Good morning, distinguished delegates, excellencies. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to another delightful day of our ad hoc committee. This morning, we are going to try and resolve or I put to the plenary, some proposed resolutions on outstanding articles that have not been agreed add referendum in regards to Chapter Four on procedural measures and law enforcement cooperation. And on chapter five on international cooperation, I believe we have the three minutes speaker timer on so I do ask you to keep your interventions to three minutes. I hope you all understand how that works right now, after a week and a half. Because I don't have the piece of paper explaining it in front of me. We don't have much time. So I will get straight through. But for your awareness, and we will be working on these chapters for the next 40 minutes or so then you will all get a delightful 10 or 15 minute coffee break. And then my dear friend, Eric of Brazil will come and chair the rest of this morning to talk through some of the terminology issues he has been working on in informal. So turning to the procedural measures chapter, I would like to take us through those articles that have been discussed in informal or that have not been agreed address so far, in plenary and propose either some small amendments that we've discussed in informals, or otherwise propose a way forward on those articles, where we've had some proposals that have not gone to broad support. So starting with article 25. We had some proposals to amend this article. Those proposals did not garner broad support, I would suggest that we retain the original text of the chairs revised draft text as is up on the screen. And I would like to put article 25 including noting it does have split square brackets here for those issues that are outstanding in regards to terminology and scope. Possibly scope, I can't remember. And I would like to put it to the room that we adopt article 25 ad referendum
I see no requests for the floor. So a grade
similarly with article 26. We had some conversations about the scope of this article, noting it has square brackets in it. I would like to put article 26 to plenary to be agreed at referendum
I've now requested the floor so agreed. On article 27. We had one proposal which I would like this room to adopt. You might need to change the text here sorry. And it is in paragraph B in the second line to change in the territory of the state party to in the territory of that state party. This is a clarifying amendment
you can see it all on the screen.
I would like to propose that plenary adopt article 27 With this amendment ad referendum.
Now request of the floor so grade article 28. We had a lot of discussion on this article around the placement of the conditionality around the territory of the state party and how that can be interpreted and where it is best placed after those discussions A the interpretation of the draft in the originals revised in the chairs revised draft text, as shown on the screen, in my opinion accounts for all of those potential issues and interests. And I propose that we a dot add referendum article 28 retaining the original from the revised draft text
scenario requests for the floor so agreed. I want to turn now to article 31. Noting that article 29 and 30 are still the subject of informal discussions. If you are interested and haven't been a part of those, we are meeting again at one o'clock and CR 11 Come along. Article 31. I propose that this room adopt retaining the original of this text noting that some of the references here to offenses established or offenses covered by the convention will all be changed as part of the chairs package are all part of the chairs package at the moment it's reading offenses established in accordance with this convention. So, I put to plenary that we adopt article 31 retaining the original of the chairs revised draft text, add referendum. I see no requests for the floor. So agreed.
An article 32 We had discussions around scope. So I put now given that those discussions are in fact somewhere else that we adopt article 32 ad referendum retaining the chairs draft from the revised draft text. I've now requested the floor. So agreed.
On article 33, we had some proposals to add additional language or remove some language. We discussed this in in formals over the last few days and came to the conclusion in those informals that it was best to retain the original as drafted. As you can see on the screen for paragraph one in particular of this article is the paragraph that we had discussions over I will put it to the room that we adopt article 33 ad referendum retaining the original in the revised draft text of the chair so agreed.
To see.
We had a some discussion here around article 30. For the secretariat is just putting on the screen so you can see it the changes that would bring this article in line with the terminology of offenses established in accordance with this convention. It also includes an additional conditionality that was proposed by a member state in paragraph two to bring paragraph two in line with the other paragraphs that all include the phrase subject towards domestic law
those are all the changes. Cool. I would like to put it to the room that we adopt. Paragraph one and two with the proposed changes that you can see on screen as edited The paragraphs three, five and six. We should also adopt I would also put do to add adopt add referendum, retaining the original draft text. paragraph four, I note is still, well, maybe it will be decided in plenary after this. But there are parts of paragraph four, and proposals made to change parts of paragraph four that are under consideration in the use of terms in formal, which is why I'm not putting the whole article to you to adopt because that is thankfully out of my jurisdiction and something that someone else is hopefully dealing with. So I put article 24, article 34, paragraphs 1235 and six. To you to be adopted at referendum Egypt, you have asked for the floor
can we give the floor to Egypt please?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, dear colleagues. For paragraph one and paragraph two, if there is a consensus regarding the new text, as amended. Egypt will not oppose that we would prefer to have it covered by this convention to make the you know, lending assistance and protection to victims. I think that it is something that we all are aiming at and that's fine. But we will not stop again in the consensus in this regard. We have no problem with paragraph three. And but paragraph five, Madam Chair, we still have a reservation on on the current language and we are still asking for its deletion. I thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you so much, Egypt, we will I suggest we read paragraph five to the informal to be discussed at lunchtime and I thank you so much for showing your flexibility in regards to paragraphs one and two. Can I put paragraphs 123 and six to the room to be adopted at referendum?
Egypt you have the floor
Thank you madam chair then sorry for taking the floor again. But article paragraph six, we still have a problem regarding article 13 and 15. So I think that we need to bracket this till the end of the discussions on Article 13 and 15 I think
thank you very much Egypt, I'm happy to bracket 13 to 15 at the very end of Article of paragraph six perhaps we await the outcome of that and adopt paragraphs one two and three of article 34 ad referendum I put it to the room so agreed.
I would now like to move to article 37.
Paragraph one of article 37 was discussed at length both in plenary and also a little bit in informal, where we agreed in informal at least or informal informals to go along with the changes that you can see on the screen. I would like to put it to the room that we adopt paragraph one of article 37 As amended On the screen
I see no requests for the floor. So great.
Paragraphs two, three and four of sorry two and three of article 37. I propose we adopt retaining the original of the chairs revised draft text address referendum
I see no requests the floor so agreed
paragraph four is it includes issues under discussion in both the terminology. Is it the terminology, the chairs informal, so I will not be putting that to you. We have already agreed five, six and seven ad referendum. I would like to put paragraph eight to you to agree at referendum. The reason this wasn't agreed earlier was because of the interaction between paragraph one and paragraph eight, which we have solved in paragraph one. So put paragraph h2 to agree ad referendum retaining the original text of the revised draft text. So, great. Paragraph 10. We had some discussion about the placement of the reference to Interpol. We've heard no opposition to the suggestion to move this reference up the paragraph. So, I put it to the room that we agree at referendum paragraph 10 of article 37 as it appears amended on the screen I seen a request for the floor. So agreed.
We have not agreed paragraph 15 of article 37 Because of an opinion that it relates to the chairs package so I will leave that one for now. Turning to paragraph 18.
We had some discussion about how to redraft paragraph 18 In informals. And the proposal on the screen right now is what was agreed was the best way to do this in formals. What this does is it cuts paragraph 18 into two sentences. It makes discretionary the requirement to provide reasons but only a very narrow discretion based on existing international legal obligations or domestic law. I put to the room that we adopt paragraph 18 of article 37 As amended on the screen at referendum. Russian Federation you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I can't see our proposal that was not met with any tangible opposition from the room. I can't see the ending of the sentence that was proposed finally. And it Trad which shall be communicated to the requesting state party by which we mean the requirements of domestic law or international legal obligations which shall be communicated did to the requesting state party in order the requesting state party does not get me or silence in response to its request. So, yes, we just made a compromise that we in some situations, we did not disclose the specific reasons. But so the information on domestic law or international legal obligations that preclude giving reasons for refusals should be communicated. So this is the most reasonable minimum we can accede to thank you.
Thank you very much Russian Federation for raising that issue. So Russia has proposed that you don't have to provide the reasons for the decision not to provide extradition, but you do have to provide what those reasons are, without providing the reasons. I'm having a little bit of a logical issue here. And I'm also not sure. It doesn't say that you get silenced, you still do get the decision, you just don't get the reasons automatically. You will get the reasons unless there is an international domestic legal obligation not to do so. And if there isn't an international domestic league raise a legal reason not to do so then would that reason be protected by that international legal obligation? I'm just not sure about the logic of providing a reason not being for not providing a reason, but that having to provide information about what that reason is when you can't provide that reason under international law, domestic law. Russia, if you would like to try and get us out of this logical tautology, I would be very grateful Russian Federation, you have the floor. Yeah.
