Networking Session #138 IAB Tech & Policy: Building Bridges in Internet Governance

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of the technical community, particularly the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), in internet governance and the importance of engaging policymakers in technical standards development. Mark Nottingham introduced the session, which featured speakers from various technical organizations and government representatives discussing how to bridge the gap between technical experts and policymakers.

Roman Danyliw, IETF chair, explained that the IETF operates on four key principles: individual participation regardless of organizational affiliation, focus on building protocol blocks rather than complete systems, judging contributions on technical merit, and measuring success through voluntary adoption. He emphasized that the IETF currently manages about 125 working groups across six technical areas and maintains robust global participation, with 77 countries represented in their meetings. The organization prioritizes accessibility through hybrid meetings, ensuring remote participants can engage as effectively as in-person attendees.

Mirja Kuhlewind from the Internet Architecture Board highlighted their role in architectural oversight and outreach, particularly in liaising with other standards organizations and stakeholder groups. She stressed the importance of bringing together technical experts with researchers, civil society, and policymakers to improve internet protocols and standards.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society described their policy program, which has trained over 300 policymakers globally to better understand internet technology and standards processes. Sarah Jennings from the UK government provided a policymaker’s perspective, explaining how governments engage with the IETF to ensure internet standards align with public policy goals while bringing technical expertise back to inform policy development.

The discussion concluded with audience questions about participation fees, communication channels, and the effectiveness of remote participation, with speakers emphasizing the IETF’s commitment to accessibility and multi-stakeholder engagement in shaping the internet’s technical foundation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **IETF Structure and Principles**: The Internet Engineering Task Force operates on four key principles – individual participation regardless of organizational affiliation, focus on building protocol blocks rather than complete infrastructures, judging contributions by technical merit, and measuring success through voluntary adoption. The organization manages about 125 working groups across six technical areas.

– **Accessibility and Participation Barriers**: A significant focus on making IETF participation more inclusive through hybrid meetings (remote and in-person options), fee waivers for remote participation, and evidence that nearly 40% of published standards have authors who never attended in-person meetings, demonstrating the effectiveness of remote participation.

– **Policy-Technical Community Bridge**: Discussion of the critical need for better communication between technical experts and policymakers, with examples like the International Red Cross digital emblem work and domestic violence prevention in location tracking showing how civil society input transforms technical solutions.

– **Government Engagement Challenges**: Unique obstacles for government participation including communication barriers, need for education about IETF processes, difficulty participating as individuals rather than official representatives, and the challenge of speaking openly during policy development phases.

– **Outreach and Education Programs**: Various initiatives to connect technical and policy communities, including the Internet Society’s policymaker training program (300+ participants over a decade), roundtables, and the “ornithology” experiment to identify policy-relevant new work entering the IETF.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to bridge the gap between the technical standards community (particularly IETF) and policymakers by explaining how internet technical standards are developed, demonstrating the value of multi-stakeholder participation, and addressing practical barriers to engagement between these communities.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was collaborative and educational throughout, with speakers emphasizing openness and mutual benefit. There was a welcoming, problem-solving atmosphere as panelists acknowledged challenges while actively seeking solutions. The discussion maintained an encouraging tone, with audience members sharing positive experiences and expressing appreciation for the technical community’s presence at the Internet Governance Forum. The conversation was notably constructive, focusing on building bridges rather than highlighting divisions between technical and policy communities.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Mark Nottingham** – Long-time participant in technical standards bodies like the IETF and W3C, member of the Internet Architecture Board

– **Roman Danyliw** – Chair of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)

– **Mirja Kuhlewind** – Member of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)

– **Olaf Kolkman** – Principal of Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at the Internet Society

– **Sarah Jennings** – Internet Standards Lead at the UK Government Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

– **Ian Sheldon** – Australian government representative (leads internet governance matters for the Australian government)

– **Enoch Singano** – Internet Society Ambassador

– **Lynn St. Amour** – Former President and CEO of the Internet Society (2001-2014), former IETF MAG chair (2016-2019)

– **Audiance** – T Santosh from Government of India

**Additional speakers:**

– **Reuben Dennyloo** – Chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force (mentioned in introduction but appears to be incorrectly referenced, as Roman Danyliw is identified as the actual IETF chair)

– **Dirk** – Chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)

– **Colin Perkins** – Former chair of the Internet Research Task Force

– **Dhruv** – Member of the Internet Architecture Board

– **Suresh** – Member of the Internet Architecture Board

– **Warren** – Member of the Internet Architecture Board

– **Sylvia** – Representative from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

– **Dom** – Representative from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

– **Drew** –

# Comprehensive Summary: Technical Community Engagement in Internet Governance

## Introduction and Context

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), introduced by Mark Nottingham, focused on the critical role of the technical community, particularly the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), in internet governance and the importance of engaging policymakers in technical standards development. The session brought together representatives from various technical organisations and government officials to explore how to bridge the gap between technical experts and policymakers in shaping the internet’s technical foundation.

