1
Council Working Group for the
Elaboration of the Draft Strategic Plan
and the Draft Financial Plan, 2008-2011
Document:
WG-SP-FP-06/41 Annex 2
14 August 2006
English only
6TH MEETING, GENEVA, 14-15 SEPTEMBER 2006
Comments on the contribution from Australia (WG-SP-FP-06/32) to the
5th meeting of the Council Working Group on the
Elaboration of the Draft Strategic and Financial Plans, 2008-2011
Part I – Comments from the ITU Secretariat
1.
In its comments on the draft financial plan (Doc. 32, dated 13 June), Australia raises some important
issues relating to possible areas of overlap and duplication in the work of ITU and its Sectors.
2.
The ITU secretariat welcomes this document and all other contributions from the membership that
help to identify possible savings for the 2008-2011 draft financial plan, especially those which indicate
priorities among different activities. This particular contribution raises some interesting issues, especially in
the areas of outputs, internal functions and activity-based time-tracking.
Outputs
3.
Australia points to possible overlap and duplication between different meetings, notably on the
topics of Cybersecurity and Next Generation Networks (NGN). Both of these are topics of high current
interest among the membership and the number of meetings being held reflects the priority given to these
topics. However, although the subject matter may appear to be similar, it does not necessarily follow that
these meetings duplicate or overlap, nor that suppression of a particular meeting would help to reduce the
budget for 2008-2011. The following issues should be taken into consideration:
•
•
•
All of the meetings listed were carried out, or are planned, at the request of the membership. The
Sector meetings are planned through the operational planning process, in consultation with the
Sector Advisory Groups, and the final operational plans of the Sectors and GS are approved by
Council. For SPU, workshop topics are chosen by the membership through a questionnaire process.
For WSIS, thematic meetings are subject to approval by WG-WSIS.
Even if meetings may have a similar topic, they may nevertheless have a different character and
target audience. For instance, the ITU-T work on NGN is primarily aimed at developing technical
standards, while the SPU workshop on “What rules for IP-based NGN?” focused solely on
consideration of emerging policy and regulatory issues (e.g., impact on interconnection regimes).
Also, several of the ITU-D workshops are of a regional nature and are particularly focused on
capacity-building.
Several of the events are funded by voluntary contributions, such as those carried out under the ITU
New Initiatives Programme, rather than the regular budget.
4.
Nevertheless, there is always scope for better coordination of meetings and for additional guidance
from the membership on which activities could be reduced or cut. In this context, when a planned meeting is
likely to cut across the activities of several units or Sectors, an inter-sectoral steering group is usually
created. For instance, for the “Partnership in Cybersecurity” meeting, held in May 2006 in conjunction with
the World Telecommunication Day 2006 theme of “Promoting Global Cybersecurity” endorsed by Council,
a steering committee incorporating two different units in BDT, the TSB and the SPU was created. It met a
number of times to plan the meeting. The meeting was combined with the WSIS action line C5 facilitation
meeting. Such information sharing eliminates areas of possible overlap.
1
2
5.
A further coordination mechanism is the regularly updated list of workshops held throughout ITU,
maintained by the ITU-T Seminar Coordination Committee, which can be found at: http://www.itu.int/ITUT/scc/index.phtml.1 One option that Members may wish to consider would be to formalize the Seminar
Coordination Committee and to extend its remit to ITU as a whole.
6.
Australia raises a specific question about an APEC-TEL meeting in Calgary in which it says that
three ITU staff members participated. This participation was coordinated in advance and actually only two
ITU staff members took part for different purposes and were not funded out of the ITU budget. The
presentation on behalf of the TSB was actually presented by an Industry Canada representative. The
representative of the BDT was by funded by APEC-TEL on the basis of her participation in a WTO-GATS
domestic regulation workshop the day before the spam discussions. The representative of the SPU
participated at the request of the Canadian/Australian co-chair organizers of the SPAM event for
coordination efforts on countering spam with APEC-TEL and OECD, in order to avoid duplication of effort
at the international level. His participation was also funded by extra-budgetary contributions.
7.
The Australian contribution also raises the issue of extra resources requested by ITU-T and ITU-D
respectively to implement decisions from WTSA-04 and WTDC-06 respectively. These issues were
discussed by the Council Working Group at its 27-28 June 2006 meeting. In the outcome document from that
meeting (see WG-SP-FP-06/39), the general principle was established that new activities should be
implemented through redeployment. However, this will require prioritization as to what existing activities
can be discontinued. In the specific case of the WTDC-06 regional initiatives, it was proposed that they
should be implemented for only one region, as a pilot project.