Thank you. What we meant is that, in that response about the refusal, you just don't simply and flatly refused that extradition is refused and full stop. But then you mentioned that we are precluded by our domestic law or international legal obligations to disclose you the specific reasons for our decision, just to make this reference about that the requesting state is actually precluded by those two, or either one of them components to disclose the reasons. So that's the minimum explanation why there is full stop after the freeze, refuse extradition. The minimum explanation that we are precluded by our national law or international legal obligations without disclosing any other details, thank you.
So the reason would be we are precluded. I put it to the floor to think about this. Perhaps this requires a little bit more discussion, though, I would really really like to close this.
United Republic of Tanzania you have the floor.
In principle, we understand the logic put forth by distinguished delegate of Russia. But we are reading the first sentence of the Para, which says the requested state party shall inform the requesting state party of its decision with regard to the extradition. So the import of that first sentence means the requesting state party will get to be informed of the decision which could be either the request has been accepted or not. And therefore with the second part of the sentence, even if no reason is given by the requested state party with the first sentence they request the requesting state party we will have known of the decision which has been reached by by by the requested state party so maybe if that is sufficient or we You need to improve mode the language. But in principle, the essence is the requesting state party should at least know the result of the request that has been sent. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Tanzania. I have Nigeria to be followed by Cabo Verde, Nigeria, you have the flow.
Nigeria, you press the button too many times, Nigeria, press the button once more, and I'll give you the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Except we do not understand the proposal of the Russian Federation, we think, from what we heard him say we think that the paragraph the way it is couched, has addressed his concern. But the fourth sentence and the second sentence, because in the second sentence, it says the requested state party shall inform the requesting state party of any reason, of any reason. And we think that that's the point that also inflation would like to stress. And they may not do this if they are stopped from doing this by domestic law or any other obligation. So from our reading of this paragraph, we think that that concern has been addressed with the way it is couched and we do not think that there should be additional phrase. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Nigeria, Cap Avada, you have the floor.
Take them out, Jim. We just want to say that we we still prefer the original tests as draft is important to the request to state party to know, the real reason for an refusal. So it's important to so we can change our way for requesting and probably is important to has to make some cover shares conversation and negotiate a different way to to find the cooperation. So we still we still prefer the original test as draft.
Thank you, Kevin. Fer de Morris Hannya. You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. We support the current drafting of this paragraph, including asking the requested state party to inform the requesting state party of their decision on the extradition including reasons for refusal, as was explained by the delegate, who took the floor before me, because these reasons if not stated would represent an obstacle that the requesting state party cannot overcome. And that's basically the path adopted by so many international conventions in this domain. The state party receiving the request must explain why refused extradition Thank you.
Thank you very much, my attorney Israel you have the floor
or the first sections of the text is acceptable. However, it is unclear why countries laws do not permit explaining the reasons of refusal. We have yet to encounter such a situation perhaps countries can clarify this point. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you, Israel, Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So just as reaction to Nigeria's and some others, arguments. Our concerns are not at all accommodated with the current wording. As I just briefly tell how it functions in practice. If we get just one line of text in response to an extradition request, and this response reads that the extradition is refused full stop. What we do next? Well was Sanda again and again letters and feather requests, demanding Good explanations of the reasons. If we get just this line, we will send those next requests, insisting on a minimal explanation why the extradition was refused. And here we're ready for a compromise. Just bearing in mind that there can be instances under international law, when reasons can't be given, then at least please elucidate that there is an international obligation precluding us the requesting state to disclose these reasons. Again, full stop. And that would be enough just to prevent us from sending further requests demanding at least minimal explanations. This is a minimal requirement of comity, international comity, if we divert from the general principle of international comity here, then please just observe the minimum polite formulas that should be reflected in international correspondence, especially if we talk about domestic law, domestic law is an Off Limits area for the requesting state. We have no idea what your domestic law says about the refusals for extradition. Thank you.
Thank you very much Russian Federation, then, United States. And then I'm going to close the floor on this issue, invite you all to come and talk about it more in informals at 1pm. And hand over to my dear colleague from Brazil to continue cheering on terminology, but united states you have the floor.
Thank you Chair, just first to say that the United States can support the compromise proposal that is currently on the screen, we would object to the proposal by the Russian Federation to add additional language at the end of that sentence. Note first here, we do not have mere silence because we have the first sentence stating that the requested state party is informing of the decision with regard to the extradition. But with respect to the second sentence where a state party may be prevented from disclosing the reason, providing additional information there would actually do too much and would undermine the reason why we need flexibility there in the first place. I would also note that this paragraph, paragraph 18 is actually unprecedented in itself. It is not in other UN criminal justice instruments. And that's why we need to make sure that we are getting this language correctly here. The reason why we need this exception in the second sentence is because of non refoulement obligations, which are international obligations. For example, if someone has applied for asylum, because they are afraid, afraid that they are going to be tortured if they are returned to their home country. And then the home country is actually the requested state that is requested extradition. If we were to disclose that the person had applied for asylum, they could be subjected to torture if they were to return to that requested state or their family or or other connections could be subjected to torture. And this could also relate to domestic law, which prohibits the disclosure of asylum proceedings. So if we are going to retain this paragraph, the United States supports and would require flexibility on whether a reason must be provided when a party is permitted from providing that reason under its domestic law or international legal obligations. Thank you.
Thank you very much United States. Obviously still a topic of interest to several delegations, I urge you to come and meet with us at 1pm and in conference room 11. Right now, I believe you have 10 minutes to yourselves and Eric will be here at in 10 minutes the plenary will take over to talk about terminologies. So have fun. We are adjourned for 10 minutes, grab a coffee, and I might see you back here this afternoon. Who knows. Thank you so much.
Good morning delegates. Good morning. Friends, colleagues. We are approaching now. The final? Yeah. It's first time I use this. We are approaching our the final days of our discussion. And I thank you all for for being here. I want to say that by myself and the ambassador of South Africa, Ambassador Molokini, we have been co facilitating the discussion, the informal discussion on use of terms. And we have we've had 10s of hours of discussion, this session, the last session in Vienna also. And we've come to a document that you see on screen, that has been worked a lot. And we have some agreements that you can see, you will be able to see on screen that, I think it would be wise for us to as much as we can stick to them. Also, I want to say that terminology is a very important part of this convention, because it gives clarity to what the text of the convention says. But I must also say that terminology, personally for me is like the tail of the cat. And the tail does not wag the cat is the contrary. So personally, I believe that fundamental differences that countries may have are better suited to be discussed in the text of the convention, we are looking for, for terms and definitions that are short and clear. And the further discussions on that I believe should be taken to the text and you will see that we are very close to agreement, we have already reached agreement in a number of those terms and definitions. And we are very close to getting a consensus on the other terms, I also am gonna say that we will work on time on terminology up until 1230 until 1230. And from 1230 to one this plenary, and I will continue sharing, we will take up article 36 protection of personal data, the coordinator was Miss John case from the European Union. And the reason for this is that the chair is working on a text. But this specific article has not yet been discussed in plenary. So from 1230 to one, we will take up article 36. That was the request I received from the chair. So let's start our discussion. And we'll start from the top of our definitions. So the first definition is information and communications technology system ICT system. And I must also remind delegations, that the CO facilitators proposed terms to be defined, and those are in red. Those are also we are seeking to hopefully have a consensus on the terms as well as on the definition. So Information and Communication Technology Systems shall mean device or a group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of each, pursuant to a program gathered stores and performs automatic processing of data. Also, I want to remind that this definition was was amended last session after proposal from from a member of state to include what was not included before, which was gathers and stores. So let's open to discussion on on on this term. And the floor is is open.
