Launch / Award Event #128 A Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism

Summary

This discussion introduced the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM), a newly formed group of internet technical operators. The coalition was created in response to upcoming internet governance events, particularly the WSIS+20 review in 2025. TCCM aims to provide a unified voice for the technical community in internet governance discussions, emphasizing the importance of the multi-stakeholder model.

The presenters explained that TCCM is an informal, opt-in coalition open to technical operators managing critical internet resources. Its primary goals are to defend and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach, ensure the technical community has an equal voice in internet governance discussions, and maintain an open, secure, and interoperable internet. The coalition has grown rapidly since its formation, with over 28 members including registries, registrars, and regional organizations.

TCCM’s activities in 2024 included participating in the Global Digital Compact process and preparing for the WSIS+20 review. The coalition plans to focus on championing resources for the WSIS+20 review in 2025, aiming to influence the agenda early in the process. The presenters stressed the importance of acting quickly to have a meaningful impact on the discussions.

The Q&A session addressed concerns about potential fragmentation within the internet governance community, with the presenters emphasizing that TCCM aims to strengthen, not divide, participation. They also clarified the coalition’s stance on equal footing with governments in certain forums while acknowledging the different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. The discussion concluded by highlighting TCCM’s flexible, lightweight structure and its goal of providing resources and coordination for the technical community in internet governance processes.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Formation and purpose of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM)

– TCCM’s activities and plans related to the WSIS+20 review process

– Membership structure and requirements for joining TCCM

– TCCM’s role in advocating for the technical community in internet governance forums

– Potential impacts and concerns about TCCM’s formation

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to introduce and explain the newly formed TCCM to the audience, outlining its purpose, activities, and plans for engaging in upcoming internet governance processes, particularly the WSIS+20 review.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and collaborative. The speakers were enthusiastic about the coalition and its potential impact. During the Q&A, the tone became slightly more defensive as speakers addressed concerns about fragmentation and legitimacy, but remained generally positive and open to feedback.

Speakers

– Jordan Carter: Moderator

– Jennifer Chung: From DotAsia organisation, part of the TCCM Secretariat

– Nick Wenban-Smith: From Nominet (UK country domain operator), part of the TCCM Secretariat

Additional speakers:

– Everton Rodrigues: From NIC.br (Brazilian CCTLD)

– Israel Rosas: From the Internet Society

– Yik Wei: From GraphiLab (decentralized physical infrastructure network company)

– Sandra Hoferichter: From the European IGF EuroDIG

– Ian Brown: Independent consultant

– Mark Nottingham (mentioned in chat)

Introduction of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM)

This discussion introduced the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM), a group of internet technical operators formed in 2024 in response to upcoming internet governance events, particularly the WSIS+20 review in 2025. The presenters, Jennifer Chung from DotAsia and Nick Wenban-Smith from Nominet, both part of the TCCM Secretariat, explained the coalition’s purpose, structure, and activities.

Formation and Purpose of TCCM

The TCCM was formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance and defend the multi-stakeholder approach. As Nick Wenban-Smith explained, the coalition aims to provide a unified voice for the technical community in internet governance discussions. Jennifer Chung emphasised that TCCM seeks to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model and ensure the technical community has an equal voice in these discussions.

Jordan Carter, the moderator, described TCCM as a lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate. This structure allows for flexibility and easy participation. Everton Rodrigues highlighted that TCCM is particularly beneficial for smaller organisations that may struggle to engage in complex governance processes.

Membership and Structure

TCCM is open to technical operators that provide internet infrastructure. Nick Wenban-Smith clarified that to join, organisations must sign a statement of purpose. The coalition allows multiple contacts per member organisation, enhancing engagement opportunities. Jordan Carter noted that TCCM also offers a supporter category for those interested but not ready to fully join, which is not limited to technical infrastructure operators.

Since its formation, TCCM has grown rapidly, with over 28 members including registries, registrars, and regional organisations. This growth demonstrates the technical community’s interest in coordinated participation in internet governance. It’s important to note that TCCM is not a formal association or legal entity, but rather an informal coalition.

Activities and Plans

Throughout 2024, TCCM has been actively engaged in the Global Digital Compact process, as highlighted by Jennifer Chung. The coalition has made submissions to the CWG internet and issued a statement on the GDC adoption. TCCM uses various communication channels, including mailing lists and chat groups, to keep members informed.

Looking ahead, Nick Wenban-Smith stressed that the coalition’s primary focus for 2025 is the WSIS+20 review. TCCM aims to influence the agenda early, before formal processes begin, to have a meaningful impact on the discussions. The coalition held a day zero meeting before the ICANN meeting in Istanbul, where members discussed strategies and plans for upcoming governance events.

TCCM is also working to improve Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes, with plans to develop a specific agenda for this in early 2025. This focus on the IGF demonstrates TCCM’s commitment to enhancing existing multi-stakeholder platforms.

Role of the Technical Community in Internet Governance

A key aspect of TCCM’s mission is to ensure the technical community has an equal footing with other stakeholders in internet governance discussions. Jennifer Chung emphasised this point, while Jordan Carter acknowledged the specific role of governments in formal decision-making processes. This nuanced approach recognises the importance of balanced participation while respecting established governance structures.

The legitimacy of the technical community’s participation was addressed during the Q&A session. An audience member argued that the technical community’s legitimacy stems from its role in operating critical internet infrastructure. Mark Nottingham added the concept of “output legitimacy,” highlighting the technical community’s contributions to the internet’s functionality. Nick Wenban-Smith emphasised that TCCM aims to provide technical expertise to inform policy decisions, highlighting the unique value the coalition brings to governance discussions.