The conversation featured speakers from key internet governance organisations, including the IETF, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Society, and government representatives from the UK, Australia, and India, alongside civil society voices. This diverse representation enabled a comprehensive examination of the challenges and opportunities in multi-stakeholder engagement for internet standards development.

## IETF Structure, Principles, and Operations

Roman Danyliw, Chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force, provided a detailed explanation of how the IETF operates, emphasising four fundamental principles that guide the organisation’s work. These principles include individual participation regardless of organisational affiliation, focusing on building protocol blocks rather than complete systems, judging contributions on technical merit, and measuring success through voluntary adoption of standards.

The IETF currently manages about 125 different standardisation activities organised as working groups across six technical areas, ranging from basic connectivity to applications and security. This structure enables the organisation to address the full spectrum of internet protocol development whilst maintaining focused expertise in each domain. Danyliw highlighted that the IETF draws participation from diverse sectors, with over half coming from industry, alongside significant representation from government, civil society, and academia across 77 countries in plenary meetings.

The Internet Architecture Board, as explained by Mirja Kühlewind, provides architectural oversight for the IETF’s work and serves as the primary outreach interface to other organisations and stakeholder groups. The IAB’s role extends beyond technical oversight to include strategic liaison work with other standards organisations and facilitating connections between the technical community and broader stakeholder groups including researchers, civil society, and policymakers. Kühlewind also noted that the IAB oversees the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), currently chaired by Dirk Kutscher, which includes research groups focused on human rights and global access policy topics.

## Accessibility and Participation Models

A significant portion of the discussion centred on the IETF’s commitment to accessibility and inclusive participation. Danyliw explained that all IETF meetings operate on a hybrid model, combining in-person and remote participation options. Approximately half of the working groups convene remotely only, specifically designed to remove cost and geographic barriers that might prevent participation.

The effectiveness of remote participation was demonstrated through compelling data: almost 40% of documents had at least one author who had never attended any on-site meeting in recent memory. This statistic provides concrete evidence that meaningful contributions to internet standards can be made without physical presence, challenging traditional assumptions about the necessity of in-person engagement for effective technical collaboration.

However, the discussion also revealed ongoing challenges with participation barriers. T Santosh from the Government of India raised concerns about IETF participation fees being prohibitively high for many potential participants, particularly from developing countries. Danyliw clarified the fee structure: individual working group meetings throughout the year are free, remote participation in plenary meetings is free with unlimited fee waivers available for those who cannot pay, and only on-site plenary meeting participation has fees. While acknowledging these concerns, he indicated limited flexibility for reducing on-site meeting fees, representing an ongoing tension between organisational sustainability and inclusive access.

## Government Engagement and Policy Interface

Sarah Jennings from the UK Government Department for Science, Innovation and Technology provided valuable insights into how governments engage with the IETF and why such participation matters for public policy. She explained that government engagement serves dual purposes: participating in systems-level conversations about internet standards that underpin the modern economy, and bringing technical expertise back to inform policy development.

Jennings introduced the concept of “horizon scanning,” describing how government participation in technical standards development serves as an early warning system for policy implications. She noted that government representatives often return to policy teams to explain upcoming technical developments that may have significant implications two, three, or four years in the future, highlighting the temporal mismatch between technical development cycles and policy response times.

Jennings outlined four specific challenges for government participation in IETF processes: communication barriers between technical and policy communities, the need for education about IETF processes and culture, community and cultural differences in how governments typically operate versus IETF norms, and coordination challenges in participating as individuals rather than official representatives while still representing government interests.

Ian Sheldon, representing the Australian government, provided positive feedback on the Internet Society’s policymaker programme, specifically praising the “hand-holding” aspect that helps government officials navigate technical discussions. He noted that his government has successfully used these training opportunities to build technical expertise and values the direct access to technical advice for both domestic and international policy challenges.

## Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Civil Society Input

The discussion highlighted the value that civil society input brings to technical standards development. Danyliw provided examples from earlier sessions at the same event, including work on digital Red Cross/Red Crescent symbols and detecting unwanted location trackers for intimate partner violence prevention.