European Union you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have done a lot to speak on behalf of the EU and its and its member states. And thank you for this explanation that you provided us with regard to what we have been thrown in but we have been discussing in your proposal, a co facilitator proposal for the term itself, I will address the term now. I believe that's what is expected from us now. Maybe fully understand why this term was proposed also in light of of the resolution setting up the committee. What we were bit wondering is that of course, the understanding of this term, and then there is a parallel for in the ITU that has has a working definition of it. And there's an understanding of the standard that is quite broad and not in every instance, would fit well with the with cyberspace and what we're trying to address in this future convention. What I mean is, especially reference to communication, which might include radio broadcasts and transmissions, phone lines that are landlines and so forth. So, sort of forms of communication that might not strictly connect to a computer system or to automatic processing or all these other terms that we are defining. And in light of that, he would like to propose some alternatives for consideration. For instance, Information System or data system, as would be, we believe, more appropriate term to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings with regard to the scope or are unwanted overlaps between other foreign terminology used in other fora, and also to better address what we are trying to tackle with this future convention. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll stop there.
Thank you your opinion, let me just add that the CO facilitators when presented this proposal, thought that the definition as it has been discussed, would would limit the idea behind ICT system. Also, this is for the purposes of this convention. So that that's what the rationale behind it and but I don't think I quite understood you, are you providing an alternative definition? And no,
sir, Mr. Chetan was talking about the term. So instead of ICT System Information System or data system that was the proposal sorry for not being clear. Okay.
Thank you European Union.
Thank you very much your opinion union. Next is Norway, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the definition, we support it as drafted by you without any changes. And concerning the terms, we have the same concern, like the EU in relation to the ITU working definition on the same term. And we are wondering whether this the use of this term on this definition that we have here might lead to any complications or confusions. So, though we use the term computer system in our legislation in Norway, we are very flexible to to use other appropriate terms, but we will like to hear what other delegation things of this and maybe we can try to find another term that is more suitable. And regarding the EU's proposal, we could support it Thank you.
Thank you Norway.
Check you have the floor.
Thank you very much. I would just like to add to what the EU set just a while ago and supported by Norway, the term ICT it has been used for a long time, we all have it. But for that we know that it's a very old term it's quite obsolete in doesn't cover everything that we deal with now. And we hope to have a modern convention with modern definitions that will stand the test of time. So that's why we believe that the word information and communication might have worked for a long time, but now it would be better to replace it by data, because that's what we have been talking about before you know in all the other definitions. So, if we replace it with data, like if we say data system or data processing system and something like that, it would be much more to the point in our view. Also information communications does not it does not cover what what would this what like all the aspects of this what this convention aims to cover. And we believe that the data system would cover it much more Thank you. Thank
you check it. We will keep it like this or you want to add some some other words to the definition
Well, data system or data processing system if it's better for some but Yeah, something like that.
Thank you check it, we'll keep it like this. For now. It's more simple. We have GA. But before GA looking at the text, we see the proposal to add a manual program gathers stores and performs automatic and manual. This is proposed by Namibia. And some countries want to delete it. And Namibia seems to be the only country supporting it. I would ask Namibia if you still want to keep manual here, Namibia. If you're in Rome, you can you if you could take the floor, it will be appreciated.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, in the spirit of trying to move forward and to make progress. We are flexible to retain the original in this regard.
Thank you very much, Namibia, it's highly appreciated.
In our list, we have Georgia and then Russian Federation, Georgia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. Good morning. Georgia supports the use proposal on these alternative term. As regards definitions, we subscribe to our previous position as seen on the screen. Thank you.
Thank you, Georgia, Russian Federation. I have the floor.
Now as well, sure.
Thank you. First of all, we just want to say that our position on this term and definition is correctly reflected. just reacting to what some what delegations, various delegations have said if I understood correctly,
the EU delegations position is that communications is too broad a term and it could cover what we don't really want here. The position of the Czechia is quite to the country that ICT is too narrow term and that it won't cover everything we want. So we're a little bit confused here. But just as a reaction, we'd like to say that
bearing in mind the presence pursuant to program in the in the definition, I think it's unambiguously points to the type of communications that we're covering by this convention.
Specifically those that are carried out in accordance with with various program with a specific program as for ICT, our position is quite the opposite. We think that the ICT ICT is the most broad the broadest possible term, and we'll make it possible to cover everything that we need to cover in this convention. To make our work easier, maybe it would be a good idea to hear what will actually come up but if we use the term information and communication technology system, what what what could what could come up what could what could crop up maybe if we had concrete examples, it will be easier to discuss this. Thank you.
Thank you Russian Federation. Yes, let's take up another issue. We have the proposal to delete automatic from the definition. Also we have we have added at the end processing of electronic data since we had already agreed in electronic data. So my question would be to those who want to delete automatic processing of data, if you could get along in keeping it. And it seems to me that have We have heard that it is clear and understanding that the processing of data performed by a device as described is a automate automatic. We have already deleted a manual. But let's see what we get. So any any response on the possibility of keeping automatic?
I see no objection to keeping it. Yemen you have the floor shouldn't say thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a technician. But I specialize and the legal aspects of cybercrime.
And the automatic processing of data for us is an automatic system. It's never a manual system and the technology used in processing the data preserving it, and the processing it and analyzing it is all automatic. It's never manual. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Yemen, and we deleted manual. So let's keep automatic, delete the countries that are they're requesting to delete and to retain. And I believe electronic electronic data at the end is also is also agreed. So we are mainly working with the first definition. So and I would invite all to see if we still need to keep working on the definition below. It seems we are close to consensus on the first definition. And if I don't hear from the floor, we would keep the first definition. We have a list Mauritania, China and then United States Mauritania, you have the floor.
Chakra and say, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We believe that the term ICT is a more comprehensive one. It covers the cloud technology programs, processing techniques, data and the Internet communications. That term covers everything that has to do with information and communications technology, and therefore, it is the one that serves our purposes better. Thank you.
Thank you Mauritania. Next, China, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. About the terminology. China believes that ICT system is the term authorized to use in this convention. For the sake of consistency, we suggest that we retain the term ICT system. Thank you.
Thank you very much, China, next Egypt and then the United States. And let me just say that we will be deleting the second part, it seems to me is the same. And and before giving the floor to Egypt, United States and United Kingdom. I'd like also to ask Pakistan, if you still want to delete related, we had this discussion in formals. And it seems that related was here, because another definition would say would use computer system and peripherals would need to be also included in this definition. As we are changing to input information and communications technology system or information system or data system. It seems to me that related this not make a lot of sense here because we are dealing with with a new term. So I don't see Pakistan in the room. But I would request others who want to retain related if you could also intervene. Personally, I think we could delete it because it seems that it doesn't add much to our to our definition. So the list of speakers is Egypt, United States, UK, Venezuela and Iran. Egypt you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, just Egypt would like to align itself with the interventions made by the Russian Federation Mauritania and China pertaining to the retention of the Turks in ICT system, thank you.
Thank you, Egypt, United States In the United Kingdom. US, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. CO facilitator, just to be responsive to the question that you posed to the room on whether related is important. I would echo the intervention by the distinguished colleague from Albania. In our other informal meeting yesterday, that here, when we're defining ICT systems, by the words themselves on the screen right now does not necessarily include peripheral devices. So we think there's value in including or related as opposed to interconnected because we would also be including disconnected devices, which would include peripheral devices. So we we do see a value and a distinction with interconnected and so we would propose keeping both interconnected or related in order to have a complete definition for ICT systems, or whatever term we decide on separately, just to speak on the term itself. We echo others and thanking you and the other co facilitators for helping us to focus on the definition itself. mean for us that is key to what will be important for the text of the treaty, and especially the criminalization articles, in terms of the the terms themselves. I mean, we've been listening to the room and certain interventions by Member States saying that it might cause confusion because the term is used in other fora. So we're continuing to listen to the concerns and flexible on the term itself. Thank you.
Thank you, the United States, United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, we would like to lend our voice of support a to retaining the term around Information System Data System as proposed by the EU and its member states. And on the rest of the paragraph. We support it as drafted. So we will we support the retention of related Thank you.
Thank you United Kingdom, then as well, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The burden of art the Bolivarian republic of Venezuela consider is that the original proposal formation and communication technology system is the right term, especially in light of other UN agencies, such as the International Telecommunication Union, which managed to reach consensus in 2014. On this term, also, the International Day of girls and ICTs, we had, we have ICT indicators for the development of countries also UNESCO uses this term in different contexts. So we believe that we should maintain information and communication technology systems, which is a broad term, which covers everything in this convention. Thank you.