Functions
8.
Australia also raises the issue of possible overlap or duplication amongst functional areas within the
ITU’s structure and gives a number of bulleted examples. As a general point, it should be noted that just
because two units have similar names or acronyms, this does not necessarily mean that the functions overlap.
It is to be recalled that, over the last ten years, Council has promoted decentralized management, including
delegation of financial functions, and that this has been implemented satisfactorily, allowing for better
accountability from managers. Nevertheless, the issue of whether a particular activity is best conducted in a
centralized or decentralized manner is kept constantly under review, and managerial changes are
implemented, as required. For instance:
•
•
•
The creation of a centralized procurement service, following advice from the external auditor, has
proceeded in 2006, bringing together functions previously carried out separately in BDT and
TELECOM, as well as in GS.
On the other hand, the proofreading function, previously carried out in the COMPO unit (now part of
Conferences and Publications Dept.) was progressively decentralized to the Sectors in 2004-05.
The New Efficiency Committee (NEC) is currently considering the issue of whether or not personnel
management, which is currently decentralized in BDT for field personnel staff, should be centralised
9.
On the specific issue raised by Australia concerning conference management, it should be noted that
there is not necessarily any overlap between the Coordination Unit within CEC and the Conferences and
Publications Department because the former deals essentially with more substantive issues while the latter
with logistics, organization and interpretation. Although there may be scope for better coordination or
written procedures, overall the current system has worked well over a number of years.
10.
Australia raises the issue of strategic and statistical analysis taking place in both BDT/MEF and
SPU2. While it is true that both units produce reports of a statistical nature, these do not duplicate each other,
1
Planned and confirmed workshops in the period July 2006-January 2007 can be found in the document at:
http://www.itu.int/md/T05-SG19-060719-TD-GEN-0353/en.
2
This issue was also raised in DT/11 and a full response to Council was provided in the attachment to document
C06/56.
2
3
and these publications generate additional sales revenue. Basic data gathering is carried out, using a
questionnaire, in BDT/MEF for statistical indicators and by BDT/RRU for regulatory information.
Information is collected only once. However, some additional regulatory information gathering is carried out
by other units (for instance, ITU-T collects data on the position of countries relative to call-back while SPU
has responsibility for maintaining the WSIS stocktaking database). Within ITU, a new database project is
being undertaken (ICT Eye) which should make statistical information available to all staff, as well as from a
centralized repository.
World Summit on the Information Society
11.
Under WSIS implementation, the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society specifically called upon
ITU together with UNESCO and UNDP to coordinate the work of the 11 action lines, by organizing
meetings of all the action lines moderators. ITU has also two action lines for which it is requested to act as
focal point (C2 – infrastructure - and C5 - Cybersecurity). In addition, ITU is invited to play a secondary role
in the implementation of most of the other action lines.
12
Concerning the overall coordination of the implementation by the UN system of the WSIS
outcomes, the Summit requested CEB (Chief Executive Board for Coordination) to create the UN Group on
the Information Society (UNGIS). ITU took the lead and worked closely with UNESCO and UNDP toward
the launch of the Group. Under the terms of reference of the Group as well as agreed during its first meeting
on 14 July 2006, ITU will chair the UNGIS for the first year.
13.
Following an internal coordination process, the Secretary-General has decided that BDT would take
responsibility for C2 (infrasctructure), TSB/General Secretariat for C5 (Cybersecurity), General Secretariat
for the coordination of the action line moderators and for the UNGIS. However, WTDC-06 has also
requested work from BDT on Cybersecurity and some clarification of responsibilities may be required in this
area.
14.
Under the annex to the original draft of the Financial Plan, it had been proposed that resources be
made available to assist with WSIS implementation. In reality, these resources are not really “additional” but
rather would see the allocation for WSIS in the 2004-07 financial plan continued into the future work
programme. However, at its 27-28 June meeting, the Council Working Group proposed that WSIS
implementation efforts be funded through redeployment. This can be done providing other activities that can
be discontinued are identified.
Activities
15.