In the location tracking example, Danyliw explained how engineers and policymakers initially thought they understood the threat model until civil society experts on intimate partner violence completely reframed the starting point. This example demonstrated how diverse stakeholder input can fundamentally transform the technical approach, leading to more effective and socially aware solutions.

Jennings reinforced this theme by noting that standards development intersects with social and political factors, emphasising that technology is not value-neutral and impacts how people live their lives. She described this as a bidirectional relationship where society impacts technology design, and technology design impacts how society functions.

## Outreach and Education Initiatives

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society described their comprehensive policy programme, which has trained over 300 policymakers globally over the past decade to better understand internet technology and standards processes. This programme represents a significant investment in building bridges between technical and policy communities through structured education and relationship-building.

Kolkman also mentioned experimental initiatives, including roundtables between policymakers and the IETF to find optimal forms of engagement, and an “ornithology” experiment designed to identify new IETF work with policy implications. These experimental approaches demonstrate ongoing efforts to improve the interface between technical development and policy consideration.

The Internet Society’s approach recognises that effective engagement requires more than one-off interactions; it demands sustained relationship-building and education to help policymakers understand not just what the IETF does, but how they can effectively engage with technical standards processes.

## Communication Challenges and Accessibility

Throughout the discussion, speakers acknowledged communication challenges between technical experts and policymakers. Enoch Singano, Internet Society Ambassador, emphasised the need for better communication channels to ensure that internet standards are shaped with understanding of real social and economic impacts.

However, the discussion also revealed that many communication channels already exist. Kühlewind noted that IAB members can be reached directly without formal secretariat barriers, encouraging direct communication between stakeholders and technical experts. This accessibility contrasts with more formal organisational structures and reflects the IETF’s commitment to open engagement.

Mark Nottingham suggested that the IETF needs to take work to affected communities rather than expecting them to always come to the IETF, representing a shift towards more proactive outreach. This approach acknowledges that many stakeholders who might be affected by technical standards may not naturally participate in technical forums.

## Technical Community Participation in Internet Governance

Lynn St. Amour noted the significant presence of the technical community at the Internet Governance Forum, highlighting that they represent the second largest donor group after governments. This demonstrates substantial commitment to broader policy discussions beyond purely technical venues and reflects recognition that internet governance requires diverse expertise and perspectives.

## Ongoing Challenges

Despite the collaborative nature of the discussion, several challenges remain unresolved. High participation fees for IETF in-person meetings continue to create barriers to broader participation, particularly for developing country participants. While remote participation options and fee waivers exist, the fundamental tension between organisational sustainability and inclusive access persists.

Communication barriers between technical and policy communities require ongoing efforts to improve mutual understanding. The challenge of identifying which technical standards work requires policy input and at what stage in the development process remains complex, as does the difficulty for government officials to participate as individuals while representing official positions.

The discussion also highlighted the need for better mechanisms to make ongoing IETF work visible and accessible to policy communities before standards are technically advanced, addressing the timing mismatch between technical development and policy awareness.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated the complexity of bridging technical standards development with broader internet governance challenges. The conversation moved beyond simple explanations of how technical organisations work to explore practical challenges and opportunities for multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance.

The speakers acknowledged the complexity of the internet and the impossibility of universal technical literacy, instead focusing on strategic engagement at key decision points. The presence of technical community representatives at the Internet Governance Forum reflects recognition that effective internet governance depends not just on technical excellence, but on the ability to bring together diverse stakeholders in collaborative processes that recognise both the technical constraints and social implications of internet standards development.

The discussion revealed both successful engagement models, such as the Internet Society’s policymaker training programme, and ongoing challenges around accessibility, communication, and timing of stakeholder input in technical processes. These insights provide a foundation for continued efforts to improve the interface between technical development and policy consideration in internet governance.

Mark Nottingham: on our web page Amazon.de. Internet Governance Discussions, the phrase Technical Community, is often used and sometimes with different meanings and in a context that has changed considerably since the term was introduced. I’m Mark Nottingham and I’m a long-time participant in technical standards bodies like the IETF and W3C. I’m also a member of the Internet Architecture Board, a group you’ll learn about more in a few minutes. First, we’re going to have an overview of the Internet Engineering Task Force from its chair, Reuben Dennyloo, along with an interview with Mark Nottingham. We’re also going to have an overview of the Internet Governance Discussions, the phrase Technical Community, is often used and sometimes with different meanings and in a context that has changed considerably since the term was introduced. I’m Mark Nottingham and I’m a long-time participant in Technical Standards Bodies like the IETF and W3C. We’re also going to have an overview of the Internet Engineering Task Force from its chair, Reuben Dennyloo, along with an introduction to the Internet Architecture Board by one of its members, Mirja Kuhlholtz. After that, we’ll hear briefly from the Internet Society’s Olaf Kolkman about its program to help policymakers engage in Internet standards. And then finally, we’ll hear a perspective from the UK Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology’s Sarah Jennings. After our speakers, we’ll have time for questions and some open discussion. So, take it away, Reuben. Well, there is the agenda that Mark was talking about.