Thank you, Venezuela, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding for this term information and communication technology system. My delegation believes that we need to use one term, which is more comprehensive and more inclusive. So so for this reason that we propose to keep it information and communication technology system here. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Iran, Burkina Faso, you have the floor. Mats himself, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The delegation of Burkina Faso believes just like motor China, China and others that we should use that information communication technologies, so we subscribe to that.
Thank you, Burkina Faso. Okay, I think we understood that we still need to work on this term. I will be asking. I'll be asking Pakistan, if they still want to delete related, as I said, I think it could be deleted, but there's a strong feeling in the room to keep it I also understand this possibility. We I have Bahrain and Mali. So after Bahrain and Mali, I would like to go down to the other issues, but then you have the floor.
She couldn't satirize preparing
to Mr. Chair. We prefer ICT systems it's a term As we use in our domestic legislation
we should retain
as Malaysia us and the Okay, the other term. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Molly. It seems sorry. Thank you button. Next is Molly and Molly and then Albania. It seems to me the definition is almost done. I will only go back to Pakistan and request them, ask them if they could go along with keeping related and then the definition would be agreed. We'll go back. We'll have to go back to the to the term itself. We have Albania and then Oman, Albania. You have the floor. Sorry. That's my mistake. Molly was first. Molly, you have the floor.
Merci. Mr. President.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We share the position of Burkina Faso. Keep ICT. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next, Albania and then Oman, Albania. You have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair, also will be in support the definition of information system and the retention of the next of paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you, Elena. Oman, you have the floor.
Shukran Thank
you, Mr. Chair. We prefer the ICT systems as to the word related, record, modified and so interrelated or keep related. Thank you.
Thank you, man for flexibility. Yes, let's the definition is mostly agreed, will get go back to that. Just to to make sure. And we'll go back to the terms now on be electronic data. It's agreed in informals. I would like to seek the approval from the plenary for writing it agree that referendum of course, ICT system or the other terms under discussion will make part of this definition. Is there anyone against we agree at referendum on the information electronic data?
Russian Federation you have the floor
Thank you. If you don't mind, I'd like to bring us back to the first earlier term wouldn't see our country on the list of those who support the information communication technologies please include Russia in there, thank you.
Thank you Russia. So on B, we will decide on ICT system or other terms. Let's go to see, traffic data shall mean any electronic information related to a communication by means of an ICT system and we have just agreed on electronic data. So we should change here. traffic data shall mean any electronic data relating to a communication by means of then is the term Well, we are going back to the x's right somehow that we started but fine, we will change that generated or processes processed by x, that formed part in that chain of communication indicating the communications origin, destination road time, Date, Size, duration or type of underlying service. It seems to me that the important part of this definition is the latest parts chain of communication indicating and so on. So let's get views on this term
I have no request for the floor and let's discuss I don't see a request here. Let's let me just say that we have to discuss by the addition of or processed and the use of generated by ICT system, we have countries that wish to delete it, we would read relating to a communication by means of a system that formed part in the chain of communication indicating and then we go on any views on on that proposal to delete generated or processed
I see no request for the floor let's delete it by now. Your opinion have the floor
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry I missed that we are deleting the or process part right. Now the generated one yet is the correct sorry, thank you
thank you European Union. Now, we have a request also to delete generated by ICT system which would read shut relating to a communication by by means of the system that formed a part in the chain of communication and so on. The question is do we need to say that it is generated by an X system on the list I have Albania Albania, you have the floor.
Thank you. So we as we are expressing informants we are going to retain not to delete. Thank you.
Thank you Avena. You mean you want to retain generated by? Is that the question? Yes. Thank you
The United Kingdom we have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are also like to retain generated by and just to be clear, we support the paragraph as originally drafted Thank you
Okay, so we have countries who want to keep generated by.
Pain generated by Ian, just to be clear, we support the paragraph as originally drafted, thank you.
Okay, so we have coaches who want to keep generated by then my quote,
this communication as part of a chain of communications, we're clearly explained what we're talking about, there's really no need to refer to what or where these data were generated by where we've emphasized a number of times when we're talking about communications, this is not from one operator to another, this is signal going through multiple points and
saying generated by could provide confusion here, when service providers will not understand whether or not they should
provide information as to communications that were not or had not been generated by them or in their systems within the language before and after the phrase generated by is entirely sufficient and covers all the needs of this convention. Thank you.
Thank you Russian Federation. I must say that I agree with you, but we are trying to get a consensus here. So my question is, would keeping generated by be acceptable? to you in the context of this discussion, and as the term defined for the purposes of this convention Russian Federation, we have the floor.
Especially, thank you. We'd like to hear some serious arguments though. We need to be able to explain this position. Unless we get an explanation, it's very hard to accept a position because this is serious. We're talking about a convention. Thank you.
Thank you, Russian Federation, would any country would like to take the floor and explain the rationale behind keeping that generated and why not deleted it? I think it would help our discussion
Okay, let's go down to contents data.
Yes, so, if you look at the screen your screen, you'll see that there is a repetition below. That's that was requested by the CO facilitators to make it easier to look at the text that is under discussion. So, I would suggest that we all look at the first definition, but also add the second definition which was from the point of view of the CO facilitators way out of this discussion and the chairs the floor is open.
If you can remember from our discussion, we added images, because it was an important issue that was missing also, we there was this request to say but not limited to. So the word any was added at at the beginning of of the definition. So my question to the room would anyone be against we having a agreed in informal in AD referendum content data as it stands at the bottom?
I see no opposition check you have the floor
Yeah, it's not an opposition and just want to remind that we have already agreed that we would use the term electronic data and not electronic information. So just to change that thank
you take care, your right electronic data. So we will be marking the the term and the at the bottom as agreed upon reference.
Thank you very much. Now, let's go up again and have a another attempt a dose before we go to the others. Okay, so let's bear in mind that this for us is the last day and we have half an hour less than we we thought about that we thought we would have for discussing this. And we have the proposal to use ICT system or information system that that a system many countries had expressed that the important part of the definitions are the definitions themselves, not so much the terms. And and I think we have to exercise flexibility here. We need to remember that those terms definitions are for the purposes of this convention and that they should serve the ends of the convention. So I will have an attempt to asking could we Go along with ICT system as proposed by the CO facilitators. Also I will ask if we could go along with information system or data system is there any change in heart in this case the floor is open
I don't see any let's go go down
Morocco you have the floor
Thank you Mr. Chair since we'll be moving down the text just to flag Morocco as one of the delegation also on an information system Thank you.
Thank you Morocco
Okay, one last attempt to traffic data. Could could we go along, without generated by ICT system? We have a list Nicaragua, Mozambique and Namibia, Nicaragua. We have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We want to join the group of people who want to return system X. Thank you. Mozambique,
you have the floor.
Thank you, Jen. We would like to join the countries that are proposing the use of the 10 ICT system. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. MC, Namibia and then Canada. Now maybe you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, kindly. Add, Namibia's name. I believe it's next to Nicaragua. For information communication, technology systems or ICT system. Thank you.
Thank you, Namibia, Canada and the United States, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you chair on traffic data, I think we'll put our name behind retaining generated by the IT system or whatever it is that we finally call it. The The rationale is because in this current formulation, without it, we lose the concept. That traffic data really is data that relates to the transmission of the communication. And this is what this is supposed to talk about. It's data generated by the IT system. As the communication gets transmitted. That's That's how it's supposed to be read. So if we take out generated by an IT system, I don't think the definition makes any sense. It makes no sense to me, and I've been a practitioner in this area for 24 years. So please retain generated by an IT system. And if everyone can keep that in mind traffic data relates to data about the transmission of the communication, and see if you could read that in there without that in relation to the first definition. I think part of the we're going to go with other than ICT, whatever we we come to ground on. I think part of the issue is that ICT has been used for the last 20 or so years or longer in the ITU system and is defined a different way. So we'd have the same term defined in different ways for different purposes. So it's better that we not use the same term that the ITU uses. Thank you.