The final section of the Australian contribution highlights the 147 or so different activities that are
used in the time-tracking system (TTS) and proposes to use the results from the TTS to identify possible
areas of overlap. This is certainly a possible approach for identifying areas of duplication. However, it
should be noted that assigning time to “activities” is very much of secondary importance compared to the list
of outputs. The activities are generic (e.g., documentation, participation in meetings, database management)
and common to many different units, whereas the outputs are specific to the different work programmes and
Sectors. Although there may be some scope for centralizing certain activities, which might generate
efficiencies, it is only at the level of streamlining or eliminating outputs that real savings are likely to be
made.
***
Part II – Comments from the BDT
1.
BDT welcomes the comments provided by Australia, and is pleased to provide information that may
assist the membership in evaluating potential overlaps or duplication between and within the Sectors’ and the
General Secretariat’s activities and outputs. It is important to point out that many themes such as
cybersecurity and Internet protocol are in the mandates of both the Standardization and Development Sectors
3
4
to meet diverse needs of membership. They target different audiences and have different objectives which
are a reflection of the purposes of the Union and the mandates of the Sectors. BDT activities are undertaken
to execute its mandate as the development arm of the Union. These activities are based on requests from
membership and are part of the Operational Plan which is presented and discussed at TDAG and ITU
Council. With these general remarks, BDT, like a number of concerned countries, takes these concerns
seriously and hopes that the information provided below will assist the membership and Secretariat to put in
place solutions aimed at eliminating unnecessary overlaps and duplications in order to fully fund mandated
activities and better serve the interest of the Union in a time of limited resources.
Outputs
2.
Australia has identified possible overlap and duplication between different meetings, in particular
with regard to Cybersecurity and Next Generation Networks (NGN). For NGN, these workshops are aimed
at meeting specific aspects of ITU-D mandate in Programme 2 for information sharing and capacity building
to developing countries. Regarding Cybersecurity, the five ITU-D cybersecurity activities reflect the diverse
needs of ITU membership, and are in accordance with the mandate of ITU-D3 pursuant to the WTDC. Each
serves a unique purpose and is targeted to a different audience. For example, three were Centres of
Excellence (CoE) training workshops, targeted to the particular needs of an ITU region or sub-region, and
conducted in relevant regional languages. CEO workshops are also funded by Telecom Surplus, not the
regular ITU budget. The October 2006 workshop was a CoE training for English speaking Africa; the
September 2006 workshop was a CoE for French-speaking Africa, while the June 2006 workshop was an
Arab region CoE training. The May 2005 ITU-D regional seminar addressed policies and strategies for
cybersecurity for developing countries in the CIS, CEE and Baltic States. The upcoming late summer ITU-D
meeting is a global event to implement Resolution 45 of the 2006 WTDC aimed at discussing mechanisms
for enhanced cooperation amongst Member States in Cybersecurity and combating spam and to report to the
2006 Plenipotentiary Conference on the outcome of this meeting. Likewise, many of the ITU-D NGN events
identified by Australia are training workshops, while others are regional events. Again, these workshops are
aimed at addressing the needs of developing countries and are in the mandate of ITU-D.
3.
While BDT events are not duplicative of each other, Australia’s contribution brings to light the need
to improve communication with the membership to better explain how, in keeping within its broad mandate
BDT may provide an array of actions on a given topic. Some BDT outputs on a given topic, for example,
may target regulatory issues, while others may focus on raising basic awareness and building capacity on
technical and national policy issues. In addition, some BDT outputs may be designed as seminars to
promote information exchanges between key stakeholders, while others may be designed as in-depth training
for subject matter experts. Although this information is generally conveyed on the BDT website, and in
particular the specific WebPages of the BDT programmes, CoE, and activities and initiatives, the general
ITU Calendar of Events could, perhaps, be improved to provide links to those WebPages offering more
detailed information to avoid the appearance of overlap and duplication.
4.
