A/HRC/18/36 nevertheless prepared to discuss it. With regard to topic 2 “Advocacy and incitement to racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred”, the European Union seemed to have major difficulty with the wording of the topic’s title. The United States of America seemed to have difficulty with the language and wording of the topic rather than the subject matter itself. Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group proposed that if topic 2 be dropped due to disagreement, and then likewise so should topic 6. Similarly, if topic 6, about which the African Group had reservations, was nevertheless being considered, then so should topic 2. 28. The European Union welcomed the facilitator’s efforts and work, stating that the report of the facilitator was accurate. The European Union was not entirely comfortable with the selection of the topic of xenophobia, but the selections made were the best way to move the work of the Ad Hoc Committee forward. Given the starting point for the informal consultations, issues of ownership and authorship of topics should not be raised. 29. The United States of America indicated that its objection to topic 2 was more one of characterization than of reality or substance. Recalling the recent Human Rights Council resolution 16/18, it suggested that the Ad Hoc Committee move forward on the basis of that consensus resolution rather than revert to previous terminology and focus. 30. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, noted that it could accept the term “religion or belief” as used in the recent Human Rights Council resolution and reiterated that topic 6 was essentially a cross-cutting issue which could be discussed as part of all topics on the table for consideration. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Algeria and Zimbabwe, supported the position of the African Group. 31. Switzerland, on behalf of Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea and Uruguay, supported the facilitator’s assessment of and conclusions from the informal consultations. It noted that the crossregional group of countries on behalf of which it was speaking had been flexible during the process of selection, that topics 1 and 6 had been identified for inclusion in the programme of work for the coming week and that other topics were still on the table for future discussions. It reiterated its request that topic 7 “Procedural gaps with regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” be placed on the agenda of the fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee and again highlighted the importance of the input of experts. It also underlined the importance of taking a methodological approach when working towards identifying gaps and how best to address them. 32. Liechtenstein supported the position of the European Union concerning the facilitator’s report on the selection of topics. The selection of topics 1 and 6 had been made in order to start discussions and that it was understood that other issues remained on the table. 33. The Chairperson decided that there was additional work to be carried out to reach an agreement on the topics and proposed bilateral consultations with each of the regional groups throughout the remainder of the day. A report would be made to the Ad Hoc Committee on the outcome of these bilateral discussions the following day. V. Report of the Chairperson on the bilateral discussions 34. At the sixth meeting on 19 April 2011, the Chairperson-Rapporteur reported on the results of the bilateral consultations with the regional groups. Expressing appreciation to the groups, he recalled that all topics were still on the table and reminded the Committee that an incremental approach had been proposed. He noted that, although there had been a 7