Thank you to the United States. Let me sorry, Canada. I read that statement. Let's go back to traffic data. Let me make an attempt. What if we say traffic data show me show me any electronic data relating to our communication transmitted by means of an ICT system that formed apart in the chain of communication. Could we then delete generated by Can you just put on screen This is a proposal from from this CO facilitator. And that may be a way out and I would invite
so that's that's, that's my proposal. Let's listen to two countries United States, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. CO facilitator, the US would like to echo the rationale that was presented by the Distinguished Delegates from Canada for why it's important to retain the original formulation. Not the proposed reformulation. We appreciate the CO facilitators attempt at changing the language, but we agree that when we're talking about traffic data, we're talking about a communication that's going through several different compute computer systems. And so the generated by is not talking about the communication itself, but about the electronic data relating to that transmission. So we think generated by the ICT system or the computer system or whatever the X may be, is important to help illustrate that this is data relating to this is the like electronic data that's generated by the computer systems along the hop during the transmission. And we think that concept is more clearly expressed by the the original formulation. So we would oppose the the proposal from the CO facilitator and support including generated by ICP system.
Thank you, the US, Cote d'Ivoire, and then Malaysia, Cote d'Ivoire have the floor. Massey,
thank you, Mr. Chair. Please add Cote d'Ivoire, to the list of countries who opt for the concept Information Systems. Also, we support retaining the phrase generated by the information system when we're defined data traffic. Thank you.
Thank you go to VA, Malaysia, and then Algeria, Malaysia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the first definition. Malaysia would like to maintain the original and support the proposal by the chair for information and communication technology system? Yes. And for the definition of traffic data. In the spirit of compromise, and also to achieve consensus, Malaysia is agreeable to the addition of generated by ICT system and would like to remove his support to delete their proposal. Thank you, Mr. J.
Thank you very much, Malaysia. Let's delete the proposal from the shirt transmitted. You can delete it, it was an attempt. Next Algeria and then India. Oh, do you have the floor? Thank
you, Mr. Chair. My delegation would like to maintain ICT system and also thought the first definition and also for keeping both interconnected and related. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Algeria. Next, India and then Albania, India, you have the floor. Thank
you, Mr. Chair, with new difference to the UN resolution which appointed HC would like to go with ICT rather than data or information system in a and so far as traffic data is concerned, we believe that the generated word should be there because technically the traffic data will be generated by the IT system. So if you remove it, it will make little sense. Thank you.
Thank you India, Albania and then Russian Federation Albania. Hello, the floor.
Still have the same statement and on the first as we have expressed, but on the traffic data. This definition we are on the proposal for Canada and we are just on the retaining and not deletion. Thank you.
Your burner you were already next Russian Federation and then Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation you have the floor.
Thank you very much for giving us the floor. would like to thank you, sir, for your proposal. It seems to us it could have introduced clarity and address the concerns that were expressed by a number of delegations. By way of response, in our opinion, we fully agreed that This is about transmitting information, which can be transmitted through communication systems. But we don't believe it's necessary to say that several times in a row, the fact that later we refer to a chain of communication makes it very clear that we're talking about information that is transmitted through such chains. This is obvious and for sure, it will be clear to professionals who work with the convention, like the professionals will have in the room here today. On that basis, we believe generated by good so confusion or misunderstanding, not all operators are the initial or the final communication points, there are certain transit points as well. And there will be situations if we keep this language where they will wonder whether a requirement applies to them or not. So by removing this generated by will lose nothing. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you very much Russian Federation. But I also have to ask you, you say we'd lose nothing, and you prefer to delete it. But could you go along in keeping it Russian Federation have the floor
yet, now, unfortunately, it wouldn't be a problem for us to agree to that. Because we see problems that might arise when we talk to service providers. Thank you.
Thank you vision Federation. Let's call it Yes. So, we are close to consensus in a number of definitions on a we have the discussion of ICTs and also information system and our system will not solve it here now. But for the definition. We will keep we will penned a discussion with with Pakistan if they really wants to delete related for traffic data, we have only this issue of generated by ICT system. I think we're close. We're also close to consensus. I have some requests for the floor. Papua New Guinea, Iran and then Costa Rica. But when you get it you have the floor.
Thank you Chair for the definition. Could you add popcorn you can use name to retaining information and communication technology system ICT system and also on the point of traffic data, please add our name please add our name to the One Two retain generated by ice the system including the group of countries including UK, Canada, USA, Cote d'Ivoire, India, and India. Thank you.
Thank you, Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and then Vietnam Costa Rica. You have the floor.
As chairman, we'd like Costa Rica to be added to the list of countries that prefer in paragraph A to state information system and pay off See also
Iran and then Vietnam Iran you have the floor.
Thank you Chair regarding for the definition of the traffic data. My delegation would like to support the Russian and Russian Federation and Egypt and Pakistan Vietnam to delete the generated by Thank you.
Thank you, Iran, Vietnam and then Senegal, Vietnam you have the floor.
Thank you chair would like to join Malaysia in Egypt to support the definition of ICT system.
Thank you Vietnam. We have Senegal, Switzerland and Sierra Leone and Indonesia. It's clear that we have different views on the term ICT system or information system that a system we're in will not be solving this now. So I would like to stop the discussion here. And then go to the other to the other definitions we're still have, but we'll listen to Senegal Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Indonesia. Senegal. We have the floor
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator go like to be added to list of countries that's support maintaining information and communication technology system. for the following reasons. First of all, this is a term that has already been enshrined in our positive legislation, but also an international treaties to which Senegal is a party for the Budapest convention, but also the ECOWAS directives, as well as the Malabo convention. So it's a term that with which we're familiar, that's the first reason secondly, it's a term that is broad, broader than simply information systems, because Information and Communication Technology also implies information systems, but also communication systems, including telecommunication. Secondly, Senegal, I would like to maintain the term generated by ICT system ICT systems. Why? Because we believe that traffic data constitute a separate element of the information chain. This is data that is linked to the communication chain or network. Thank you. Thank
you, Senegal will listen to Switzerland, Sierra Leone and Indonesia. And then we'll revert to the other terms on our lists, and Australia. Let's try to cut the list here. Switzerland. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mister. Thank you, Mr. Chair, please add Switzerland. In a after Costa Rica. It was eloquently already explained by our distinguished colleague from EU and Norway. And regarding the date traffic data, please add us after the long list. After Senegal. Thank you.
Thank you, Switzerland, Sierra Leone, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I delegation belief traffic data for clarity that we should maintain generated by ICT system. Thank you. Thank
you, Sierra Leone, Indonesia, and then Australia, Indonesia, we have the floor. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Indonesia would like I would also like to join a long list of countries that support the ICT ICT system.
Thank you, Indonesia, Australia, and then Vanuatu, and then we move to other terms, Australia have the floor.
Thank you. Cheering and good morning, everyone. We definitely appreciate the concerns that have been raised by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation for the journal generated by concern, and appreciate that we've already got our name there. But I think for us, we really do agree with the intervention that was made by Canada. For us reference to generated by a system is important as this is about electronic data which is generated. We don't agree that this adds confusion. The viewer does actually providing clarity, that this is not about other types of electronic data. So such as, you know, electronic data about subscribers or billing information, which can generally relate to a service. And so it's really important that we retain this reference. Thank you. Think
Australia, Vanuatu, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. First we support the EU is UEs proposal with reference to the term data system. Also, we support the group of delegations that have supported the use of the term traffic data. And also Canadian intervention in relation to data generated by ICT system. Thank you.
Thank you, Vanuatu. We have requests from El Salvador in Georgia. And I would but I would like to go to revert to the other terms. So I would ask somebody El Salvadorian, Georgia, if we're intervening on this discussion, to keep your intervention to when we go back to this if, if you you may have Thank you. So let's go to the other terms
Thank you. So, service provider. You'll see in on screen that we have a proposal to add a diverse spectrum of digital services. Also, we have a proposal to delete on behalf of such a communication service and a proposal to or other line processing service. The floor is open. El Salvador, you're still on the list. Would you like to intervene on service provider? If you are you have the floor?
Mr. Chairman, we want to comment on the previous article, but very briefly, we just wanted to say that we support in a pair of Ay ay ay CT system
E and in paragraph C, generated by ICT systems. Thank you very much.
Thank you also for the on service provider and request for the floor.
So I was the room, if we can go on working on the original instead on the alt please give a look at it. It will I think it would be out was a an attempt to bring those two together. And we have some support and some rejection. I think it will be easier to go back working on the original proposal. Anyone against deleting out and working on the original proposal?