In an effort to improve channels of communication, BDT also wishes to explain how its work plans
are developed and provide other background on the issues identified by Australia related to Outputs:
•
3
The BDT Operational Plan is agreed in a collaborative fashion internally and externally. The
process begins in July each year, when focal points in headquarters and the regions each propose
global and regional activities based on the annual objectives presented to Council prior to the
establishment of the Operational Plan and to meet specific needs of membership. Certain global
activities and regional initiatives, of course, have been identified by the members in the WTDC. In
addition, the regional offices consult with members on their priorities for the current year. Estimated
budgets for proposed activities are developed, and internal negotiations between the regions and
headquarters ensue throughout the autumn in an effort to harmonize and reduce proposed activities
until they are in line with allocated budget. Many suggestions are made to eliminate activities at this
point precisely because they are duplicative. In addition, agreement is often reached to merge
different activities in an effort to avoid overlaps and duplications. Once internal consensus is
For reference the mandate of ITU-D in cybersecurity and combating spam is in Attachment 1.
4
5
reached, a draft operational plan -- within budget -- is presented to TDAG for its review and
comments. This is the first opportunity given to ITU membership to perform an oversight function to
ensure that the activities proposed meet its needs and will be implemented in an efficient manner,
including the avoidance of duplications. The operational plan reviewed by TDAG is then given to
ITU Council for its review and approval, again offering a second opportunity for membership-driven
oversight.
•
Perhaps the main issue identified by Australia is that today’s ICT environment is increasingly
complex. Any topic has multiple dimensions. While some dimensions are clearly different from
one another, others naturally overlap. Cybersecurity and Anti-spam strategies, for example, include
technical, business, consumer, legal and regulatory, as well as international cooperation components,
and the various Sectors of ITU (notably ITU-D and ITU-T) have different roles to play based on
their respective mandates. Thus, while in general the mandates of the different Sectors are quite
distinct, there are also areas where the membership itself have agreed on overlapping mandates to
ensure that assistance can be provided by ITU to meet the diverse needs of its membership and to
take into account specific needs of developing and least developing countries. BDT would welcome
working even more closely with the membership to identify these areas of overlap in order to better
optimize resources, and strengthen coordination mechanisms between the Sectors and the General
Secretariat, in particular with regard to the scheduling and content of meetings.
•
Australia raises a specific question about the 2006 Calgary APEC-TEL meeting in Calgary. The
BDT wishes to note that its participation followed from a letter of invitation sent by the Chair of
APEC TEL to the Secretary General, with copies to the Directors of both the T and D Sectors to
ensure their participation. In addition, follow up emails were sent to encourage participation by the
two Sectors. Although the BDT Director initially indicated that it would not be able to send a
representative, due to funding concerns, the BDT Regulatory Reform Unit was subsequently invited
by APEC-TEL who covered the travel expenses, to participate in a WTO-GATS domestic regulation
workshop the day before the spam discussions. Thus, the BDT representative was able to extend her
stay to participate in the spam discussions as well as to observe the discussions in the Regulatory
Roundtable on VoIP, which assisted her research on VoIP regulation.
•
BDT agrees with Australia that in delivering Cybersecurity and anti-spam outputs, efforts must be
made to ensure that these activities are undertaken in a more efficient and cost-effective way. It is
also worth noting even though WTSA and WTDC may adopt decisions in areas such as
Cybersecurity and combating spam, the priorities, tasks, objectives and beneficiaries are not the
same. This in itself is a reflection of the diverse needs of ITU’s broad membership and the mandates
of the Sectors.
•
ITU membership in adopting WTDC 2006 Resolutions 2 (Annex 2 - ITU-D Study Group 1 Question
22), WTDC 2006 Resolution 45 and in revising Programme 3, made sure that in accordance with
Article 21 of the Constitution of ITU, the Development Sector is provided with the appropriate
mandate to address those aspects of Cybersecurity and spam, which are not covered in WTSA
decisions and are not in the mandate of other Sectors. While making all necessary efforts to avoid
duplications and overlaps, BDT is however obliged to undertake these activities in order to execute
the mandate of the Development Sector.
•
Australia notes that the budget seeks additional staff resources in the BDT to implement the WTDC06 decisions, as well as additional budget to implement WTDC-06 Regional Initiatives. The BDT
Secretariat has addressed the matter of additional resources in a separate contribution to the CWG
meeting. Suffice it to say, however, that the Regional Initiatives are a decision of the WTDC-06
and form a part of the Doha Action Plan. ITU Membership mandated BDT, through the Doha
Action Plan, both to continue and expand current programmes, activities, special initiatives, study
groups, resolutions and recommendations and to add to these the Regional Initiatives. WTDC-06
assigned priority to these Regional initiatives, through adoption of Resolution 17. The Secretariat
takes the view that the ITU Members would not have agreed to include Regional Initiatives as a
5
6
priority and as an additional element of the Doha Action Plan if they believed this addition simply
re-stated other elements of the Doha Action Plan.
