibility in the implementation, our internal domestic. That's what we have in paragraph two. And paragraph three provides us with more explanation as regards national implementation. We therefore have to mention national aspects here. But in fact, violence should not be qualified violence should be as as as the word violence
in paragraph two, also fine mentioned being made of domestic law. And that's probably why we are faced with a controversy here.
Thank you, Yemen, Burkina Faso, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. truncation of Burkina Faso would like to echo the arguments put forward by other delegations, Nigeria, Tanzania, Rwanda and others. As regards the first part of your question, we can support the insertion of reference to the domestic law
whether it's defined by domestic law or in accordance with domestic law, we can accept either one. As regards the latter part, here we are not in a position to agree with the inclusion of special circumstances and needs of persons in vulnerable situation we would ask that this last part be deleted and the paragraph and after the word technologies. Thank you.
Thank you Burkina Faso. I will give the floor to cattles enough.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canada strongly supports the paragraph as is. And we also recognize support from various parts of the world on this paragraph to keep it as is. I want to recall colleagues that this is a prevention paragraph and that it follows paragraphs one and two in this, which both speak to domestic law. So I think in terms of redundancy, we have this addition in the proposed text that we don't have in any other sub paragraph, I believe in three, but we've already covered in one and two. Now, the other thing I'd like to say is, and this isn't coming from me, this is coming from the UN populations funds, but that is a reminder of why gender based violence is important. We're trying to target prevention of crimes through the use of ICTs. And un PF had said that one of the things that it does, is women and girls end up self censoring to prevent technology facilitated gender based violence, and their voices are silenced. So what we're trying to do is enhance possibly leading programming that targets these crimes that are very distinct and distinctly lived between genders. So I'm gonna leave it there chair. But this is an absolute leaf, a floor for us. We have started with a lot of references and we're down to three. This is important to us in terms of the reference and for the prevention chapter. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now Oh, man, do you have the floor?
Oh, man, oh, man. You have I'm sorry, sorry. You didn't raise
apologies, sir. My Country forwards the appeal to eradicate violence without mentioning gender based just say violence. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you for chair. Basically we support the text as is and we are in sound this is made for beaching. Now after listening to this division, we are more inclined to support charities proposal to give flexibility for all of us and to move forward. Our first priority is the inclusion of paragraph Z in any way. Thank you.
Thank you, Japan. uzr you have the floor.
Merci, monsieur. Thank you Mr. Chen. The in favor of inserting as defined by domestic law is proposed by the chair for this apparent G Thank you.
Thank you very much. Namibia, you have the floor now.
Thank you chair. Namibia understands the importance of addicting gender based violence. However, the term gender based violence is a complex term by each state party is each state party they define this term on according to the domestic law firms. My delegation would like also to endorse the additions of phrase as defined by the domestic law of each state party. If we are not all, if not the phrase, the one chair you reflecting on the board, we can also use in accordance with its domestic law, as proposed by the distinguished delegate of Tanzania, supported by Senegal, Nigeria, Rwanda, and it was also endorsed by Chair Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. Just to just to be clear, we I as chair do not endorse anything. I am just facilitating the discussion in this room, but uh, anyway, thank you very much for that. I have Molly on my list, followed by Brazil to be followed by Bahrain, to be followed by Giorgio to be followed by Germany to be followed by New Zealand to be followed by sound Tommy Prince pay to be followed by Russian Federation and Kuwait. But first family you have the
most of you, thank you very much, sir. This is an international convention. And I think that the issues having to do with gender as sensitive questions, and are covered by various countries in different ways. Concepts are not the same depending on the country. So it's important to make sure that this be dealt with through the lens of respective country. So I join in with Nigeria Burkina Faso wonder, who supported the notion of that in this paragraph, we need to keep the reference to domestic law, or otherwise said delete this paragraph altogether. So to remove this controversy, also, specifically, as was said by Burkina Faso. We think that their postdoc needs to be placed after technologies and the remainder of the sentence be deleted the part on persons in vulnerable situations that is, I think.
Thank you, Molly. I give the floor to Brazil.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Brazil would like to express its support to paragraph G. S. as currently drafted. We have supported this paragraph throughout our negotiations. The issue of gender violence, of gender based violence is extremely important to us. It is extremely important to keep that reference. As other delegations have mentioned. Paragraphs one and two of this article already make mention two references to domestic law, which apply to how we interpret paragraph three, which is also a main provision. So we believe that this already gives gives states plenty of leeway to interpret all the LD preventive measures listed on 53.3. And furthermore, we reached consensus language on gender based violence that occurs through or is amplified by the use of technologies less than a year ago, at the CSW LCSW. So we very much urge states to agree to keep this reference as it currently stands on this very important issue. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Brazil. Now I give the floor to Bakare. Now
she couldn't see it in our eyes.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. My delegation is of the view that gender based violence is something that needs to be condemned. We support the proposal put forward by Saudi Arabia.
Thank you. Now Georgia, you have the floor
microphone for Georgia, please. Okay, could you press the button again?