Challenges and Considerations

The discussion also touched on potential challenges facing TCCM and the broader internet governance landscape. Nick Wenban-Smith provided a balanced perspective on the progress of internet governance and multi-stakeholderism over the past two decades. He acknowledged significant advancements in technology and connectivity but also noted increased polarisation as economies have become more digitalised.

Concerns were raised about potential fragmentation within the internet governance community. The presenters emphasised that TCCM aims to strengthen, not divide, participation. They clarified that the coalition’s structure allows members to opt-in to statements, providing flexibility when there are differences of opinion.

While Web 3.0 technologies were mentioned as a potential area of interest, the presenters noted that TCCM hasn’t specifically addressed this topic yet but is open to exploring it if members express interest.

Conclusion

The discussion concluded by reiterating TCCM’s flexible, lightweight structure and its goal of providing resources and coordination for the technical community in internet governance processes. The presenters stressed the importance of acting quickly to have a meaningful impact on upcoming discussions, particularly the WSIS+20 review.

Overall, the formation of TCCM represents a significant development in the internet governance landscape. By providing a unified platform for technical operators, the coalition aims to enhance the multi-stakeholder model and ensure that critical technical expertise informs policy decisions. As TCCM continues to grow and engage in key processes, its impact on shaping the future of internet governance will likely become increasingly apparent.

For more information about TCCM, interested parties can visit the coalition’s website at tccm.global.

Jordan Carter: All right, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and those of you in the village, paying attention to this launch event. We appreciate your company. On behalf of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism, we’re glad to have your attention for this briefing today. My name is Jordan Carter. My role is to be a very light-touch moderator of this session. All of the interesting things will be said by my colleagues on the stage and some who will pop up from time to time. There are three phases to today’s brief one-hour session. Nick and Jen, who I’ll introduce in a moment, will give you a presentation on the coalition, what it is, why it exists, what it’s for, what it’s working on. Then there’ll be a bit of a time for Q&A from them. Then the last part of the session will just mix and mingle, have a chat, and so on. That’s going to be the substance of it. When you two want me to swap slides, just say so. Our two panellists, Jennifer Chung, is from the DotAsia organisation, an Asia-Pac region organisation that operates the DotAsia domain. Nick Gwen Van Smith is from Nominet, a UK country domain operator. They are both part of the Secretariat at the TCCM. Later on, we’ll have a contribution from another colleague who’s in the process of joining to explain why they thought about joining the coalition. So without any further ado, I’m handing to Nick for the first slide. Thank you, Nick.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks, Jordan, and welcome everybody. It’s great to see people here and thanks for giving us the opportunity to talk you through a little bit about this technical community coalition for multistakeholderism. So I think my reflection on the context is that there are a group of us loosely affiliated through the technical community. We see each other at ICANN meetings, we see each other at regional meetings, we see each other at IGF meetings, and we largely have a common agenda. And dare I say it, we’re all good friends. But when it came to the WSIS plus 20, which has been in anticipation now for at least since the WSIS plus 10, but more urgently in the last couple of years, I felt, the core group of us felt, that there was a lack of urgency and coordination around the technical community’s input to this multistakeholder issue. And each of us individually tend to be national or regionally based. But we’re all, frankly, in the global context, quite small operators. So it’s a very big topic area for us each individually to deal with. But collectively, we could divide up the work, put our thinking resources together, create common resources where it’s helpful for input to consultations or discussions with our respective governmental colleagues, and to build credibility to have a consistent drumbeat. So we realized, obviously, that 2025 was the WSIS Plus 20. We didn’t know much about it, but we knew inevitably as the months go on that it’s coming closer and closer. The GDC, if I’m honest, came on as a bit of a surprise, but we had to deal with that and we had to respond to the challenges of the GDC throughout 2024. And I think, if I’m honest, we treated it as a bit of a hors d’oeuvre, a bit of a warm-up for the WSIS Plus 20 next year. So we could see these were key years coming. I think when it came to the WSIS Plus 10, there wasn’t too much controversy that the mandate was going to be extended. It was much less clear to us what the future lay post the 20-year review. There was a degree of, one of my favourite multi-stakeholder words is un-clarity. There was a degree of un-clarity and we felt that we needed to mobilise the technical community to engage and to try to positively influence things. So we tried to provide everybody in the technical community with the same types of information because, as I think we’ve heard many times this week, the processes with the New York running of the tech envoy of the GDC has not been super easy. The deadlines have changed, the websites are out of date, there’s no clear opportunity for multi-stakeholder engagement. We needed to force our way to the table. And I think, if I’m not going to be pointing fingers at people, I think we felt that there was a lack of leadership in other parts of the technical community. We wanted to be on the front foot and to positively engage. Hence, to set up a small group of us initially and then build up and try to get a bit of momentum to help people with the things. So here we have formed the coalition. And by the way, I think it So, I’m a lawyer by background, so I’m very keen on the right pronoun. And we are a technical community coalition. We don’t profess to be the whole technical community. That would be a distinct overreach. So, it’s a technical coordination group. And I’ve put down on this last bullet point in this slide that I think the technical community needed to acknowledge that although we are huge advocates, as the name says, the technical community for multistakeholderism, we have to acknowledge that the experiment has not been 100% successful if you look at achievement towards the SDGs. Yes, of course, there have been massive strides in technology in the last 20 years, massive strides in connectivity, a degree of equalization. But in the same way, you have to acknowledge there’s been a degree of polarization as economies have become a little bit more digitized. So, I think we wanted to basically be upfront about that because I think our responses are positive but needed to acknowledge some of the shortcomings over the processes of the past few years. Because I don’t think although we are advocates for multistakeholderism, that it can’t be done better.