Okay, so let's take up from one, we have a proposal to add a diverse spectrum of digital services by Pakistan, Vietnam and Iran. and EU, the US Norway, Australia, Canada and EU want to to delete this proposal. Any views on this? And I would ask Pakistan, Vietnam and Iran. Do you think this this phrase is necessary in this context, if you could take the floor and give your your reasons? Before that, I have Philippines on on my list. The Philippines you have the floor.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. With your indulgence, we would like to register our support to retain the original definition of the traffic data. Thank you.
Thank you The Philippines.
Vietnam, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, we have indicated in informal that we are ready to go along with original language. So please take money out of the amendments. Well, even those we still maintain that the deal is New Years of cyberspace was requiring us to expand our understanding on definition of service providers. But however, this is very controversial. So I think so for the sake of consensus, we stick to the your proposed language. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Vietnam. Pakistan, anyone? Could we could we delete this proposal? It seems to me that when we say provides to users of its service, we we are talking in very broad terms. It's already a diverse spectrum or a spectrum of or whatever service they are providing. It would help our discussion If we could could delete it so Iran you have the floor
Thank you chair. My delegation would like to mention that this supporting from the Pakistan regarding to put a diverse spectrum of digital services is that was an attempt to have a one inclusive and comprehensive definition about this mother but my delegation if they see that other distinguished delegations make it hand one some other documentation to to this target to have a comprehensive definition that we will we'll go to have some flexibility Thank you.
Yes, Iran, it seems to me that not not saying anything in this matter makes it very broad and comprehensive. Because of its service and we are not saying what kind of service so I see Paxton is not in the room. But I would delete it for now. And we would bring it back if it is it is the case
thank you on to let's yes chili I'm sorry I didn't see you before chili you have the floor.
Yeah, thank get your own traffic data. It is possible to add children to retain the original place after Philippine Thank you.
Thank you chili Republic of Moldova and then United Republic of Tanzania. Moldova you have the floor.
Thank you chair also in Point C to would like to add our voice
to to retain traffic data generated by ICT system Thank you.
Thank you Moldova United Republic of Tanzania you have the floor.
Thank you chair we would like to register our name on piracy. Trotsky later on maintaining the generated by after Moldova and on para a Please add your name on the long list who are supporting ICT system Thank you.
Thank you Tanzania Georgia you have the floor
thank you we support in traffic data. Jen word generated please say that so name of the Tanzania Thank you.
Thank you Georgia Mozambique and then Bureau Mozambique you have the floor Thank
you Chair light on Team track data or like to join the countries that are supporting the maintenance of regenerated by
Thank you Mozambique, Peru, you have the flock
the delegation of Peru would like to have its name added on pegar in paragraph C to original to retain the original language Thank you. Thank you.
Okay, so the proposal here is to delete on behalf of searcher communication service, or users of search service. That's the proposal by Russian Federation and Iran. Canada has proposed to add or other online data process processing service or users of service. So those are the proposals that are under discussion now. The floor is open the list is Syrian Arab Republic then Armenia Syria have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In brief, we would like to add our name to the to paragraph see on traffic data. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Syrian Arab Republic. Can you tell us exactly where you want your name? Syria you have the
battle Bureau after Peru
much next Armenia and then Japan, Armenia, you have the floor. Thank you chair,
we would like to also add our voice to those who want to retain the generated by in C. And coming to service provider. We also want to retain the original language. Thank you.
Thank you, Armenia. Next Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you Chair, just briefly, we prefer to retain original. So not adding the Korean proposal. Thank you.
Mauritania, you have the floor. So Grant,
thank you, Mr. Chair. Concerning service provider, we would like to register our position among the countries calling for the retention of the original paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you Mauritania. Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you. I would like to once again, explain our position. And maybe also ask a question. Given that providers offer various types of services, and in small i We, we speak of service providers providing communication services, I think no one will.
No, no challenge the fact that services not only also includes storage, storage, and from storing information, which involves the storage place. And so these services are not covered by the text we have because in to and paired to these kinds of services can only be provided
on behalf of a communications operator of which we speak of, or service provider that we mentioned in part one. So I would ask delegations to to read this definition once again, and to maybe clarify, with national law enforcement bodies, whether in the course of their work, they might not need data that is stored by service providers that, for example, provides services of storage information, whether they law enforcement might not need to use this information that during investigations, we have stated this position more than once. And we simply think that this would this text we intentionally leave outside the scope of this convention providers, many providers who, who offer various types of services to their users. In substance, we in essence, we only cover service operators. Thank you.
Thank you, Russian Federation. So I gather you keep your proposal. At this point. I asked Canada if you want to keep your proposal or if you could be amenable to deleting it. Canada if you're willing to take the floor. Canada, you have the floor?
Thank you, Chair. I I think in the current formulation, we could except to delete it. We're still thinking about the Russian Federation's proposal on this as well. So we'll have to come back. Thank you.
Thank you, Canada, for flexibility. Let's scroll down. Next subscriber information, I think we're close to to agreement on this too. On number two, we have a proposal to add any assigned network address by Iran. And also we have the proposal to add as well as other information allow it to identify the user by Russian Federation in Iran, and some countries wanted to delete this. So I would start by asking to Iran, could you go along? By the left deleting this this proposal as to Iran you have the floor?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding for the deleting that. Let me have some consultation with our delegation and then we will come back to you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. For the second proposal, I would request the proponents and countries that are against this proposal if they could take the floor and give us an explanation maybe we can find a way out
Can I point out that at the at the support we are saying shall mean any information that is held by a service provider relating relating to subscribers, and etc. And on to We The proposal is to add as well as other information allowing to identify the user. So my question to Russian Federation and to Iran since we mentioned any information in the support those two, do you still think we need to keep this here Russian Federation you have the floor thus, yes,
we agree with your logic that any information in the in the title in essence, covers what we wanted to add at the end so we can agree with that but at the same using the same logic we'll need to make an amendment in the next in the next paragraph we where we once again say any other information thank you.
Thank you Russian Federation
so I would ask Iran you may have had some time to think you think we could erase any asides network address and as well as other information allowing to identify the user Iran the floor is yours. Yes.
Thank you Mr. Chair regarding for this second proposal. Yes, we do I agree with your argumentation regarding for the any information is in the threshold of the this definition this term. And so we do believe that it would be included as so. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Ron. So we will keep for now any aside network address and Iran you have the floor? Excuse
me for your indulgence. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and give me a minute and I will come back to you Thank you. Thank
you very much Iran. Next well we will go back to subscriber information
personal data anyone would like to take the for the floor on this?
Yes, let's recall what the discussion was. So there is a proposal to any that we had no rejection in formals. And a choice between data or information here. Personal data shall mean any data or Personal data shall mean any information. So that's the that's the alternatives we have here. It seems to me it's it's simple. Let's hear from countries.
So it's 1225 Let's agree on personnel data before we go to article 36. It seems we are converging to use data we have.
I will not say where we converge into we have been discussing the other the other terms. But anyways, I need some some response on data or information in this case it seems to me it does not make much of a difference. Of course. If we think about language, Personal data shall mean data is circular that Why I believe information could be used here. And bear in mind that for the purposes of this convention, although we know, and we have heard different opinions on the meaning of data and information, it seems to me that we could use those interchangeably. So my question is, with the addition of any, can we go along with the use of information instead of data? When as well, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. Venezuela would like to maintain the original term data. But as an alternative. We could use both terms data and information, as we attach more importance to data, because from a technical point of view, the definition of data covers
any specific detail of what we want to regulate under this convention and what we want to govern under this convention when we speak of information that we're already talking about processing of data and
and it doesn't necessarily cover details that are covered by data, which is much more broad. The technical definition of information involves the possibility of knowing something, that there is some kind of uncertainty about what tool is being sought, which we believe that information doesn't cover everything that we're seeking in this convention. But again, we insist that it couldn't be an option. It could we could maintain both data and information. Thank you.