I thank you Chair. George also lends strong support to keeping this provision says drafted. Eradicating gender based violence is very important for our delegations. Despite time deficit saver time deficit, we could not remain silent and nor flexible on this fine. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Georgia. Now, I think I had Germany after Georgia. But uh, it's missing on my list, but I will get a flight to Germany.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, distinguished colleagues, Germany would like to fully align itself with a statement delivered by the European Union and support the paragraph as it was originally drafted. I think there have been many reasons given already by a number of delegations amongst them, by Sweden, by Norway and by others. We are faced with a with a made provision which gives already flexibility. And I think that a Canadian colleague has said a word on redundancy already for the for the text. In an ideal world, I would say and I would support as has been said that there should be no need to qualify wildlands No, and we thrive for a world without gender based violence. But we're not there yet. So therefore, we believe that this paragraph is of utmost importance. And there should be no obstacles for women girls to participate. So I want to as we are drafting UN Convention also like to draw your attention Listen to a text written by UN Women on trolling, stalking Daxing and other forms of violence against women in the digital age. I believe that some is very good at why this provision is and it's originally drafted form absolutely necessary for this convention. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Germany. I have Durham, New Zealand on my list. New Zealand, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, we find this discussion quite depressing. It's 2024. We we here in terms of the facts that speak for themselves that from other delegations, we hear about the CSW and agreed language, it's a fact that there is violence based on gender. And with all of that we place a significant amount in relation to the inclusion of subparagraph g, in our convention. I've also heard how we have had gender references watered down already in our convention. So as others have said, this is the minimum that would be acceptable, but it is very much a significant reason why they should stay in our convention. So we support the retention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much New Zealand and I will give the floor to sandtray Principate.
Thank you chair. Some may bring spare also would like to add his voice to the topics under appreciation right now, by saying that, we also have support retaining of the paragraph as originally written, for the several reason we should have already been reduced by other delegation. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What if we, in the interest of achieving consensus, we just avoid the word gender and use an alternative formulation clear tools, dates, dates and say sex based violence or violence is specially against women and girls. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now, I have four other delegations on my list. And after the exhaustion of the list, as currently is, I will stop the discussion for this small paragraph. I have the fifth one on my list. So I will stop then move on to another two other agenda items because there are other equally important issues paragraphs and solid Paris that we need to address. Okay. So I will give the floor first to Kuwait, Kuwait, to be followed by the Philippines to be followed by Uruguay to be followed by Thailand to be followed by the United States. So QA Do you have the form?
To consider, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, man. My delegation supports the proposal by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to delete gender based and for the for the text to remain as and eradicate violence. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Philippines you have the floor now. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair. It consistent with our interventions during the previous sessions of this committee, the Philippines would like to register its support to the retention of paragraph G as originally drafted. Thank you very much. Much. You will dry you have the Florida.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, since a number of delegations have already spoken before me and mentioned this, Uruguay supports retaining the language as it was presented by the chair for sub item G with regard to what's being suggested for G. We would observe that in the first paragraph. We already have that just as an additional consideration to maintain the language as is
by Thank you very much, Thailand, you have the Florida.
Thank you chair, Thailand would like to express his support for the inclusion of the reference to gender based violence as originally proposed in the texts, we can be flexible on the wording, although we think that the reference to domestic law in this context may be considered redundant. Thank you.
Thank you very much, the United States you have the floor.
Thank you chair. To be brief, I took the Florida to simply indicate that to our delegation, we would not be able to accept the term sex based as was proposed by another delegation, as many have said, the turn term gender based violence has been accepted in this body numerous times and we strongly prefer to retain the text as his Thank you.
Thank you very much. And I think you think for all the delegates that have made the interventions now, I can only propose to consider the language proposed language by the chair again, with a view to reach consensus, of course, there are other proposals to replace some of the wordings or even delete or even delete the whole power. But again, this is a May paragraph under Article 53, which has two other paragraphs that are set forth in shall, shall form and this is a list of possible preventive measures that some of the allegations have said I cannot say any more than this, on this sub paragraph. But I will move forward. The next next paragraph, next article will be article 54.1. This is where first paragraph on to Chapter Seven technical assistance and information exchange, although we had we had a rather long discussions in last week's session, but one of the one of the most contentious things was the proposed language insertion of a certain qualifier in the context of the transfer of technology, which was proposed by the distinguished delegate of the United States. And as we discussed this proposal, very intensively in formal setting, I think now is the time for, to, for me to invite the United States delegation, again, to make probably a final case, for other delegations, for their consideration. If they can accept your proposal, which is a voluntary, and just before mutually agreed terms, that refers to the transfer of technology. Now, according to the explanations that have been made by the United States, this involves a legal implications for the rights of intellectual property rights owners. So this could be this could entail a very serious question. But at the same time in the context of this paragraph, there are really caveats just before that third but let's see what the United States has to say. And let's see what others would have to say. So I would first like to invite the United States delegation to have your comments Thank you. Yes, please.