Roman Danyliw: And thanks for that kind introduction, kind of, Mark. So, again, to repeat, my name is Roman Danyliw. I’m chair of the IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and I’m going to take a few minutes with my colleague, Mirja, to talk about the work we’re doing there as a standards organization for Internet protocols. We conduct this specification of those protocols around four guiding principles. The first one is that standards should be standardized. The second one is that standards should be standardized. We conduct this specification of those protocols around four guiding principles. First, when you come to the standards organization, everyone participates as an individual, which means that there is no special treatment in our standards process for the organization you come from, whether you’re from the private sector, or you’re from the government, you’re from civil society, or you’re from academia. The other thing to note about what the IETF works on is its building blocks. We don’t specify the whole end-to-end infrastructure, a digital platform. We don’t specify infrastructure, a digital public infrastructure. We don’t specify applications. We don’t release tools. What we do is we specify protocols that others use to build those infrastructures and services. And, really, this approach is how you realize a permissionless innovation on the Internet, which is you can create your new application or your new service without having to ask a centralized authority for permission to feel that and make that available to your constituency. And the other two key principles for us are that we judge contributions that come into the standards organization by their technical merits. And then, ultimately, we judge the success of everything we work on by voluntary adoption, that people want to adopt these standards and build services on top of it, not that they are made to do that. In the IETF, at any given point in time, we have about 125 different standardization activities around protocols. We call those individual clusters of work working groups. We call those individual clusters of working groups and they’re self-organized, roughly aligned around six particular areas. So, first, at the bottom layer, there’s this notion of working in the Internet area, which is the lowest level of abstraction, where you’re talking about connecting two computers, talking to each other on a particular link. Then, to realize what is the Internet, which is it’s really just a network of networks talking to each other. We have a series of work in the routing area. We have a series of work in the routing area. We have a series of work in the routing area. We have a series of work in the routing area. Then, built on top of that, it’s making sure that there’s end-to-end connectivity between all those networks of networks. And then, on top of that, there’s different application and real-time kind of protocols. And buttressing all of that is investments in security and the ability to manage that. So, to make this kind of very practical, if we were on a remote call with audio-visual, the Internet layer would be the IP protocol. On top of that would be a protocol like BGP, allowing your network to talk to another network through that IP protocol. On top of that would be something like TCP or QUIC that’s providing the end-to-end connectivity. And then there’s the actual protocol itself like WebRTC that provides the video and the audio stream that you’re hearing, all secured by something likely like TLS. And we don’t, of course, do any of that alone. We partner with other standards organizations like W3C, Oasis, IEEE, ITU, and 3GPP as well. And we partner with other standards organizations like W3C, OASIS, IEEE, ITU, and 3GPP as well. So, we’re building a lot of these things together. And we’re also building a lot of these things together. And obviously, we have partners such as USGS, WRI, EOLI, and a number of others, as well. So, we’ve got the ITF cooperation in mind. We actually bought a staff Yuma Cooperative earlier this year. But now we’re actually involved and partnering with other kinds of companies who are actively working to help improve our resources. And then, there’s the SIH, which is the software development and development space, Rather Than is the office we’re in. But really we’re working on this information elsewhere and trying to a affects the technical community. It draws very robust participation, not only from the private sector, from civil society, from governments, and from academia. And if you look at the stats, you can see they’re just participation last year. In our plenary meetings, industry was a little more than half of who participated, and the other half was a breakout of the government, civil society, and academia. We also draw participation from around the world. In our three plenary meetings a year, there were 77 countries that participated. And to really repeat the basic principle of everyone participates as an individual, in contrast to perhaps other standards organizations where special treatment is given perhaps to governments or to the private sector, everyone comes to the IETF with equal standing. And I think some of my colleagues are going to talk about some of the other activities we have to draw people into those different processes. We have new programs for participants. We have a process to onboard new work in a structured way, reach policy makers, and also manage the open source community. We are a bottom-up place. We standardize what comes to us and the key problems that those participants bring to us. And so very key for us is to have very flexible methods of contribution. I think one of the biggest affordances we have is that we don’t run any in-person only meetings. Everything we do is hybrid, so there’s always a remote component to an on-site meeting that we have, or it’s frankly remote only, which is frankly the vast majority of the meetings we run. We have three plenary meetings a year, and depending on kind of where exactly we are in the world, the spread is that about one-third to half of all the participants are going to be remote. And over the course of the year, about half of those 125 working groups I talked about are convening remote only, so there’s no on-site component. And we found that this is critical to make sure that things like constraints related to cost, geography, or time constraints don’t bound the participation in that process. We also want to make sure that the remote experience is as close as possible to the on-site experience, so we force that synchronization through a common app. So if you’re participating on-site, you’re using the same app that the people are remotely to get in a queue and make contributions. And then the other unique thing about our governance model, our standards process model, is that anything decided at a meeting is not really decided yet until it’s taken to the email list for final confirmation. And so this allows, so first you have this real-time remote participation or this real-time remote participation, but what if you can’t come to those meetings? So we want to double-check everything we do with this asynchronous check that you typically have at least one to three weeks to mull through this on a mail list and also to provide a contribution in that way. And to really be able to prep to make a contribution, the other unique thing about what the IETF does is all the materials are readily accessible, free of cost, with no login. So you want to know what the in-progress materials are, the final materials that things are being built on, meeting minutes, past recordings of the videos of any of the on-site or remote meetings. That goes back decades, and all that is available to you. So there’s no kind of barriers of how do I bootstrap into all of that. And I’ll close before handing off the mic is to highlight there’s a number of places, a number of examples, I could talk about the intersection of where civil society or policymakers came and influenced what the IETF is working on. Just earlier this morning, there was a speaker from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent kind of movement talking about what’s happening in digital albums to convert the Red Crescent or the Red Cross to its digital kind of equivalent and how that’s been a body of work that was, frankly, civil society first. They came with that work, and the engineers are helping with that. Another example I would provide would be the detecting unwanted location trackers, the DALT work, which is about a year and a half into it, where it started with manufacturers of the FOBs, the Bluetooth FOBs you use to find your lost luggage, and those manufacturers wanted to get together with interoperability because they were getting push, themselves wanted a push in this direction and from policymakers that this is being used in intimate partner violence. And the engineers and the policymakers thought they understood what the threat model was, and really until the civil society experts came, the intimate partner violence experts, and really reflamed, it completely changed what the starting point of that process has been. And this is really endemic of what happens at the IETF. The stakeholders come together and we come up with a better solution. So I’m going to pass the mic over to my colleague that’s going to talk more about the Internet Architecture Board.