Thank you, Vanessa. I would be reluctant reluctant here to use them both. Data is less information. We have had this discussion before in several in several different different terms. And it seems that many countries have expressed that they rather have a clearer definition. Still I am, it seems to me that with the aid of any, we could use information, and we have some broad support for using information instead of data. Also, it looks better to say Personal data shall mean information instead of Personal data shall mean date. So I will ask, once again, for you, Vanessa, you can answer answer me and say that you want to keep it it's fine. But who do you get along with you the use of information? And the same question applies to Syria, Tanzania, and Angola? I think we're doing progress. But we don't have much much time here. So Vanessa, if you want you can have the floor. On the list is Sir Serbia and Iran. Venezuela? Yes. Can you you can have the floor Venezuela?
Yes, thank you. Yes, we can. We can agree with both terms, data and information. If we need to opt for one or the other, we believe that data is most appropriate for what this convention seeks to deal with. Because when we speak of information that might not include data that could be of interest in an investigation, thank you, Venezuela
next Serbia and Iran. And we will have to wrap up this this because we have been requested to deal with article 36. So Serbia and then Iran, Serbia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To support the productivity, we were waiting for the wrapping up of basically this article. So on the notion of service providers Serbia will support to retain the original wording of the provision on the subscriber information. Also, we will like to support to retain the original wording of the paragraph on the personal data, we will like to support the alternative which is proposed by the EU and the member states. And we are going to jump to the serious crime, all provision which is also going to be supported by us regarding the retention of the original warning. Thank you.
Thank you Serbia. We are not discussing still other terms, but it's it's it's noted. We'll have the Iran as the last speaker on this. Then we would invite Mr. John Key's from the European Union to present article 36 And we'll have a discussion on that. So Ron,
thank you have the floor so chair regarding for the your question on definition of the subscriber information, my delegation would like to reiterate that the our proposal based on for inclusiveness of the all of the all of the Subscriber Identity postal or geographical address on this, in this field that we propose any assigned network address, and the other hand in the Roman tree of this definition, there are there is a one another paragraph any other information on the site of the installation of the communication equipment, we do believe that we can change we can the delete the any assignment network and include in paragraph three, a promontory of that. And so, only for this reason I take the floor. Thank you, Mr. Massey, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ron. It's noted.
So
thank you for this discussion. We'll still have a few terms to go on. And we'll need to do it fast. I'm not sure how the chair will deal with terms that have not reached consensus. And we don't have much time. But now let's go to article 36. I would invite Mr. John keys to present article 36. And we'll have a discussion on that. So European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to present. The facilitators work on Article 36. To the plenary, we're pleased to advise the delegations that we've made significant progress, we believe on reaching consensus on Article 36. Since the beginning of the session on Monday of last week, to take a step back, first of all, Mr. Chair, the result of those discussions is the text you see before you know and is essentially the same as the working document that appeared on the website of the ad hoc committee since last October, except it is no in track change. So it's also important to understand that the amendments that are now shown in this revised text include not only amendments that have been made since the the last session, but amendments that were made at the last session, and which at that time had been accepted by a large number of delegations who had proposed other amendments or who otherwise had supported article 36. During the sixth session, when I say it has the agreement of the delegations, that is with the exception of the amendment to paragraph three, which I understand as late as this morning that some delegations may still have some issues in relation to and that we would be happy to hear further about. But the amendments in paragraph one, A and B, were largely made at the request of CARICOM, and India. And we believe they are largely uncontroversial and can be accepted by the delegations. Scrolling down then to Article Three, again, the the there was a certain number of delegations at the last session, who raised an issue in relation to the exclusion of the word written in relation to the prior authorization of the original transferring state party. So we came up with an alternative to that which we believe would meet the concerns of both the delegations who wanted authorization in writing and the delegations who also wanted some flexibility perhaps for emergency or urgent cases. So we came up with that formulation, who may require that the authorization be provided in written form which would allow the control to be please,
European Union please go on, you may request the floor again. Thank you.
Thank you. So the the key to this particular provision is that it would allow some flexibility was at the same time allow the right to request the authorization in writing, which we understand is important to many delegations as they they outlined at the previous session. I should also say, Mr. Chair that some questions remained for one delegation India after the sixth session. But we are pleased to confirm that we met extensively within the during this week and last week. And we're pleased to confirm that those issues have now been resolved for India without the need to further amend the text. And we'd like to acknowledge that India still has some reservations, but have informed us that they can accept the text. And I would like to acknowledge and thank them for their constructive approach. I'd also like to thank CARICOM for their constructive engagement during the week. And throughout the process, it was very helpful. And indeed, finally, Mr. Chair, we can also say that, at the open ended in formal session last week, one delegation, the distinguished delegation from Egypt raised an issue in relation to paragraph three, where they proposed that the the term third country or international organization should be replaced by third party. This was supported by some delegations, but was also opposed by some delegations on the basis that the use of the term third party would be confusing, particularly when it comes to the use of exculpatory evidence and the need to actually ask ask for permission. But we think, with respect to the delegation from Egypt, that this particular provision may have been misunderstood. It actually refers to an onward transfer of data from the original receiving party to another third country or, or international organization, we think that Egypt may have understood it as referring to the initial transfer between the requested state party and the requesting state party. And that, of course, is governed by something completely different. So we do not feel that any change to the term International and third country or international organization is warranted, because we do not see that there are any circumstances under which any third party in another jurisdiction would be entitled to receive data on the disagreement. Thank you, Mr. Chair for your indulgence and happy to consider any further points raised by the delegations.
Thank you very much. Thank you for the all the work you've described, I think you worked very hard. And I think we can all thank you and the countries that came together and and got to agreements on this. So the question is, would this plenary be in imposed in favorable to agreeing at referendum to A, B and C? The floor is open.
Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you very much. I'll start by saying that we were quite happy with the original wording chairs language. Regarding the amendments that we're looking at, as far as we understand the amendments in paragraph one remain unchanged from the previous session. And at that time, we already said that, in principle, we can support these changes. To save time, let me say right away that with regard to paragraph three
the Russian delegation was not involved in this work. It's the first time we're looking at this language, and we can't decide right away I think we should be given some time to consider it. The first reading already gives rise to some questions. How can states that have received personal data? understand whether this is a requirement and and where it isn't? Are there going to sound additional questions as to whether or not they should share these data? As I said, there are some questions. And for for some unknown reason, we were not part of that work not involved in it. So we asked for additional time. Thank you.
Thank you, Russian Federation will have Egypt, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving Egypt the floor. And they would like to thank the distinguished delegation, delegates of the European Union for the presentation. And also, although Egypt was not involved during the sixth session in this informal informants or the informants that took place after that, but we appreciate the outreach made by the European Union delegation to this delegation. During this session, we commended professionalism in this regard, Mr. Chair, in principle, I think that this according to the proposal made by the chair as the package proposal, which is currently under consideration. I think that in in principle, we cannot agreed at the referral agree and referendum on this article till we finalized the package. This is in principle, Mr. Chair, regarding the the Paris itself. For arc paragraph one, this delegation can go along with the with what already amended over here, taking into consider that it is more or less the same. And we thank the distinguished delegation of CARICOM for improving the language which in paragraph two, we have no problem with it as well. In paragraph three, we have two points. Mr. Chair, the first point is regarding the paragraph three is regarding the written authorization, I think that dealing with such sensitive issue regarding authorizing the transfer of the personal data, I think that we need to be very clear that the authorization, there is no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the consent of the request. State on transferring the personal data to another entity or another party. So we we are still in favor of having it as a written authorization not not in this having the non mandatory requested for that it's it's not it's not preferable for this delegation. The second point which the distinguished delegation of of the EU had highlighted regarding our proposal to amend the second line of third country or international organization, we prefer to have it third party from our legal point of view that we are reading it in.
Yes, Egypt, you have the floor please. Finish your intervention.
Very briefly, Mr. Chair, I thank you regarding this issue of we are reading it in a country reading that if we consent to that the transfer of a third country or international organization, it means that by country there is no limitation or or objection to transfer to another third party without the consent of the requested state. This is our country reading to the text. It's not a matter that we can identify the party that we are talking about rather than the the the from a legal point of view that we are reading it in in reverse that if we are listing only country or international organization, it might lead that maybe in the future we will have or opening it or paving the way for the transmission of private transfer of private personal data without the consent of the requested state. This is our reading to this article. Mr. Chair, I thank you.
Thank you very much Egypt. What I would like to do is to mark agreed it at referendum, I heard you Egypt. But we are not sure actually what is part of the package or it's not part of the package and things may be included or excluded. So for for the purposes of our discussion, I would mark agreed at referendum, one and two.