Thank you very much Chair and thank you for your facilitation of the the intensive discussions that we've had on on this paragraph over the past several days, as I think you highlighted for our delegation, this is a legal issue. So we interpret voluntary to be a distinct legal term from mutually agreed terms. And our strong preference is to retain both of those terminologies given that they address two distinct matters. While the issue of voluntary speaks to the entering into of a potentially a contract situation, for example, with the intellectual property of a particular company, and I think we want to make sure there's extra protections around their ability to do so in a voluntary manner, understanding that then presumably there would be mutually agreed terms that flow from it. We've used this type of phraseology in other contexts. And again, it's it's a legal matter for the United States. We understand that some countries have concerns with what is perceived as additional caveats in the text. I think we could be flexible in this regard, and potentially propose the deletion of the where possible within that same sentence. So it would be an elimination of that caveat. But while maintaining the voluntary and the mutually agreed terms. I should also mention that that the term fair, in our view is not a substitution for voluntary and we could not agree to that in this context. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much United States for your very clear explanation about your position as the US was very clear on the value of the alternative word that was proposed by other delegation fare would not do any help for the United States concern. So, I would rather not go into the discussion about too fair, because that was proposed for the sake of positive alternative that may cater to the concerns by the of the United States. Now, having said that, I would like to open the floor for other delegations to Yes, I have Yemen on my list, followed by Columbia. So I will give Yemen first.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. With regards to article 54, we notice that countries are calling for the transfer of technology as a preventative measure to counter cyber crime, as we said before, crimes are not limited to ICT and are not restricted to developed countries they are also committed in countries that are not very developed in terms of ICT. So, if we go back to the text, the text is also as may consider it starts with consider since it starts with consider everything else is May. So, technology transfer is also under a May basis in terms of the expression where possible, this is a repetition since the paragraph starts with consider. So again, this is on a May basis. And we believe it should be shall.
So where possible, as we said, we believe is an addition. And thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Columbia, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and well, you've you've heard us recurrently on this on this topic, and we've expressed our position we think very clearly. But we fully agree with what our colleague from Yemen yours, you're stressed. This is already a very watered down obligation, because it says that these viruses shall consider where possible, the transfer of technology on mutually agreed terms I mean, I mean, the voluntary just simply makes these foliation extremely inexistent to be honest. So it's just an obligation to maybe consider if perhaps, you can voluntarily transfer technology, it just doesn't make any sense. And so I'm afforded to that it seems to be the the right request of one delegation to keep voluntary. We don't hear any other variations, asking for for that word. And one last note is we don't understand the confusion between contracts. And this is a treaty signed agreement between states, what states have to do internally in the domestic legislations to try to comply with this obligation that is for each state to determine. So we really strongly urge the United States to drop the proposal. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Colombia. Now, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding this power, also, we had a very lengthy discussion. As, as you're well aware, technical assistance and capacity building, and in particular transfer of technology is of a crucial matters for the developing countries. And also if we look at, we look at the taking into account the very subject matter of this convention, which is information and communication technology. So the transfer of technology is of a great importance. There has it has been elaborated by some delegation, distinguished delegations, there are a lot of caveats in this era, consider is very, you know, weak language, it has been used as consider hearing the first line, there are very possible mutually agreed terms. So this one and adding voluntary make this, you know, implementation of the effective and efficient implementation of this convention impossible in terms of transferring technology. Therefore, we cannot go along with voluntary at all, and we would like to be deleted, the voluntary in this case, as well as well, where possible, thank you.
Thank you very much. Now, I have formerly allegations on my speaker's list. But since on this question, we have used much time because they probably are comparatively much time in informal setting, and also the plenary last week. So maybe we can spare repeating the same discussion again. Because we know that delegations who have interest in this area in this field, including the United States, have already spoken in the past different sessions last week, this week, just this morning. So I will give the floor to four more delegations that are currently on my list. But if unless there is anything additional to share with other delegations surrounding this question, I would stop the considerate deliberation in this room now, because I don't want to repeat the same situation again and again and again. Of course, the United States is also welcome to make further additional case, in addition to what you have already shared with others, but it needs to be needs to be more convincing, I should say, for others. Okay. Having said that, I will give floor the floor to other delegations, three more delegations. One has counseled on my list. First, El Salvador, followed by Vanuatu to be followed by Pakistan. Okay. So, El Salvador, you have the floor first,
which addresses you. Thank you very much, sir. Just quickly, we'd like to say that for our delegation, it's very important that we not add more Are conditions to paragraph one of 54. In other words, for greater clarity, we cannot accept adding voluntary to characterize the transfer of technology. And for the delegates in United States the language referring to terms and conditions of mutual agree mutually agreed already is taking into account those private sector. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Bye now to you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, one word to support the retention of the original language of this paragraph. Bearing in mind that much has been said about and we agree as well. There are a considerable amount of sensitivity surrounding the term transfer of technology. But the language of this paragraph is it is now is a reflection on the considerable amount of discussion that took place in the last two sessions. So, they represent a balanced view of both sides. And we believe also Mr. Chia that the word or the term mutually agreed term reflects implicit in the notion of voluntariness. In other words, the two parties are not in a relationship of one being oppressive, or the relationship being oppressive. There may be the relationship may be unequal, but that is one where both parties mutually agree to the terms of the transfer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, that Pakistanis have thought.
This paragraph, we believe that the wording is already very diluted with the use of words like consider and where applicable. Also, from the legal standpoint, we believe that the words mutually agreed terms are very comprehensive, and cover the necessary safeguards or caveats. Therefore, we do not support the addition of words voluntary or fair. We do support the proposal by Iran to delete where applicable. Thank you.