Mirja Kuhlewind: Yeah, hello. My name is Mirja Kuhlewind. I’m a member of the Internet Architecture Board. The internet architecture board is one of the two leadership groups of the IETF One of the leadership are the so-called air directors who are responsible for the process The working groups the documents and so on and the IAB has a bunch of other responsibilities One of them is architectural oversight, whatever that means But one important role is also reaching out being the outreaching face of the Internet That’s one of the reasons why we’re here. But one one important part of that Responsibility is also working with other organizations in the space, especially if you look at other STOs. There are of course a lot of works and activities around the Internet Where we use different protocols from other organizations other organizations use our protocols and and especially if there’s kind of a dependency on overlap It’s very important to talk to each other. And I mean this all you know that how important that is So that’s one part of what we call official Liaison work if needed But we also in our experience is very it’s it’s very important to just have the the experts talking to each other to understand each other to understand the requirements to directly work together and Which is also part of the openness that you see in the IETF and so around this outreach activities It’s not only about other technical organizations it’s all kind of stakeholder groups that really enhance the documents and the work we are doing and and Contribute to getting a better output. So that includes in our case also, for example development communities open source communities operators security experts academia in general civil society but also policymakers because as Roman showed on the previous slides There are these touch points where technical technology and policy touches and we need to understand each other We need to talk to each other. We need to understand requirements And as much as it’s sometimes for us complicated to understand this whole regulation and policy space We also understand it’s sometimes hard to understand the technical space. So that’s one of the reasons we are here and we’re having this dialogue and figuring out how we can improve that and the other thing I would like to quickly mention and Roman mentioned that as well is also the IRTF the Internet Research Task Force That’s part of the responsibility of the IEP as well. It’s kind of Sister organization that is deeply integrated into the IETF But it’s focusing on bringing talking about research bringing research in and bridging the communities between technical experts and researchers Because that’s something that I think is a real success story that we figured out bringing in these independent experts Having this dialogue really makes our protocols and our work and the internet better So Doc Kutcher is the current IRTF chair sitting over here you can also talk to him and this slide is just showing you some of the examples that the IRTF is doing on long-term technical research But as you can see at the bottom of the slides there are also groups and that are more related to policy and civil society topics like human rights or global access and That’s really aiming to bring these people together and having a conversation in the same venue as we do technical standards You Want to say what a rate or just head on