Jennifer Chung: Thanks, Nick. I think Nick gave us a really comprehensive background of how TCCTM came to be. We are a coalition, not the coalition. And really, you know, a group of technical operators from all over the globe welcomed this initiative that was started. And what you see right now on the screen is just an abbreviation really of the key points of the statement of purpose that you can actually read a little further on if you go on our website, tccm.global. Really, the three key things that we want to bring the message quite clearly, both to the technical community itself and also the other stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum, and also the Internet Governance, I guess, community at large as well, is that there seems to be a rowing in the same direction. There is alignment that we want to keep defending, and having this multi-stakeholder approach evolve, and we want it strengthened as well. We also want the technical community to be on equal terms and equal footing when we’re talking about discussing all of the Internet Governance issues, the digital process issues that we’ve been discussing through this past year, through the GDT process, and looking forward to doing that in the coming year when we’re looking into the WSIS Plus 20 review, so on equal terms. We are, at the heart of it, we are operators that manage critical Internet resources. This is actually just a very small slice of what maybe a layperson might understand to be technical community, but this is also very important. We’re the ones who keep the Internet running. I like to say, when we do our good work, you shouldn’t actually notice it. You only notice it if we don’t do our work. When you cannot connect, you’ll be like, okay, what’s going on? With a growing number of members, we want to keep the Internet open, free, global, secure, resilient, interoperable. That’s the word I really, really like very much. I’ll add the word robust because I think Jordan really likes that word too, and available to all. I think we also looked at it in terms of this year, and previously, we did see a blog come out from ICANN, ARIN, and I think it was APNIC as well, calling attention to the global stakeholder the groups, the community, the IG community, that technical community is really important. We are the ones who keep the internet on. And I’ll stop again. Again, when we do our work, you shouldn’t notice. It should be like breathing. It should be seamless. It’s when you don’t have the connection, then you realize, oh, there’s this group of operators and all these people who control and manage the critical resources of the internet. They are the ones who really keep things going. Everything else is, there’s the ability to talk about it because we keep these things going.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Yeah, thank you. So what started out as a sort of a small, informal group. As a small IGON, in fact, this slide is out of date already because there are more members who have actually joined the coalition and are in the process of joining. You can see 28 members, which was accurate at the beginning of the week when we did the slide. It’s now out of date already, but you can see there’s a mixture of registries and that’s country code registries, but also GTLD registries. There’s a mixture of regional organizations and there’s also a mixture of registrars. So there’s a whole sector, broad sector, approach, different industries, some non-profit, some for-profit, some dealing directly with consumers, some dealing more on a regional basis, completely different cluster of technical operators, but providers fundamentally of the technical layer upon which everything else that is being discussed this week whether it’s AI or information or platforms or education or the impacts on the environment, none of this stuff really works without a stable underpinning of the technical layer, which is really what we’re here to advocate.

Jennifer Chung: So currently we have mailing lists that we have not only just TCCM members who have signed on to our statement of purpose that I talked about a little earlier, but it’s really for information exchange. It is for opportunities to input, well, previously this year into the GDC and then looking forward to all the different consultations that will feed into the WSIS Plus 20 review. We also have chat groups that are on different chat platforms to be able to quite quickly and informally notify these members of what is going on. Some of us are here on the ground in Riyadh, others are joining remotely online, looking at all of the different happenings at IGF. It’s a good way, a good informal way to keep our members actually informed with what’s going on. There is a greater group of technical community who actually are considering joining and have said to us, this is actually really useful information that I’m getting from the TCCM network and from the coalition that I’ll bring back to my own organization, my leadership to see if we can take this further or if there are actually positions that TCCM puts out on the website or actually develop through the mailing list and with members as well that they might be able to adopt and take on some of the key points. I think a lot of it is the messaging that would come from different parts of the technical community and if we have all of these voices coming from different parts of the technical community that do say fundamentally the same things, that perhaps global community will take note and understand, okay, well, there is many different voices talking about this and it’s from technical community and this is really what they care about. I think looking forward into 2025 as well. TCCM is looking to leverage our membership and leverage the wider community who are interested in TCCM work to help us draft positions, especially going into WSIS 20 review and also on topics that are near and dear to the community’s heart.

Jordan Carter: Just to add one thing with the moderators prerogative, this is not an association. This is not trying to create a big, heavy structure that tries to speak on behalf of its members. It’s meant to be a rallying point, an exchange of views, a way to learn from each other, perhaps shape each other’s views through that learning, and to test where consensus exists and where it doesn’t in this slice of the technical community. And so it’s a very opt-in process. If a statement is developed, you choose whether to sign on. The coalition doesn’t speak for all its members. It’s designed to be as easy and simple and low-key to be a part of as possible, designed not to create any complicated terrors for people about being signed up to someone else’s agenda, which I know is a real challenge in parts of the internet technical community, where people are very clear about their mandate, where membership communities are often very suspicious of outside organizations. So that’s something I’ve really kept in mind about how the coalition works. There’s my interruption. We need to pick up the pace a little bit. Lovely speakers.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Yeah, thanks, Jordan. And those are important points. To be honest, when we were setting up, most time we spent was on the statement of purpose. And once the statement of purpose has been signed up to, people can have access to everything. And as Jordan said, we don’t craft statements which need to be agreed. We don’t craft statements which people sign up to if they want to, but they don’t have to. So just a quick recap of our activities in 2024. 2024 has gone in the blink of an eye, it seems, from a discussion to… test the idea in March at the ICANN Puerto Rico meeting. Secretaria developed its ways of working, the email list and WhatsApp groups and other ways to share information, whether it’s a consultation date changing or some new input requiring some thought or just general chat or exchanges of useful blogs and information that’s all been done with the statement of purpose. There are now six, seven of us on the call Secretariat and Jen mentioned it earlier, but we have a website, the tccm.global website, thanks to my friends at CIRA who help out. There’s a lot of places there for a centralized resource and to publicize our work more broadly.