Thank you very much. As I have exhausted the speaker's list, basically, I'm not gonna give the floor to any others unless the US delegation would like to make a further intervention one last time. Yes, yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the indulgence of the room. Given that we have spent a lot of time discussing this paragraph. To be clear from our delegations perspective, we are not looking to to narrow the technical assistance chapter. It's something that is important to the United States. We provide a lot of bilateral assistance. We work through international organizations. And we do you know, recognize the importance of this paragraph to other states. You know, again, as I mentioned, this is very much a legal issue for the United States delegation. I think we recognize though that we are increasingly isolated in the room and understand the difficult job you've had Mr. Chair and trying to bring us to to consensus. So in this bureau, we can withdraw our request for the insertion of voluntary understanding that that would also result in the deletion of the word fair. In the paragraph, and we truly thank colleagues here for for the discussion. You know, as we we sought to make this change, however unsuccessful that was, thank you very much.
You Okay
thank you very much United States for your fullest exercise the your flexibility. I understand that this has been a very important question for you. But I really appreciate your flexibility in this room. And I would also like to ask Iran disuse delegate to be around because you proposed to or to, possibly with the proposed language proposed by the US with fair Are you comfortable with without any language qualifier? Rather than other than the mutually agreed terms? Just one just to question? Yes, yeah. My company, yeah.
My delegation just would like just is okay, but with the text, just we would like to delete where possible as a you know, the caveat Yeah, thank you.
Thank you very much round. Oh, I saw a request from the United States. But maybe you have counseling withdrawal? Yes. Yeah, United States.
Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, my delegation would not be able to go along with that deletion. I mean, I think the discussion about this paragraph was in part triggered by, you know, the US proposal around voluntary. I think we've shown a lot of flexibility here and in withdrawing our proposal, and we hope that we can find a way forward to maintain the text as it is, thank you.
Thank you very much United States. We have come to a very critical moment for this paragraph. Because we have been involved in a very extensive discussion tensive discussion from last week since last week, till this morning and today and for now. As Vice Chair, playing the role of chair from behalf of the Chair, Madam Chair, I would suggest throughout the room that delegations agree on the text drafted by the chair, because it seems to be a point of equilibrium after painful, lengthy discussions, this is a moment for us to make a decision on what seems to be a balanced text. So, I would suggest you consider your position again, do we want to move to the discussion after some delegation has made a decision to withdraw something that looks like a very important issue for them.
I would now like to ask all the allegations here, if you are ready to accept the drafted text, as it is not making any modifications. Because at this point, we have to move on. And we have other issues to be addressed after this. I have El Salvador on my list. I will give the floor to you as a mother please.
Mucho gracias. Thank you, sir. My delegation commends the flexibility of the United States It's, and we share the decision of the chair to continue with the text as is, as it's currently on the screen. Thank you.
Thank you very much El Salvador and Colombia, you have the floor. Thank
you chair and in line with what our colleagues from my sidebar, just express first to thank in the US for the flexibility and for understanding our concerns as well. And we can also live with the language as it's in the screen right now. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Colombia. I would like to make one more case. But before that, I will give the phone to pero. Please.
comment. Thank you. We appreciate the United States flexibility, we think that tech should be approved as is now Thank you.
Thank you very much. One more thing for me is that this language, where possible, was not even proposed by the United States. Where it comes from, is to chair the chair outed this language, so as to create a consensus on this paragraph, because she thought this will be a point of balance. This will be you know, incorporating everyone, everyone's every delegations, concerns and interests. So I would, again, I would like to suggest to you to consider reconsider your position again, if to see if you can, we can accept the drafted text as it is, because we have already one hour to go before we completed this session. Please, please, exercise your flexibility to the fullest extent, because this is one of the very contentious issues from last week. And we are very, you know, getting closer to the conclusion to the agreement. And after this, we are dealing with somewhat more in different way of contentious issues that are stakeholders issues and we don't we need to you know, don't we want to deal with this within lunch day or otherwise we go to the more you know that yes, I have other delegations while I am juggling. I have Jamaica to be followed by Iran. So Jamaica, you have the floor first.
Microphone microphone for Jamaica, please.
Thank you very much chair. On behalf of CARICOM, we would like to express our support for the text as drafted and express our appreciation to the United States of America for the flexibility exercised in this regard.
Thank you very much, Jamaica, Iran, you have the floor.
And I would like to thank you for your all your sincere effort for reaching consensus. But you know, this, this article, this very is very important for developing countries. And I draw your kind attention to the the agreement that recently has been adopted, I mean, BB and J. In BB and J. If we look at the paragraph, which refers to the transfer of technology, we cannot see any such caveats. But here we have several caveats. And you know, is really this power is very diluted to consider and also very possible. And so we believe that if we want to have a tangible cooperation, international cooperation and the effective and efficient implementation of the this convention, and specifically that transfer of technology. So with this caveat, this would be it would be very difficult. So once again, we would like to have with due respect to your texts, and all your effort, but we believe that we're possible, make the cooperation and make the you know, transferring of technology difficult or impossible. Thank you.
Thank you very much around Panama, you have the floor now.