Thank you. And let's go through and scroll down to three. Having heard you and with I would ask the indulgence of countries who are participating in this this participated on this discussion, I was not part of that. But I could try to I could attempt a solution here, maybe we would say to another third country, international organization or any other party only with the prior authorization, I would ask if that will take care of the concerns expressed by by Egypt. And by others. Let's take a minute we have a bit more than 10 minutes, maybe we can solve this issue here now.
So it would read state parties may transfer personal data obtained in accordance with the convention to another third country, international organization, or any other party. Sorry, that is only with the prior authorization of the original transferring state party. I have a list of four requests for the floor. First is Switzerland, and then Egypt, United States, Australia and India. Switzerland. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like first of all comment, the work done by the European Union. It seems to be a it was a long way. And we've heard that there were several concerns. And I think this is a good way out. It's a good solution. Therefore we support this proposal. Thank you.
Thank you, Switzerland, Egypt and then the United States, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Allow me first to beg to differ with you regarding agreed at referendum for paragraph one and two. We cannot go along with this ruling Mr. Chair, as the proposal that was circulated by email from the Secretariat, article 36. Still in the package, and let's see what will work the package will learn how to lend at the end of our negotiation, Mr. Chair, but regarding your proposal on paragraph three, I think that this is a pertinent proposal. And it addresses eloquently our concern regarding it. Thank you.
Thank you Egypt. So we'll delete agree that referendum. And let's go on with the list of speakers, United States and then Australia, United States, you have the floor. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. And again, we also we also think the European Union for its work on this proposal. We also support the proposal as presented by the European Union. Chair, we also thank you for your proposal here to try to address the issue that had been raised by the distinguished delegate of Egypt. Unfortunately, though, we would need to object to or any other party here. Our concern is that this could mean that we could not show information that we had received through a mutual legal assistance request through a defendant to a witness in a criminal investigation. We think that this proposal would go too far in terms of its limitations. We would also note that if there are concerns about data being disclosed, that you get for use in your criminal investigation or proceeding, that data being disclosed to research organizations, we would point out that in paragraph 18 of the mutual legal assistance article, the requesting state party is not able to use information or evidence that it gets from a requested state party for investigations prosecutions or judicial proceedings other than those stated in the request without the prior consent of the requested state party. So we don't think that this provision is necessary. We think it adding or other third party here could be harmful. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you United States, Australia and then Switzerland, Australia, we have the floor.
Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. Firstly, thanks to the European Union for all their hard work on this and and others. This is this is an article which Australia finds incredibly important to the convention, especially given the amount of personal data that is now transferred across across borders. We had originally wanted a more detailed principles based article, but we have listened to the room and appreciate where we have landed. So we can support the formulation. And also the edits that have been proposed by the European Union. I'd also like to support the comments that were made by the United States, just then we have significant concerns about anything which would require us or govern the way that we internally transfer personal data. This will have significant resourcing impacts on prosecutors, police courts, and will also impact rights potentially, for defendants, etc. So we would prefer that that paragraph through remain as it was originally drafted, and that we seriously consider whether that's what we want. If it seems like we have a different interpretation to the the distinguished delegate of of Egypt. And so if we have a difference of of interpretation, then that, in my mind, really points to the reason why we should keep it simple. And go back to the original language. Thank you.
Thank you, Australia, Switzerland and United Kingdom. It's only have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and apologies for taking the floor. Again. It's simply to clarify, it was maybe my mistake. Please remove Switzerland. There Exactly. We support the whole EU proposal. Thank you.
Thank you, Switzerland. We are not attached to this. And let's listen to the United Kingdom and Georgia and this Vice Chair could easily delete is only his own proposal. So next United Kingdom and then Georgia, UK, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just like others performing to echo our thanks to the distinguished delegates from the European Union for their work on this on this very important article. And much like the Distinguished Delegates from the US on Australia before me, I will say we can support the proposal from the EU as it is drafted. We would have the same concerns about reference to other party in subparagraph three of this provision and the Brexit to which this could be applied. Thank you.
Thank you The United Kingdom
next we have Georgia and then Albania, Georgia, you have the floor. Thank you
chair to similarly to our previous speakers. We also support this article as drafted by the European Union and will also oppose any adding any other party or grocery it's gone thank you.
Thank you Georgia Albania and then Cabo Verde Albania. You have the floor.
Thank you chair also beanie supports the drafted from European Union. Thank you.
Cabo Verde, we have the floor.
Thank chair supported tests as draft by you.
Thank you, Cabo Verde Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, having read it several times. And for the same reasons, other delegations pointed out the importance of protecting personal data would like to go back to the original draft written authorization. We think that's important. think everyone here understands that. written authorization does not necessarily imply on paper, it can be an electronic document, and it should be easy to receive such authorization through the operational communication channels that were described in this convention. The important thing is that the authorization should not be oral or implied. It should be written in whatever form electronic or on paper. So we would prefer reverting to the original paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you, Russian Federation. I gather you'd like to keep written. But are you fine? With the rest of the suggestions on three
Take a.
Look, Russian Federation, is your position reflected on the screen?
That's pushing? Yes, it's correct. Thank you.
Thank you, Russian Federation, the United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving me the floor again. With respect to the proposal at the end of the paragraph, the United States believes that without this language that allows a brick transferring state party to provide consent in writing that this language is too prescriptive in the requirement that the consent has to be written before transferring data to a third party. We are concerned that this language would not cover situations where the original transferring state party may want to provide prior oral consent to another party's transfer for a third country in an emergency. where time is of the essence, which we know can be the case, for example, when someone's life may be in danger. Conversely, we believe in the language as presented by the EU that there is flexibility, just referencing prior authorization, as it is always possible for a party to choose how it will grant its prior authorization. A party can always require that such be consent is requested and providing provided in writing nothing in the new language prevents that. To answer the question that the Russian Federation raves as to how a party would know that there's a requirement to provide the request or receive the consent in writing, they would know that when they go back to the country who sent them the data when they're asking for permission to transfer, that country would then tell the country that wants to transfer the data that they need to send their request in writing and that they are only allowed to transfer that data when they receive authorization in writing. Going back to the proposal made by the EU here for the end of this paragraph. Keeping this language as proposed would also make the reference to prior authorization and consent in this article consistent with article 40, paragraph 18, which deals with similar issues. That provision which is based on agreed language from untuck and UNCAC. Articles on mutual legal assistance provides that the requesting state party is not allowed to transmit or use evidence for reasons other than those stated in the request without the prior consent of the requested state party. Again, we think this proposal and article 36 allows for flexibility in emergencies where parties may want to provide consent orally and where time is of the essence. Thank you.
Thank you, for us, our time is almost over, I will give the floor to Russian Federation and then to Egypt. And we will close this discussion because this room will be used. I just want to say that at one on CRTP. We have open ended informal meeting on chapters one, two and three to be chaired by the vice chair from Nigeria. And on this room, we have informal sorry, NCR 11. On CR 11. We have informal informal meeting on chapters four and five to be chaired by the vice chair from Australia. So Russian Federation in Egypt, and we wrapped up wrap up this discussion, Russian Federation you have the floor.
Thank you. I'll try to be very brief. Of course we're hearing the arguments being put forward. And we don't argue that states cannot interact in the way that they believe they should be interacting. And if we go up a little bit. We have this suggestion that states that state parties may reach bilateral or multilateral agreements to facilitate the transfer of personal data. So if states already have such agreements, they can facilitate the transfer in various ways. That is why we have this see in paragraph one about bilateral multilateral arrangements. So I think it addresses all the concerns that were raised. Thank you.
Thank you, Michel Federation Egypt. You're the lead speaker for this session. Egypt you have
Thank you Mr. Chair, very briefly, please add our name after the Russian Federation we see that it will not take so much time to briefly respond or to give an authorization for a written authorization via email via anything via text message that would help us in this regard, but it has to be valid and verified, that there is a consent from the requested state party regarding the transfer of the personnel. Thank you.
Thank you Egypt. And I must say also that we have heard and we have, we know that there are several countries that want to retain original although there is only the United States written there and yeah, so that we know. So the session the session is suspended, and see you soon