Jennifer Chung: I will listen to our lovely moderator and try to be really quick with this. Really, this is just showing that TCCM has been involved quite deeply in day one with the global digital compact process. We did a lot of blogs and statements and inputs. We did spoken statements. We did written inputs as well. I mentioned earlier our statement of purpose, which we publicized on our website in June. In September, we had a submission to the CWG internet on the development aspects to strengthen the internet. I think there was, finally, when the GDC was adopted in October, that was two months ago, we had a statement regarding what we thought about the entire process. November, right before the ICANN meeting in Istanbul, we had a full day zero meeting, which actually first part was strategizing how the secretariat wants to organize the work so it makes it easier and lightweight for members to be able to input and sign on to statements, as Jordan has mentioned which is the high-level plans for 2025.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thank you. So the high-level plan for 2025 is essentially to champion our resources for the WSIS plus 20 review. We anticipate it’s going to be a rewrite essentially of the GDC processes, so we’ve already had a bit of a practice on it, but that’s really clearly the key area of focus, although some of this is in anticipation of and what happens after the WSIS 20 review.

Jennifer Chung: And on the screen you see actually the results of our day zero activity with the members. We did a series of roundtables, we had very good interaction and input with current TCCM members about how we can look into some input and written input, either goals we want to reach for the WSIS plus 20 review, you can see that on the screen, to secure of course the multi-stakeholder process and ensure the implementation of GDC doesn’t cut across the WSIS plus 20 review process as well. And certain goals also for the technical community would be to ensure that the WSIS action lines, really the ones that concentrate more on technical aspects of the internet are preserved in a way that benefits the current operations of the internet as well as the multi-stakeholder model as well. And then the fifth one is of course always in a controversial run about enhanced cooperation, how we can look at it in the GDC text and how we can look at it going into the WSIS plus 20 process.

Nick Wenban-Smith: So what tangible opportunities have we got to contribute to these multilateral UN processes? And I think if there’s one call to action that I want to get across today is no good waiting until the co-facilitators are appointed and the zero drafts in circulation. That’s too late. So any hope of positively influencing the agenda and to make across our advocacy needs to be done now, maybe before now. The train is leaving the station and if we leave it too long, we’ll miss it. And we will just be spectators in this process, not contributors. So that’s the one call to action to remember. And if you look forward here, we could see there’s a degree of certainty for things which are in the relatively near future and a degree of uncertainty as you go further into the future, but it’ll become a clearer, I guess, like a waterfall, the closer you get to it. But we know there’s, for example, the ITU consultation on the WSIS action lines, that’s already due by the 31st of January. There are other forums and consultations, which you can see here on the things through the first quarter of 2025. I think these are absolutely key positioning points and is what we are thinking of in terms of our thought evolution about how to put forward our advocacy in a way that does not look self-interested, which way is as a positive agenda, recognizing the shortfalls and essentially leaning in and giving a commitment to the future on behalf of the technical community towards a safe and secure underlying technical layer of the internet.

Jennifer Chung: And this is the, well, second half of the year pretty much. And I think we should definitely cross the opportunities that Nick mentioned really earlier on in the year where we’re able to have some effect to the process, especially when we know that, I think they’re hoping to have the co-facilitators appointed before May, 2025. We don’t know for sure right now if that’s going to be possible, but certainly a lot of the work needs to be done. closer to the beginning of the year in 2025 than the later ones. You already see there that the middle of the year is jam-packed with many events that many of you will be at. Perhaps not everyone will be at them as well, but by that time it might be a little bit closer to a place where maybe we can’t really pull the train back from the station if the train is going somewhere that we’re not quite sure. So I’ll hand this back to our moderator to open up for, I think, our Q&A.

Jordan Carter: Just before we do do a Q&A, to give you another couple of minutes, up on the stage we were part of the secretariat, but there are some people who have been looking at joining, and I’m going to invite Everton Rodrigues from NIC.br, Brazilian CCTLD, to just give us a minute or two about why it is that you’re considering joining. You can use the lectern or you can grab my mic.

Audience: Definitely. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jordan. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, NIC. Hello, all. Well, NIC.br is considering to join the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism because of the great importance and momentum of the Internet governance-related issues that we see not only from the standpoint of a political perspective in which CGI.br already deals with most of the issues, but also for the outcomes of those decisions and discussions which may have great impact for the technical community, which at times hasn’t been as united in one single coalition as we have seen this one or in any other place. So discussions should happen somewhere, and everyone stay looking at each other, saying when will it happen, where will it happen, and TCCM became the place to discuss that for the purposes that we have. We have all seen, as you mentioned, the timelines and the deadlines are happening, the discussions are happening elsewhere. So why elsewhere and not here when it also concerns the operations that we have, the services and initiatives that we undertake as well. So that’s one of the reasons why we’re considering that. Thank you again for the invitations. Congratulations for the talk. And I just would like also to say that it’s important to say that TCCM is open also for those who are looking for, are still not sure if they are joining or not. So you have many initiatives, many approaches to other members of the community. I’m here speaking on my own behalf as we have been approached by TCCM members to put more people, more institutions actually, on the group. And this has been a great difference that we see from other initiatives in which some at times they stay so close. And TCCM is approaching to so many people, as you saw, 28 and counting members hopefully will be joining you soon. Thank you very much.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Everton. So that’s just a bit of a flavor of someone who’s considering. We have 10 or 15 minutes for any questions that anyone has. See a couple of hands up and Charles in the front row is our microphone. Oh, we have a microphone. So I’ll do three. I’ll do you and then Lito and then you.