Sinatra Hopper, yeah, Marcus Support maintaining the text as it currently stands through consensus. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Yes, we need to reach consensus on this paragraph at some point or another. Now, districts delegated be around, kindly mentioned another baby word for his point, which is BVM J. I don't think there's any more necessity for me to repeat this better. From my very personal experience, I was involved in a BB antigen negotiation, part of which was actually happening in this room, I was sitting somewhere around there as part of the Japanese delegation. In the negotiation, as some of you well know, that technology transfer transfer of technology was a such a big issue in one of the biggest issues, because only a small number of countries developed countries have doubt such technology as necessary as they are required for the developing development of bio resources under the deep sea, beyond the jurisdiction of nations, in the high seas. But the BBN J negotiation BBN is a treaty is dedicate the Technology Transfer dedicates huge system that are dedicated to the technology transfer and there are other maybe I should say safeguards to balance that then talks to property owners rights with the the interest of developing countries, the dvn J treaty is based on such a delicate balance. And on this convention, we're not affordable to we're not cannot afford to dedicate such a big part of articles for technology transfer, although at some point some delegation pointed out that this is a convention for crimes that are committed through the use of technology in information and communications. So, this involves a very, you know, technology that is dedicated to that field, but for all that importance of technology in this field, we cannot really afford we cannot start a negotiation about intellect the balance of sensitive Balance of System dedicated to the transfer of technology, we have to have this only this paragraph that speaks for technology transfer. Now, as I said, we have come to a very critical moment for us to think for us to see if we can agree actually agree on this paragraph out the referendum when we have no other options to take the cake, take the drafted text as it is or otherwise modify it and there was an attempt from other day like some other another irrigation to modify it to insert something into it to you know, which might be without a dip of a drop that might break the query brown that was intended to this paragraph there is intended by the chair to bout to strike a balance on this. And based on that, I would with respect to all you know for all the things that you have mentioned, this is of course a very important paragraph very important form of assistance for developing countries it is we all know that That is why we are discussing this using a very extended time period. Without technical assistance and information exchange, and possibly transfer technology. We can't implement this convention as an international community. But we also find a consensus on this taking right balance using words, that allows flexibility, so that different countries different member states can accept are comfortable with the current with the formulation in this convention. So I would like to suggest to consider it again, consider the proposal as drafted by the chair again. After that, I can't say anything more than this. And I can't help anything by saying this, other than by saying this why I gave her some time to consider this paragraph. Perhaps perhaps it would be better for me to move on to other paragraphs, while keeping this paragraph 54.1. Lipson for a moment, but I think we will come back to this by the end of this session, Therefore the conclusion of this session.
So moving on to other outstanding paragraphs under Article 53 We have 54.5 54.7 and 54.8. I'm dealing with these paragraphs at one time, because in some way or another, they're in a similar situation. But I would like to mention that the out the informal informal setting that we had yesterday, this morning, we were able to come to agreement informally, informal informal on Article 54.5 Because, again, some delegation exercised its flexibility to withdraw its proposal to amend this paragraph. So, what I would like to do now is to see if we can the room we can agree now the referendum on Article 54.5.
So, I would like to ask this question. Again. May we take it as agreed as a referendum? We are talking about article 54.5.
Okay, some corrections. i My apologies. We came very, very close to an agreement on Article 38 point 54.5. But there is an outstanding issue with that paragraph. But, so before going to article 50.5 We go to article 54.7. which was actually agreed in formal informal out in that setting in that informal setting. So may we take it as agreed, if another referendum. This is I'm talking about article 54.7. And it was the the paragraph where some delegations kindly withdraw, withdrew its proposal demanded. I will give some minutes for you to consider if we can actually agree on 54.7 ad referendum.
I see no objection. I see no requests for the floor, which would mean we can agree on Article 54.7 or the referendum. Okay, let's do this. We agree on Article 54.7. Right. So going to, or going back to rather, article 54.5. Again, this article, this paragraph, we had some proposals outstanding, but a one delegation kindly withdraw its proposal demanded for the in the spirit of compromise in the spirit of
consensus, we had actually had a proposal to insert insert the role that could be played by the UN ODC. So I will just briefly read it out how we would sound like
article 54.5 States Parties shall assist one another in planning, and implementing research and training programs, blah, blah, blah. That is the original language. But one delegation, I think it was Vietnam, who proposed this insertion after assisting one another, which would read or assist one another directly or through the UN or the C, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime? So I hope if I hope I have it correctly, but I would like to now invite Vietnam delegation of Vietnam to have a case for your proposal in this room at this plenary. So are you if you already? Yes, please.
Eyes. Thank you, Chair. It's we explain when we presented this proposal, our rationale was to recognize these outstanding expertise of UN LDCs in designing and delivering technical assistance to member state and we are has been a beneficiary for many years in light to spread and speciation to that effect. And that's why we think that you NOC should have a role to play in the in designing the tech ecosystem program, or at least the Member States should utilize the United States equities in this regard. In the previous session, chair, you pointed to paragraph 10, which also pacifically referred to UNSC. But here is para 10 is quite limited only about the voluntary contribution. I'm not sure whether it would be sufficient to cover the expertise that we are talking about. Because I feel that the in practice, I see that there's a number of UNSC program where one donors could have we could use it for a number of recipients countries and then the program could be earmarked to specific country or precinct or regions, these. So I want to one the the convention to allow that practice to continues. Of course we understand that at this late stage and the discussion in the room has come to the point where we need to agree on Pacific language on this. For the sake of consensus. We may go with the the mood of the room and leave the text edit was. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Vietnam. I have Iran on my list. I'll give the floor to round please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we had a discussion about this proposal, I would like to thank the distinguished delegation of Vietnam for proposing this language. But this paragraph is about, you know, assessing the country, as is one wish each other, you know, as is one another. And we cannot agree with placing the UN ODC as the intermediary between the state here in this paragraph. Thank you. So we we support the tax as proposed by Chair. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any other dailies you get allegation wants to check the floor. Yes, Cabo. Very there you have it.