Functions
5.
Australia has identified certain functions that may give rise to overlap and duplication. As
mentioned in a separate contribution to this meeting, and as reported to Council, a New Efficiencies
Committee (NEC) has been established to address areas of possible duplication within the ITU. The work of
the NEC has, for example, lead to the centralization of procurement services in the General Secretariat.
6.
We take this opportunity to provide additional information regarding some functional areas which
Australia has pointed to in the BDT, and for which Australia raises the possibility of overlap and duplication:
•
Conferences: The BDT Conferences Unit is largely responsible for the TDAG, RPM and WTDC
conferences and meetings. This Unit plans and runs these events, from a content standpoint, in
conjunction with Departments from the General Secretariat who, such as in the case of the WTDC,
focus more on the administrative and logistical coordination of these events.
•
Personnel and FPS. The New Efficiencies Committee has addressed this particular matter, and there
is agreement in principle for the Field Personnel Services in the BDT to be centralized within the
Personnel Department in the General Secretariat. It should be noted that the BDT Human Resources
Development function is the BDT Human Capacity Building Programme of the WTDC (see
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hrd/). It is the training and capacity building services BDT provides to
Member States, and is not related in any way to internal BDT human resource management.
•
Statistical and strategic analysis: BDT agrees with Australia that there is room for better cooperation
between the statistical analysis conducted by GS SPU and the BDT MEF unit to avoid both units
collecting or reporting the same data and raising questions by ITU Members, the press or other
organizations when different indicators (e.g. broadband subscribers or cost and tariff data) may be
reported for the same country by the two units. Differences in the statistical analysis conducted by
these two units should reflect their respective roles or mandates, and must be clearly articulated to
the membership and the public to avoid the appearance of overlap. The collection and dissemination
of information and statistics through the World Telecommunication Indicators database is mandated
to BDT in the decisions of the WTDC-06 (Activity 1), which further mandates BDT to develop and
improve the ICT Opportunity Index. It is important that any other Indexes created by ITU be
complementary in nature.
•
BDT has no publications unit, although BDT does produce ITU publications as part of its mandate.
The BDT Partnership, Promotion and Membership unit serves the ITU-D sector members, and does
not overlap with similar units in other sectors. Moreover, this unit has taken over much of the
responsibility of the conferences unit which currently has no professional staff assigned to it.
World Summit on the Information Society
7.
Australia noted and rightly so that there are strong overlaps and synergies between the ITU-D
Programs and the WSIS Action Lines. These synergies were taken into account by membership in revising
the ITU-D Programs and highlighting the relevant WSIS references in all the Programs adopted in Doha.
For this reason, as well as for the strongly held view at the June CWG meeting that tasks related to WSIS
follow-up and implementation be delivered without the need for additional resources, the BDT has
withdrawn its original request for two additional posts to be included in the draft financial plan. In view of
the financial constraints faced by the Union and in spite of the broader scope of ITU-D mandate as a result of
WSIS, BDT will do its utmost to deliver WSIS outcomes within budgetary limits and in the most costeffective manner possible.
6
7
8.
Regarding WSIS follow-up and implementation, BDT is actively working with a number of partners
in an open and multi-stakeholder process to avoid duplication and ensure very close collaboration. Many
such initiatives are ongoing not only in C.2 and C.5 but in other Action Lines where ITU is co-facilitator
such as C.7.
9.
For BDT, activities undertaken to contribute to the implementation of C.2 and C.5 are based on the
mandate of the Development Sector, and will be carried out within existing resources. The tools for
implementing these WSIS Action Lines are the Doha Action Plan Programmes, Resolutions and Initiatives.
With regards to WSIS follow-up and implementation, BDT believes that clarification on the actions to be
undertaken by ITU as follow-up to WSIS and those related to the implementation of WSIS outcomes is
needed to avoid duplication and overlap especially between the SPU and the Bureaus in a number of areas
including but not limited to cybersecurity and spam, statistics and indicators and Internet Protocol.