Audience: Okay, I will be quick. Israel Rosas from the Internet Society. First of all, congratulations. I think that you are doing a great collaboration in the community. Among your objectives, you are mentioning that you… discussed some potential improvements to the IEF, could you share a little bit more about what the group has discussed, like, how are you seeing that the IEF could evolve?

Nick Wenban-Smith: I’ll save you on that one. So we know that we need an agenda to improve the IGF, I almost said the IETF, I would have been crucified if I’d said that, so I said the IEF. And we want, that’s going to be one of the first pieces of work that members do together at the start of next year to define that agenda. I’d imagine it would be things about more sustainable resourcing, about improved participation, but we haven’t had that dialogue yet, so at the moment it’s just a headline, there’s no secret plan as yet, and it will be worked out between and among the members in the first quarter of next year.

Audience: Thank you. I also think it’s a great initiative. And I would like to ask, what are the requisites for an organization in the technical community to join? I mean, do we need just one contact name? What is the level of granularity? I mean, it can be an association of CCTLDs be part, but also a CCTLD individually, likewise for ISPs or IX. So what is the scope of the membership that you are expecting? Thank you.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks for the question. We’ve had this issue discussed a number of times. We have a degree of informality in the sense there’s not a legal constitution or a legal body that we’ve set up. It is an informal coalition and is designed to be inclusive and diverse and very… participatory, and as we’ve discussed, sort of opt-in. But we do require you to be essentially a technical operator. But all of the examples that you gave seem to be exactly what we’re looking for in terms of technical operators. You could see the types of members that we have so far. So it’s those folks who provide the technical air operation as their primary focus. And we’re looking for organizations rather than interested individuals. But particularly, if you’re part of that group of technical operators, you are extremely welcome. The only hard requirement is that we ask you to sign up to the statement of purpose, which I think is not a difficult task because it’s essentially, if you are a supporter of the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, this should be like motherhood and apple pie. It should resonate very strongly. If you had any questions about it, you should obviously ask. But really, we ask for you to sign up. If you provide a name, then we will put them on the WhatsApp group as part of the group. And then they’ll receive coalition information, updates, announcements. And we will have coalition meetings. But they’re voluntary. Obviously, our membership is very geographically diverse. So we don’t expect people to turn up. It’s supposed to be an opt-in resource model so that people can find out for themselves more quickly than they could do individually. I think we all appreciate the big task which is ahead. And it’s easier to do that together as a group of like-minded people with sharing information rather than each having to go away and do it all for ourselves. So it’s supposed to be a common resource really for the technical community. So you’d be extremely welcome on that basis. And just one more thing. There’s no limit like one contact per organization. So some have one, some have two, some have three people signed up. So it’s designed to be flexible. Thanks, Lito.

Jordan Carter: Can we pass the microphone to this gentleman at the back? And then I’ll come to Sandra at the front.

Audience: Hello, thank you for your presentation. I’m Yik Wei from Malaysia. I’m with GraphiLab, decentralized physical infrastructure network company. I’m just curious from a Web 3.0 perspective, as we are one, what is the stance and position of TCCM on dealing with Web 3.0, and have there been any efforts to bridge the gap between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 within the technical community? And what I see now from Web 3.0 is that they have their own conferences, they have their own infrastructure ecosystem. It works independently from Web 2.0 to a large extent. Have there been efforts to bridge this fragmentation from your side, or what is the strategy to move forward if you would like to share? Yeah, thank you.

Jordan Carter: Thanks for the question. I think Jen’s got a brief response to some of your questions. Brief responses.

Jennifer Chung: I think the internet governance community itself is already welcoming Web 3.0 discussions. I know that there’s not that many workshop topics and materials right now that you see here on the ground in Riyadh. Or perhaps if you were in the Kyoto meeting last year, there could have been some topics that touched on that. But as a whole, TCCM is pretty brand new. As you can see, we just formed this year. And because it was formed in response to this kind of inflection point of internet governance, looking at the WSIS plus 20 review coming up in 2025. So it was really a very quick, lightweight, informal group in response to something. Now, your question about looking into how to bring Web 2.0, 2.3 together, I think that could be topics that, if the TCCM membership would love to explore. more, I wouldn’t close the door on that at all. I think it’s really important to get all different parts of technical communities, with the plural, at the end together. Because I think, like I said earlier, we’re all rowing in the same direction. We want to support the multi-stakeholder model because that allows us a seat at the table. Without that, we won’t be even at the table.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. And the interaction between those two environments is something that is capturing attention in the ICANN and traditional community as well, because none of us wants to see confusion between these two at the user level. So it’s an important issue to follow on. Thank you. Sandra at the front.