Olaf Kolkman: Yes, so my name is Olaf Kolkman, I’m principal of internet technology policy and advocacy the Internet Society and and the ITF the greater ITF have a Very long term relationship as a as a person. I’ve been Working in the in the in the ITF since 97 Collaborating on standards last 10 years from the Internet Society perspective. I’ve been working a lot with the IEB and the ITF the Relation between the Internet Society and and the ITF is a is a as I would say an intimate one We’re part of its governance body Or we’re involved in its governance I would say but the Internet Society the IEB Specifically is also a technical advisor to the Internet Society at large And so we collaborate a lot one thing that we do within the context of the ITF is organize a policy program The policy program is something where we invite Policymakers and regulators from across the globe to expose them to how the Pie is made to have a look in the kitchen and at the same time learn a little bit more About the recipes and the cake that is the the product of all of that we teach them about The the policymakers about the Internet how it works what its properties are and in that way we have trained over I believe 300 policymakers over over a decade worth In in understanding the Internet a little bit better and and when we walk around here we often meet The people that went through the program and we often also see them in influential decision-making positions either in National governments in parliaments or in in regulatory positions That is basically utilizing the expertise that is available in the ITF to to basically enrich the the broader community What we’ve also started to do recently is basically bring together Policymakers with an interest in ITF work With with the Internet Society and we collaborating with the Internet Architecture Board on that to organize roundtables Roundtables that are fairly informal that happen at an ITF at which we can Basically have a open conversation on about ongoing concerns I would say this is still in a in a we’re in that we’re in a learning process with that We’re trying to find a form and a and a and a modus operandi for it but so far we had I believe four we’re organizing the fifth and This is something that I think is going to stay I Think I leave it with that. Yeah, maybe another experiment that we are undertaking is Ornithology It’s a little bit of a wordplay of new work that enters the ITF. It’s usually birds of a feathers That are being organized and the ornithology looks at the birds that are flying around New work that is introduced in the ITF and that might have a policy angle That’s of course From the perspective from the from the editor of that which happens to be myself But we’re experimenting with that and see if that is of any use so we’re trying to build that policy ITF bridge as much as we can and with that I’m going to hand over to Sarah