7
8
Attachment 1: ITU-D Mandate in Cybersecurity and combating spam
Within the framework of decisions adopted by ITU membership at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2002
(PP02) and the World Telecommunication Development Conferences 2002 and 2006, the mandate of ITU-D
in Cybersecurity, cyberthreats and combating spam is included in the following decisions:
1. WTDC-2002 and 2006 Programme 3 - E-strategies and ICT Applications
2. WTDC-2006 Resolution 45 – Mechanisms for enhancing cooperation on Cybersecurity including
combating spam
3. WTDC-2006 Resolution 2 Annex 2 - ITU-D Study Group 1 Question 22 – Securing information and
communication networks – Best practices for developing a culture of Cybersecurity.
4. PP02 Resolution 130 – Strengthening the role of ITU in information and communication network
security.
1.
WTDC-2006 DOHA ACTION PLAN PROGRAMME 3
Priorities
a. It is necessary to address cybersecurity concerns in this programme in order to realize the potential
of networks for providing secure and accessible e-service applications.
b. This programme should also develop a common understanding of the issues of spam and
cyberthreats, including countermeasures.
c. To minimize, prevent and detect cyberthreats, it is also necessary to facilitate further outreach and
cooperation in order to support the collection and dissemination of cybersecurity-related
information, and to exchange good practices to support effective mutual assistance, response and
recovery among members and between government, business and civil society.
d. BDT should also act as a facilitator for regional and interregional cooperation, and support
appropriate capacity-building activities at the regional level.
e. This could include, inter alia, the development of MoUs among interested Member States to
enhance cybersecurity.
Tasks
a. Develop guidelines, planning tools and manuals on the technology and policy aspects of
cybersecurity.
b. Develop cybersecurity toolkits for policy-makers and other relevant sectors.
c. Develop training materials on technology strategies and technology evolution for the implementation
of cybersecurity.
d. Organize workshops, meetings and seminars to address technical, policy, legal and strategy issues
for cybersecurity.
e. Provide assistance to Member States in developing laws and model legislation for the prevention of
cybercrime.
f. Identify cybersecurity requirements and propose solutions for the development of secure ICT
applications. Assist in raising awareness and identify key issues to support a culture of cybersecurity,
and recommend models of good practice to support ICT applications and minimize cyberthreats.
g. Develop tools to facilitate information sharing on technology and policy issues, and on best practices
relating to cybersecurity.
h. Take account, as appropriate, of the relevant work of other stakeholders: OECD and signatories to
key agreements on cybersecurity and spam such as the London Action Plan and the Seoul-Melbourne
Anti-Spam Memorandum of Understanding.
8
9
2. WTDC-2006 RESOLUTION 45 – MECHANISMS FOR ENHANCING COOPERATION ON CYBERSECURITY,
INCLUDING COMBATING SPAM (EXTRACTS)
recalling
its fundamental support for Programme 3 (e-strategies and ICT-applications), confirming that the latter shall
have primary responsibility for Action Line C5 in the Tunis Agenda (Building confidence and security in the
use of ICTs);
noting
that Resolution 50 (Florianópolis, 2004) of the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly
on cybersecurity is confined solely to the study of technical aspects for reducing the impact of this
phenomenon;
urges Member States
to provide the support necessary for implementation of this resolution,
resolves
to instruct the Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau
a) to organize, in conjunction with Programme 3 and based on member contributions, meetings of
Member States and Sector Members to discuss ways to enhance cybersecurity including, inter alia, a
memorandum of understanding to enhance cybersecurity and combat spam amongst interested
Member States;
b) to report the results of these meetings to the 2006 plenipotentiary conference.
3. WTDC-2006 RESOLUTION 2 - ITU-D STUDY GROUP 1 QUESTION 22 – SECURING INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS – BEST PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF CYBERSECURITY
a) To survey, catalogue, describe and raise awareness of:
• the principal issues faced by national policy-makers in working with all stakeholders to build a culture of
cybersecurity;
• the principal sources of information and assistance related to building a culture of cybersecurity;
• successful best practices employed by national policy-makers in working with all stakeholders to
organize for cybersecurity and develop a culture of security;
• the unique challenges faced by developing countries in addressing the security of networks and the best
practices for addressing these challenges.
b) To examine best practices for the establishment and operation of watch, warning and incident response
and recovery capabilities that may be used by Member States to establish their own national capabilities.
Produce a report or reports to the membership on the issues identified in section 2 above. The report or
reports in question will reflect that secure information and communication networks are integral to building
of the information society and to the economic and social development of all nations.
9