Audience: Thank you very much. Sandra Hoferichter from the European IJF EuroDIG. I pretty much welcome this initiative and I can fully understand that there was a desire as a technical community to stand together, in particular when there at least was the risk that the technical community is not recognized in these processes as a separate stakeholder group. So I fully understand that. But I would like to ask, is there a risk that we are now separating or fragmenting multi-stakeholder for us? Speaking for national or for regional IJF, I must say the participation of the technical community in our forums is not huge. And I would fear a little bit that now that you’re forming your own group, this might even throw away more of the participation on the – and I’m not only speaking about EuroDIG, but also about the national and the global IJF, which is sometimes seen critical by the technical community. So I can hear that because topics are not relevant enough and so on and so forth. So is there a risk or what are you doing against that this will happen in terms of that the technical community is not fading away? from the IGF and IGF-led initiatives that are existing already. Thank you.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks, Sandra, for the question. And I guess I can appreciate the concern. I think my answer is completely the opposite, which is this should lead to a more integrated approach from the technical community, firstly as regards the WSIS review, because we should try to have a more consistent message amongst the technical community, which would be more credible and should help to actually reinforce the IGF outcomes in terms of the WSIS review. And I think if you look at the three of us on the stage, we are all very integrated with our own national and regional IGFs. And I don’t think any of us have got any plans to discontinue that. If anything, it should make it stronger and more integrated and more credible as a thing. This is a mobilising point, not a fragmentation point.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. Just one other point to follow up the earlier question from Lito about what categories of membership. We’ve also got a supporters category. So if you think you might want to be a member, but you’re not sure, what that does is lets you join the email list, see some of the discussions, join some of the meetings. So that’s another option that’s available. If that is something you want to do, come and talk to one of us afterwards. You still need to be a technical operator, though. I’ll need to follow that up. I read it very quickly on my WhatsApp group. And we’ve got one more question in the front from Everton. Or maybe it’s a comment.

Audience: Hello. Yes. Just a brief comment regarding the point by Sandra, is that at times, some members or some interested parties are already looking to join. left out of the discussions. They just can’t follow because they are small and they don’t have the resources to follow up many other discussions. So many discussions which are taking place. So this is one of the advantages of having a TCCM which becomes one of the focal points for discussion with common peers. So I would say that this would be a win for those smaller organizations which are not able to reach out to their governments with so many useful resources shared already by many members of the community. So I see that more as a reinforcement of existing structures rather than a separation, so to say, of them. So just a brief comment. Thank you.

Jordan Carter: Thank you, Everton. And one, yes.

Audience: Ian Brown, I’m an independent consultant. Jumping up to a much higher level because this is IGF after all. From one of your earlier slides you said the technical community, as you defined it, should participate in internet governance. I forget the precise three Ds, but debate, discourse, and decision-making, I think it said, on an equal basis with governments. And I wondered what governments think of that. I wondered where your legitimacy comes from compared to democratic governments or authoritarian governments.

Jordan Carter: I think that probably depends on the forum. So in a forum like the IGF, in a forum like the IGF, as an example, we’re all here on an equal footing. If we were talking about an aspect of regulatory policy that needed to be implemented through law, I don’t think any of us would claim that we think we’re on an equal footing with states. Or if there was the negotiation of an international treaty, we’re not decision-makers in a decision like that. So it’s more saying that. as it’s the general formulation of the technical community saying in the forums that are either broadly dialogue based or the ones where we do the work that we do through ICANN, for example, stakeholders have their roles and responsibilities, but there are a lot of forums and processes where people genuinely are on an equal footing, which is distinctive from lots of other governance processes where that just isn’t the case. This is a UN meeting where everyone is here on an equal footing for the discussion. So that is absolutely integral to the DNA of the Internet Governance Forum.

Nick Wenban-Smith: I need to go back to the original Tunis formulation because it does talk about the different stakeholder groups and according to their respective roles and responsibilities, so no one is trying to step into the shoes of governments, it’s just that I think all of us believe that better policy making, decision making and discussion happens through a degree of transparency and openness and accessibility to participate in the discussions. At the end of the day, I don’t expect governments necessarily to do what I tell them to do, in fact I’d be horrified if they did, but I feel that an open line of communication so that at least, especially in areas of technical policy where they are going to intervene or regulate or legislate, they’re doing it essentially with their eyes open as to the perspectives of everybody else before they break something more important.

Jordan Carter: Yes, there’s another question here.

Audience: I’m sorry, my background is political science and IR, so maybe this question is concerned with more political stuff. So two questions, but very briefly. One is, how would you resolve conflictual opinions within yourself? Now you presume that you’re a community. But, you know, traditionally what I understand is in the technical community often conflicts are resolved based on the technical rationality. So one that is superior to the inferior ones wins, right? But it’s given the nature of the technical community, it’s more or less concerned with political stuff. So how are you planning to resolve such conflicts? That’s one. And the other one is, so how are you planning to influence policymakers? So are you going to just talk about, so what are the, so let’s say measures, like policy measures, do you, are you planning to, are you considering to wield?

Jordan Carter: Who wants to take that? Jen?

Jennifer Chung: Really good questions. I think, well, I think we mentioned that we had a full day of meetings, especially just actually last month, on how we wanted to take this coalition forward. It’s a coalition, not the coalition, of course. And we wanted this to be the most lightweight opt-in model that would be able to get the best information for input, opportunities for input for different members. So I think we haven’t got to the stage where there is a difference of opinion, then simply the member doesn’t have to opt in any kind of statement. It’s an opt-in method in that aspect. If you’re talking about creating some kind of conflict resolution mechanism, I think we are going to make the mechanism of the coalition a little more complicated, a little more clunky. I think it is important for you to bring this up. We haven’t gotten to the level where, you know, it’s more a reaction when this coalition was formed. In the future, if the TCCM members think that there are certain things that we need to look into that members would like to work on, both topically and subject-wise, and we feel that collectively that there is a need to create such kind of mechanism. systems that may help or hinder, I think that’s a point where we might be able to consider looking into that.

Nick Wenban-Smith: And I was going to say, today we haven’t really had any conflicts, and that’s because we don’t require people to sign up. And in fact, if there was a TCM statement which a member liked some of it and not all of it, we would, like an open source free resource, take the bits you like, change it, and use that, that’s completely fine. We provide these resources as a help and assistance, not to create conflict. And if there are bits of it you are less happy with, or you don’t think that’s within your remit or role because of the technical operation that you form, or for whatever reason in terms of your domestic or regional area, completely fine. That is absolutely fine, and we encourage you to cannibalize the good bits and discard the bits that you don’t like. It was supposed to be helpful rather than constraining or creating points of tension within the community.