Thank you, we are in the same position.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your concise intervention. Now, I see a sense in this room that we can, we may be able to agree on this paragraph, paragraph five. As drafted. Unless any other delegations wish it wish to take the floor. So let's do this. We go back to the original language that was drafted by the chair. And and on this occasion, I would like to proceed the flexibility shown by the district's delegate of Vietnam. We had a very interesting discussion in this morning session or surroundings question. But in this context, perhaps it I think the delegations sense is that we can agree on the original text as drafted by the chair. So I would like to ask this again. If we can agree on this paragraph as drafted, may we take it as agreed other friend?
I see no objection. So this paragraph is agreed at the referendum. So we're going to another paragraph under Article 54, which is paragraph eight. On this, we saw proposals proposal to amend the verbal part are encouraged to change into shell certain thing. I think it was some delegations, including Iran, Egypt, and CARICOM if I have it correctly, to alter it. So doubt the text is in line with the UNCAC UNCAC 68.3. On this part,
because the other part of this paragraph eight helped some modifications from the original text or original language taken from the UNCAC. There is a reference to technical assistance and capacity building, which you don't you do not see in UNCAC. But other than that, we need to have this paragraph in line with the formulation of the UNCAC. That's the rationale that the proposed delegation had proposed the alternation alteration argued for. So I would like to open the floor in our attempt to see if we can agree on the original language or the language with modification that were that was proposed by some delegation. It's to replace are encouraged to do shall. So the obligation level of obligation will change. If the modification is agreed. I have it on my floor is do you have the floor?
Thank you very much chair with regards to this paragraph we maintain our position of replacing are encouraged with shall thank you.
Thank you very much. And Iran, you have the floor now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, we support replacing encouraged or encouraged with Shell thank.
Thank you so much. Any other delegation who wish to take the floor? In response to what happened? Yes, European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we would like to support the original text as was proposed by the Chair, thank you.
Thank you very much. Could I would like to ask the allegations, to, to make a point, if possible, in your intervention, to convince others because we have different perspectives, different views, in terms of this part of this paragraph. But we have to come to complete we have to come to an agreement on this by consensus. And for that, I think we need to convince others one way or another. I don't, you know, I'm not asking for long time intervention, longer speech, but it's could be you know, can be concise when you try to convince others in your attempt to make a presentation why your proposal is better than the others. So, any other delegation who wish to take the floor?
I see no. Yes, no way. Please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it possible that the Secretariat could put on the screen the language from the talk I don't have it in front of me now, but I believe that the wording in on on top is
is strengthen the efforts to maximize the effectiveness and then so on, but here our text is strengthen efforts to maximize the effectiveness of technical assistance and capacity building. I think there is a difference and I would like to stick to the drafted text. Thank you.
Thank you no way, the secretariat is now working on the reflection of the original text of the UNCAC to the screens that bear with me some more minutes while they are working on. Yes, as the way indicated, there is a difference between the our text and the UNCAC original text. The verb is different or I should say shall and encouraged to different but also the other parts have different because based on the ASC six discussions, the chair decided to change the original text there is no text that are taken take taken from UNCAC operational and training activities to technical assistance and capacity building in our attempt to adjust that to the complex our convention
while the secretariat is working on having the UNCAC text side by side with the our text paragraph eight I would like to invite other delegations to share your views concerns, suggestions, proposals possible solutions.
None
Well, I think I think some of you should have some ideas to to lead us to a more comfortable situation where we have light of code that we can agree on. Yes, Jamaica, you have.
Thank you chair. As the Secretary brings up the the text, we do note that the language is not verbatim and it was adjusted to take into consideration on the differences between the conventions, but the use of the word shall it underscores the same spirit of cooperation as it relates to technical assistance and training and capacity building as it is in okok. And we notice also that in how the draft is formulated, the obligation is an obligation of effort, which is for member states to strengthen their efforts to maximize training opportunities, and it is also one that is to the extent that is necessary. So, we do believe that in maintaining the similar spirit of Uncock we would be acting in the best interest of of all state parties to the to the treaty that we are negotiating. Thank you Chair.
Thank you very much Jamaica
which one this is a Convention against Corruption yes first.
Okay, so, upon request from member states, we have UNCAC article 60.3 text on screens. So, you can recognize the differences wait the current text of the convention, but I would like to ask given the differences between the two texts does that Does that justify the difference on verbs? Oh shell verses are encouraged to is there a justification sufficient justification to make difference in other parts of this the paragraph or the current draft is the balanced the much more balanced one I would like to you know, listen to more convincing case from member states on for the guidance for member states. which way we should go. I have is on my list please if do you have floor
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if drawing parallels here is is relevant because the The current formulation that we have here with with you as it was using shall, is indeed a balanced one. Because if you can, can can take us back to the, to the one and our, and our convention
Yeah, so here we have state parties shall strengthen to the extent necessary, to the extent necessary, provides this leeway for countries to to have a varying level of commitment to the technical assistance. So if we're going to use are encouraged, and to the extent necessary, that's really diluting the language here. But when we when we're having shall and then caveat by to the extent necessary, then here, we're striking a balance between having a word that denotes a level of commitment, which is channeled, and then calculating it with an expression or, and a caveat, which is, to the extent necessary, which also provide provides this space for countries that have their own reasons not to engage in this kind of cooperation to the fullest extent. So again, we reiterate our position, we believe that using the word shall specifically in this context, and specifically with having to the extent necessary, is indeed the most balanced approach and the most balanced language that can be used in this paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you, Egypt, for Euro intervention. I have no way to be followed by South Africa. No way first.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor again. I think that in Could you please show us the uncut wording?