Sarah Jennings: All right There we go, hi all I’m Sarah Jennings I’m the internet standards lead at the UK Government Department for science innovation and technology and I want to kind of give a little bit of a perspective of what it’s like to engage in the IETF as somebody from a central government department I Have not had the kind of illustrious long IETF career that a lot of the people on this stage have had But I want to kind of bring a little bit of that perspective of what some of those unique challenges are But also some of the kind of benefits that we see of government engagement in the IETF So we kind of have a set of principles or values that we really want to see the internet uphold We want it to be free open Peaceful and secure that it is trusted. It is interoperable. It is secure by design and accessible to all it’s probably no exaggeration to say that the Internet underpins the modern economy as it exists today all of our kind of many of our public sector services And that the work of the IETF is absolutely foundational to that but that being said it is a it is a body that I think a lot of policymakers are either not aware of or Not necessarily kind of fully appreciative of the work that it does We’re massive advocates in the in UK government of the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, but also of industry led multi-stakeholder standards development and for us the IETF sits at the nexus of both of those That there are no de facto kind of barriers to participation That you get the the widest variety of voices and opinions taking part in a process that that is predominantly industry the IETF’s case that is Predominantly vendors, but you’re also getting civil society groups consumer groups Operators and policymakers joining in that conversation as well From our perspective one of the ways that we sort of embody that is we send multi-stakeholder delegations to standards development organizations but obviously we also take part in those standards development processes ourselves, and we also really kind of welcome the opportunity to meet with organizations or people that are involved in the standards process to understand both what they see is the value of standardization but also the challenges that might come with engagement in SDOs. So it’s been said a lot, the IETF is fundamentally a technical and industry-led forum, it’s producing these specifications that are coherent, they’re technically sound, that are producing working implementations. And it is responsive to market needs and it is, again, it’s an industry forum but that doesn’t mean that it is just a technical one and that it is entirely absent of social and political factors. And I think that the conversation that we’ve had so far has really reflected that as a fundamental truth. It’s part of this complex system that engages with legislation and regulation and just the kind of realities of what happens when you go out into the world and you hit the kind of complexity of humankind. So that the social and technical factors for us, it goes both ways, right? It’s not only that the society that we live in kind of impacts the way that we design technology but also the way that we design technology has an impact in how we live our lives. And that kind of bi-directionality I think is often is noted by a lot of fora, you know, the IETF has a statement that technology is not value neutral, we’re not just setting out to do something because it’s technically feasible, it’s setting out to do something because it is something that is desirable. And so, but finding the spaces within standards development to talk about the potential impacts of different protocols and the societal constraints of them I think is one of those kind of fundamental challenges. So we engage in the IETF as a UK government to be part of that systems level conversation. In the UK we have consistent engagement from my department, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but also from our National Cyber Security Centre who bring kind of a unique depth of technical expertise from the work that they do. I think one of the things that government does really well in this space is be able to use its convening power, right, to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders, to run consultations and also in some cases to bring our own kind of hands-on experience to take part in the discussions that are happening in the IETF. As Maria said, the thorny end of this is when standards are impacted by or impact regulation and legislation, but there’s also kind of broader conversations to be had about the uptake of particular standards or just understanding the context, the social context in which they’re likely to be deployed. There’s sort of two benefits. One is that expertise element that I talked about, bringing knowledge and bringing insight, but the other reason, and it’s sort of a slightly unseen element of government engagement in standards development, is also to bring back what is happening within a particular forum and explain it to policy teams and say you may not be aware of this, but this is coming down the line in two, three, four years and it’s likely to have an impact on the way that you do your work and, you know, how is that going to be an issue for you or is that going to be a benefit for you and can we start having that conversation early? So it’s a really good kind of almost horizon scanning opportunity for us. We attend in person, so it’s really valuable to have hallway conversations, those brush-bys, but it’s absolutely the case that that is not an option for many governments around the world and just many individuals who want to take part in the IETF and, as Roman said earlier, the virtual participation the IETF offers is fantastic, but one thing that I find really useful is being able to have one-to-one conversations with engineers and talk to them and understand what they are doing, why they are doing it in a way that is not necessarily mediated through a kind of public affairs lens or a policy lens, it’s much more direct. So I think we don’t advocate for a particular place for government within the process, we think there is no kind of one-size-fits-all solution to policy engagement in standards, but there are a couple of unique challenges. So the first is about communication, so this is mainly about making sure that what is happening in the IETF, IRTF, IAB is known and is legible to the policy community, so you don’t have this situation where standards develop to a point that then governments become aware of them, but the work is sort of technically progressed to a point that if it had happened earlier the conversation might have been a little bit more fruitful. I think making sure that people understand what is happening and have that visibility is really, really key. The second is just education, it’s not intuitive to know how to engage with any standards body and the IETF is no different, knowing the kind of ways of working and also just a lack of technical knowledge is going to hamper engagement, but I think recent work that some people here, Mark and Suresh, have been leading on AI preferences is a really good example of how they’ve gone to great lengths to explain from just a beginner’s level what the IETF is, how it does and how people can get involved and doing a little bit of that kind of early hand-holding that really pays off in the long term. The next thing is about community, the IETF has its own set of core principles and axioms and ways of working that aren’t necessarily intuitive to policymakers, I think is probably how I put it, but one thing that is I think particularly a thing is one of the IETF’s great strengths is its openness and the fact that people participate as individuals and everything is out there in the public. That is sometimes challenging for a policymaker to do, you cannot necessarily take off your hat as an official and purely represent your own personal interest, but also as policy is being developed your capacity to speak openly about it for a myriad of reasons is somewhat challenging. And then finally the coordination between all of those different things, having the communication, the community and the education all coming together in one place. So finally I just want to say I recognise that this is not just a one way challenge, this is not just an issue of governments coming into the IETF to have that conversation there or in any other standards organisation and understanding that. The bridge goes both ways and it’s why I’m really pleased that the IAB has organised a session at the Internet Governance Forum as this kind of primary multi-stakeholder domain for conversations about the internet and internet policy, because it is important that the technical community is also present in those conversations to defend the principles that they abide by, but also to give a technical input on the work and the initiatives that are being proposed. So I think I would welcome people’s reflections from the floor, I think I’m going to pass back to Mark, but also I’m really glad to see kind of a variety of people in the audience and I hope this is the start of a kind of further conversation.