Jordan Carter: There’s one more aspect that it’s worth pointing out. Because there is the orienting and political statement of purpose at the start, that does mean that people come in with some alignment before they’re part of the community, which helps mitigate people being completely at odds with each other. It isn’t like a situation where you were managing a resource, and you have to include all voices, and people might have radical conflicts of direction or interest, so that helps as well. I also have to correct something I said earlier about the supporters category. It isn’t only open to technical infrastructure operators. There’s some dear friends who are sort of associated within parts of the technical community that don’t operate infrastructure that are also supporters, so I’m not going to single anyone out. But I just needed to correct my mistake from earlier.

Jennifer Chung: Not forgetting your second question, because you had a second question, and one really good thing is a lot of the, well, all four of the founding members… members are CCTLDs and to many different degrees that they do have a lot of interaction with their national governments, so that is already a starting point. Of course, the group now consists of not just the CCTLDs, there’s also the generics, which .Asia is one of the generics, and it encourages you to talk to like-minded governments and your national governments that you’re already tied to, but not only that, we’re looking into coordinating, cooperating with other stakeholders, loose informal coalitions too. So there’s a lot of collaboration going on and of course we know certain views are expounded more in certain quarters when you’re able to get the ear of your national governments, but I think right now the TCCM is quite well positioned to be able to expand and amplify that voice.

Jordan Carter: Thanks Jen, and there was one comment I’m just going to offer from the chat because here in the room we find it a little bit difficult to see the chat, I think I’m right in saying, but it was a comment from Mark Nottingham, I think on your point about democratic legitimacy, he said the technical community doesn’t have democratic legitimacy and doesn’t pretend to, it has output legitimacy through making the internet work. So that’s another perspective to add. Look, I think we’ve achieved the purpose of today in one sense, which was to introduce the coalition to you, hopefully for some of the audience it was a new thing to find out and learn a bit about. Thank you very much for the questions and discussion that have come. I’ve been asking that and there aren’t at the moment, there’s just that comment that I’ve just read out. So yes, thank you for asking that question before I get fully into wrap-up mode. If you do want to find out any more information about the work the coalition has done, the statement of purpose and so on, you can find that on the website at tccm.global. We will organise to put a copy of this slide pack on the website as well. So if you want to get some of that information, whether it’s the dates or what we see ourselves as doing, you’re welcome to do that. And some of the members of the audience are members of the coalition. If you are a member of the coalition and you’re comfortable to just want to like wave your hand in the air or stand up or something. So you might want to talk to those people or to those of us on the front if you want to find out more. But for now, it’s pretty much time for us to evacuate the stage. So on behalf of Nick, Jen, myself, the TCM team, thank you for your attention. And I hope you have a lovely remaining one day in two hours of IGF 2024 here in Riyadh.

Agreement Points

Formation and purpose of TCCM

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Jordan Carter

Coalition formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance

Aims to defend and strengthen multi-stakeholder approach

Provides lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate

The speakers agree that TCCM was formed to coordinate the technical community’s input on internet governance issues, defend the multi-stakeholder approach, and provide a flexible collaboration model for technical operators.

Focus on WSIS+20 review

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Focusing on WSIS+20 review as key priority for 2025

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers emphasize the importance of the WSIS+20 review and the Global Digital Compact process as key priorities for TCCM’s activities.

Equal participation in internet governance discussions

Jennifer Chung

Jordan Carter

Seeks equal footing with other stakeholders in discussions

Acknowledges governments’ role in formal decision-making

The speakers agree on the importance of equal participation for the technical community in internet governance discussions, while recognizing the specific roles of different stakeholders in formal decision-making processes.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of early engagement and proactive participation in internet governance processes to effectively influence the agenda and outcomes.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Aiming to influence agenda early before formal processes begin

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers highlight the inclusive nature of TCCM membership, emphasizing flexibility in participation options for technical operators and interested parties.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jordan Carter

Open to technical operators that provide infrastructure

Offers supporter category for those interested but not ready to join

Unexpected Consensus

Legitimacy of technical community in governance discussions

Jordan Carter

Audience

Acknowledges governments’ role in formal decision-making

Claims legitimacy through operating critical internet infrastructure

There is an unexpected consensus between Jordan Carter and an audience member on the legitimacy of the technical community in internet governance discussions. While acknowledging the formal role of governments, they agree that the technical community’s legitimacy stems from its operational role in maintaining critical internet infrastructure.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the purpose and structure of TCCM, the focus on the WSIS+20 review and Global Digital Compact process, and the importance of equal participation in internet governance discussions while recognizing different stakeholder roles.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the core objectives and operational approach of TCCM. This strong agreement suggests that TCCM has a clear direction and unified purpose, which could enhance its effectiveness in representing the technical community in internet governance discussions. However, the specific strategies for influencing policy and the exact nature of the technical community’s role in decision-making processes may require further clarification and consensus-building as the coalition develops.

Different Viewpoints

No significant disagreements identified

The transcript and arguments do not reveal any clear disagreements among the speakers. The discussion primarily focuses on explaining the purpose, structure, and activities of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM).

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

No significant areas of disagreement were identified among the speakers

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers appears to be minimal to non-existent based on the provided information. The speakers primarily focused on presenting a unified message about the TCCM’s purpose, structure, and activities. This lack of disagreement suggests a cohesive approach within the coalition, which may be beneficial for its effectiveness in engaging with internet governance processes. However, it’s worth noting that this unified front might also limit the diversity of perspectives within the coalition.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of early engagement and proactive participation in internet governance processes to effectively influence the agenda and outcomes.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Aiming to influence agenda early before formal processes begin

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers highlight the inclusive nature of TCCM membership, emphasizing flexibility in participation options for technical operators and interested parties.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jordan Carter

Open to technical operators that provide infrastructure

Offers supporter category for those interested but not ready to join

Key Takeaways

The Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM) was formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance, particularly for the WSIS+20 review in 2025.