I think there is a difference between strength, and then to the extent necessary to efforts to maximize operational and strength training activities, then, to maximize the effectiveness of technical assistance and capacity building. If we say shall maximize the effectiveness, this is some. For us, it's much more, much bigger obligation. I think that suits to strengthening the efforts to maximize operational and training activities in the uncap make sense, but here shall strengthening you know, the efforts to maximize the effectiveness. It's our strong wording. So I think the original language is balanced and good enough. Thank you.
Thank you very much. No way, I give the floor to South African art.
So South Africa does support the word shell. And for the reasons provided by CARICOM and Egypt, that this particular Heron number eight, it underscores the spirit of technical assistance and capacity building and sharing if we look at the sentence there, we have, if we go to are encouraged to, to the extent necessary, it definitely dilutes that that particular paragraph. And secondly, I heard no way ask the question, whether technical assistance and capacity building is slightly different from training programs. So my delegation considers training programs to be part of technical assistance and capacity building. And it is very important to maximize the effectiveness if we do not make our technical assistance effective, then basically, what are we doing? Our efforts will be redundant, and it will be not useful. So in this regard, Mr. Chairman, you asked the question, does the word shall create balance to this particular paragraph, my delegation concurs very strongly that it does indeed, bring the necessary balance required. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I give the floor to Vanuatu Yoda.
Thank you chair. One water is flexible enough to accept it The the option of using the term shell in this particular paragraph perhaps consistent with what the delegations are delegates from Egypt and other countries have said, just in relation to maybe a drafting issue, there are 10 or 10, paragraphs all together in article 54. Eight of them are expressed in terms of amendatory language, using the word shell, only to have permissive in in the language that they use. So I think shell does fit within the scheme are the words use throughout this article. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. I give the floor to Kabul their data.
Thank you chair, taking account to the reasons presented by Norway. We prefer the word show. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I have the word of the allegations. Oh, yes, Namibia.
Thank you chair, Namibia, I would like to join the statement by catacombs and supported by the delegate this cruciform South Africa and Egypt to use the word shall thank you.
Thank you very much. Any other delegation who wishes to take the floor? If no, I will, I will not take any. Yes Mozambique, you have the floor.
Thank you chair, we would like to join Namibia and South Africa and support the use of the word shell in this paragraph. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. I will stop the deliberations on this paragraph here. Because we have a couple of other questions to go through using the best advantage of time left. We have article 57.3 under Mekanism, the implementation chapter eight article 57.3. Now, this paragraph as I understand it is an outcome from facilitation facilitated discussion at the ASC six. In my understanding this paragraph as it sounds as drafted is based on the very delicate balance based on the discussion in ASC six, however, you can always attempt to modify the paragraph the draft text so as to strike different nodes of balance if the committee can agree. One of the things that was that was discussed last week session in this room and also we have been formals and also have been formally informed Bose is a proposal by Canada to insert some additional language in the context of the rules and procedures of the Conference of the states parties. I now on this occasion I would like to invite the delegation of Canada districts delegate of Canada to make a proposal here for the consideration of the other delegation Here in this room, if you're ready, okay, I would like to give the floor to candidate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to go over the big discussion we had in the informals. I know time is short. But for the benefit of everybody in the room, I wanted to explain a little bit where we're coming from, and also possibly provide some amended tax that reflects some of the concerns we heard in the informals that might expedite our decision making with your permission. Our bet our objective here is not to mandate what the Conference of the states parties will do with regards the rules of procedure. But to underline that we had extensive conversations on the modalities that led to us working really well, and possibly getting to a treaty at the end of this week. So what we're trying to do here is to bring back the concept of this resolution that was adopted by consensus to remind the conference that this could be a starting point when we start to look at adopting rules of procedure or elaborating them. I think this will fundamentally expedite those discussions. So what we heard from colleagues was that it wasn't appropriate for the drafters to have the treaty. So us today in this room this week, to bind the Conference of States Parties, or that inclusion of a reference of a resolution and a treaty was inappropriate. And so I to that I answer off the bat. That that's exactly the role of the HC it is to give guidance to the treaty and to give guidance, the treaty implementation. We are trying to do that with this provision. Now on the second issue, there is precedent in the UN system for including reference to an UNGA resolution in a treaty. I refer here specifically to UNCAC, Article eight, paragraph three, where it contains a provision guiding states regarding the implementation of that article. There's also six references to a resolution in unclogs, which is a near universal instrument that most of us in this room are parties to. Now, because I understand some of the sensitivities associated with possibly the wording based on the modalities, and also to be representative of how things are usually represented in treaties, when we refer a resolution, if you allow me Chair, I'd like to read out an amendment that I think will probably get us close to where we need to go. So after set forth in this article, we would propose deleting everything that's there currently, in brackets, and replacing with taking into consideration General Assembly resolution 78, slash 782. Of 26, may 2021. I'd like
Have you finished your intervention? Or would you like to continue? When you? Okay, I'll give the floor to Canada again, for finishing it.
I'll finish quickly by saying this ruffler refers to our intention, which is to take the resolution into consideration rather than mandate. And also, it's consistent with some of the new language we've seen included in refer referencing this resolution in the draft resolution, which also uses the language taking into consideration. So we're creating consistency here as well. And just one correction, it's 75 slash 282. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Canada, for your very flexible out and constructive approach. As the same to me. I now would like to open the floor for our delegation to share your views, proposals reaction, but we'll have to bear in mind that we have less than 10 minutes to go before I begin, because I have some important announcements to make before we conclude this session. Because it needs to be very quick. I don't think we need to repeat that same sort of abstract discussion on this, but we need to be more practical how, you know we can focus on how you think what you think of the proposed language. This is a very flexible language compared to the to the previous language that was proposed by Canada. It's a consideration doubt taken into in the formulation of the rules the procedure of the Conference of States Parties. So, having said that, I would like to open the floor for all of the allegations. Of course, you need to have some time to consider the proposed because this is fresh new language that they proposed in this room. So, we are not going to you know, stop the discussions, but I need a reaction, you know for, yes, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. And I'm not going to comment right now, on Canada's new proposal, even though I'm still inclined that we, we do not make any references. But in one of the previous meetings, we've indicated that we would like to delete the last sentence in this paragraph. And I just want to reiterate that again. And we have made a proposal to either delete the last sentence in the paragraph or just delete inclusivity and add, as one of the principles, equitable geographic representation. So either this or that, and thank you.
Thank you, Egypt, for referring to the latter part of this paragraph. As they said, In the beginning of this deliberation of this, on this paragraph, the whole paragraph is based in a very delicate balance based on the facilitators discussion from the ASC six. Those principles such as effectiveness, inclusivity, transparency, efficiency and national ownership are something that I would rather not to touch on. Also, the geographical representation. And others like are they see, you know, higher hierarchical principles such as maybe multilingualism, let's say, some delegation proposed is already there in the UN system, and we do not even mentioned that mention them in this tiny part of the paragraph. It is specifically dedicated to the States Parties conference, where is the procedures in this very specific context. But having said that said that this is a view. From my perspective, of course, your proposal is well noted. I think, for the time being I think the delegations need some more time to consider the possible consequences of an insertion of the language that was proposed by the cat but but by Canada, because this is a completely new language. So I'd like to recommend suggest to you all to have your consideration about proposal. And also, of course, the consideration propose the proposals that way that were proposed by other delegations on this paragraph as well. And also, I would like to urge Canada delegates delegation of Canada to try to approach Java the allegations so that you get much more support for your new proposed language. Okay. I have no way on my list. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since you asked for reaction, Norway could support Canada's proposal and we will not support the deletion of the last sentence. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Norway. I have Japan to be followed by European Union to be followed by Chile. But I will stop the list there because I am the restaurant Federation. You are the last speaker of today. Okay. Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you chair with the explanation of Canada today. Japan can support that a revised proposal of by Canada as it appears less restrictive. And we want to keep the last sentence as is. Thank you.
Thank you MX Japan European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair on behalf of the EU and its member states, I'd like to say the week we can also support the Canadian proposal, which to us takes into consideration some of the comments raised by other distinguished delegates. And it's a balanced one. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I have chili on my list. Chili, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My delegation also would like to express its support to the proposal put forth by Canada to maintain the last paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you so much, the Russian Federation, to workers in Brazil.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to reserve for our positions. So sir, to study the proposal put forward by Canada. Thank you.
So much Russian Federation. I said, You're the last speaker of today. But I have three more requests or more requests from member states. Please be reminded, you know, these reminded that time is really where we need to leave the room now. So we'd like to ask member state who are wishing to take the floor now. If you can defer your postpone your interventions, but some out later time. But if you are desperately need one, please make it very swift and concise. Okay. United States, you have the floor.
Thank you chair to be concise. We support the new Canadian proposal. We could not support modifications to the last sentence. Thank you.
Thank you very much Vietnam, you have Florida.
Thank you chair. We reserve our position going to Canadian proposal and also like to support the Egyptians session to delete the last sentence. From our experience with the cops in incontinence talks, these things will communicate the future discussion. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We have now you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, one while two is prepared to accept the Canadian proposal but unwilling to accept the deletion of the last sentence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. And I will give the floor to Iran and the round is the last speaker of today. I will take no more any delegation to
thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, my delegation would like to reserve his position regarding this proposal in order to consider it for further meeting. Thank you.
Thank you very much request taking note of Thank you very much, everyone. Before we conclude this evening, afternoon session, I would like to make some announcement which is very important. I would like to inform delegates that the plenary meeting tomorrow morning will be held from 11am to 1:30pm 11 to 130 for the consideration of the revised draft resolution, okay, revised draft resolution, and the afternoon plenary will be held from three to 6pm. Three to six. for consideration of the further revised draft text text of the convention. Both plenary meetings will be chaired by Madam Chair. Please kindly note that there will be no open ended informers tomorrow, no open ended informers tomorrow. Lastly, the revised draft resolution and further revised draft text of the convention in English will be circulated by the end of the day. The HC website will be updated with a new schedule of meetings for tomorrow. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.