TCCM aims to defend and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance.

The coalition provides a lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate and share information.

TCCM has been actively engaged in the Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024 and is focusing on the WSIS+20 review as a key priority for 2025.

Membership is open to technical operators that provide internet infrastructure, with a supporter category for those interested but not ready to fully join.

The coalition seeks equal footing with other stakeholders in internet governance discussions while acknowledging governments’ role in formal decision-making.

Resolutions and Action Items

TCCM plans to develop an agenda to improve IGF processes in early 2025

The coalition aims to influence the WSIS+20 review agenda early, before formal processes begin

TCCM will continue to expand its membership and collaborate with other stakeholders

Unresolved Issues

How TCCM will resolve potential conflicts of opinion among its members

The specific measures or strategies TCCM will use to influence policymakers

The role of Web 3.0 technologies and how to bridge the gap with traditional internet governance structures

How to ensure TCCM’s formation doesn’t lead to fragmentation or reduced participation in existing IGF processes

Suggested Compromises

TCCM allows members to opt-in to statements, allowing for flexibility when there are differences of opinion

The coalition encourages members to use parts of TCCM resources they agree with and discard others, promoting a flexible approach to collaboration

We have to acknowledge that the experiment has not been 100% successful if you look at achievement towards the SDGs. Yes, of course, there have been massive strides in technology in the last 20 years, massive strides in connectivity, a degree of equalization. But in the same way, you have to acknowledge there’s been a degree of polarization as economies have become a little bit more digitized.

speaker

Nick Wenban-Smith

reason

This comment shows a nuanced and balanced perspective on the progress of internet governance and multistakeholderism, acknowledging both successes and shortcomings.

impact

It set a tone of critical self-reflection for the discussion, encouraging a more honest assessment of the current state of internet governance.

We are operators that manage critical Internet resources. This is actually just a very small slice of what maybe a layperson might understand to be technical community, but this is also very important. We’re the ones who keep the Internet running. I like to say, when we do our good work, you shouldn’t actually notice it. You only notice it if we don’t do our work.

speaker

Jennifer Chung

reason

This comment clearly articulates the unique role and importance of the technical community in maintaining the internet’s infrastructure.

impact

It helped clarify the specific niche and value proposition of the TCCM within the broader internet governance ecosystem.

This is not an association. This is not trying to create a big, heavy structure that tries to speak on behalf of its members. It’s meant to be a rallying point, an exchange of views, a way to learn from each other, perhaps shape each other’s views through that learning, and to test where consensus exists and where it doesn’t in this slice of the technical community.

speaker

Jordan Carter

reason

This comment provides crucial context about the nature and purpose of the TCCM, emphasizing its lightweight and flexible structure.

impact

It addressed potential concerns about the TCCM’s role and helped frame subsequent discussion about its operations and goals.

From one of your earlier slides you said the technical community, as you defined it, should participate in internet governance. I forget the precise three Ds, but debate, discourse, and decision-making, I think it said, on an equal basis with governments. And I wondered what governments think of that. I wondered where your legitimacy comes from compared to democratic governments or authoritarian governments.

speaker

Ian Brown

reason

This question raises important issues about the legitimacy and role of the technical community in relation to governments in internet governance.

impact

It prompted a discussion about the nature of multistakeholder participation and the specific role of the technical community, leading to clarifications about the TCCM’s position.

How would you resolve conflictual opinions within yourself? Now you presume that you’re a community. But, you know, traditionally what I understand is in the technical community often conflicts are resolved based on the technical rationality. So one that is superior to the inferior ones wins, right? But it’s given the nature of the technical community, it’s more or less concerned with political stuff. So how are you planning to resolve such conflicts?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

reason

This question raises important points about potential internal conflicts within the TCCM and how they might be resolved, especially given the political nature of some discussions.

impact

It led to clarifications about the TCCM’s decision-making process and its opt-in nature, highlighting the coalition’s flexibility in dealing with potential disagreements.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by prompting clarifications about the TCCM’s role, structure, and decision-making processes. They encouraged a nuanced examination of the technical community’s place in internet governance, balancing optimism about its potential with realistic acknowledgment of challenges. The discussion moved from introducing the TCCM to critically examining its purpose and operations, ultimately providing a clearer picture of how this new coalition fits into the broader internet governance landscape.

How could the IGF be improved?

speaker

Nick Wenban-Smith

explanation

The coalition plans to develop an agenda for improving the IGF, which is important for enhancing multi-stakeholder participation and effectiveness.

How can the technical community bridge the gap between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0?

speaker

Yik Wei

explanation

This is important to address potential fragmentation in the internet ecosystem and ensure cohesive development of internet technologies.

How will TCCM ensure the technical community doesn’t fade away from existing IGF and IGF-led initiatives?

speaker

Sandra Hoferichter

explanation

This is crucial to maintain the technical community’s engagement in broader internet governance discussions and prevent siloing.

How would TCCM resolve conflicting opinions within itself?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

This is important for understanding how the coalition will handle internal disagreements and maintain cohesion.

What specific policy measures is TCCM planning to use to influence policymakers?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

This is crucial for understanding the coalition’s strategy for engaging with and impacting internet governance processes.

How can TCCM leverage its membership to draft positions for the WSIS+20 review?

speaker

Jennifer Chung

explanation

This is important for preparing the coalition’s input into a major upcoming internet governance process.