Mark Nottingham: Great, thank you all. So we have some time left for discussion, if anybody has any questions I think there’s a mic to go around and Drew will take care of that. Maybe while you think about that, I think Mirja mentioned Dirk is here, the chair of the Internet Research Task Force. Dirk if you could stand up if you didn’t before, and also Colin Perkins, the former chair of the Internet Research Task Force. We have a number of people who you can talk to after the session, if you see them in the hallway, to give you those different perspectives. We have other members of the Internet Architecture Board, so Dhruv and Suresh, if you want to stand up, and Warren. We also have some folks from our peer organization, the World Wide Web Consortium, which is like the IETF, but specialized on the web and web browsers, so Sylvia and Dom. So you might not realize it, but there are a lot of technical community faces around. So any questions, any comments? Yes.

Audiance: So good evening, I’m T Santosh from Government of India. So first of all, nice IETF is coming to IGF and I’m seeing this for the first time. So basically you have seen that in IGF there are lots of participation and the thing is that there is no participating fees. Now coming to IETF, the participating fees is too large. Hope you understand. So is there any provision by which to increase more participation in IETF? Can the fees be reduced or no fees at all.

Mark Nottingham: There’s an active discussion around that in Rome and I’m sure has something to say about it.

Roman Danyliw: So to answer that question, I would kind of pull apart. So the IETF has three plenary meetings a year and then it also has all of the meetings that happen that aren’t all the working groups happening at the same time. So to explain, the plenary meeting is roughly a hundred of those working groups meeting kind of simultaneously and then the individual working groups meet during the whole course of the year. So when the individual working groups are meeting across the year, there’s no fee for any of that. For the remote participation during the plenary meeting, if you are in a situation where you cannot pay, there is a unlimited fee waiver and you can participate remotely at no cost. As to the on-site participation, based on the kind of the financial model we have, there is a fee depending on whether you’re you’re kind of a a student or not, but we don’t have a lot of flexibility to reduce that for the on-site. But the remote is free in the plenary and for the interim meetings around the course of the year, that is also free. And do we have, if I may, do we have proof points that remote participation is as effective as on-site participation? Yeah, that’s actually a great question and one that often comes up, which is a little bit of the disbelief. Well, right, Roman, the remote can’t possibly be as good as the online, and Sarah mentioned there is no replacement for the hallway track, which is we finish this meeting and as we’re breaking up, you will organically talk to folks. But to the idea that we have evidence that the remote participation works, fundamentally what we are in the business of doing is making standards. So as we looked at who produced, who authored, whose name was on those standards that we published, we did a look back of about four years. And we found that it was almost 40% of documents had at least one author on them that had never come to any on-site meeting in recent memory, which is we have good records about 15 years back. So to us, this is saying you can fully participate in the remote process because there’s authors that have never been to meetings and they are pushing major documents, almost 40% of them. So that’s evidence to us that the remote is really high quality and you can make a meaningful contribution.

Mark Nottingham: Who else?

Ian Sheldon: G’day. Ian Sheldon, Australian government. I just had two things I just wanted to comment on. One was to lend support to the policymaker program. It’s an excellent program. My team leads internet governance matters for the Australian government. And I’ve sent as many of my team members to the program, as well as many parts of my Australian government department along to the program as well. It’s a really good entry point into the standards making world, into the IETF. But also the second point I wanted to make was that they hold your hand as you get to know the community. And that was one of the most valuable things that we got from the entire process. As we approach the WSIS Plus 20 review, it’s vital that the technical community provides considered, well thought out input into the process. And governments need that input as we navigate the challenges ahead. And some of you guys on the stage had an opportunity to input into the work that the Australian government does and our preparation for the WSIS Plus 20 review. So we follow a lot of the standards work. But we also capitalize on all the fantastic expertise that’s available at the IAB, IRTF, IETF as well. So it’s a really unique spot to get a lot of really good technical advice and support as you navigate both your domestic policy challenges and as we navigate this broader internet governance challenge that we’re all going to be facing over this year and the coming decade or two. So it might be quite a daunting space to jump in and get involved on. But it’s well worth the effort. And I’d very much encourage you all to take the opportunity and have a chat with the guys on stage because it’s a really valuable connection to make and build. Thanks.

Mirja Kuhlewind: Yeah. Thank you for bringing this up. And I just want to add that I was saying earlier, we have this formal liaison process to talk to other organizations. But on our side, we don’t have much formality. Everybody can come and talk to us. You can send us an email. The email reached directly us. We will reply to you. There’s not a secretariat in between. We don’t have the money for having a secretariat running there. So we are very open and we are welcoming that because we did figure out in how we work and what we’re doing that this direct way of talking to each other and working together is getting the best output that we can get.

Mark Nottingham: Please. Just go. No, no. We can’t hear. Go ahead. Try again.

Enoch Singano: Yeah. My name is Enoch Singano. I’m on Internet Society with Ambassador. So my question is to all panelists today. How can we create a better communication channels between technical experts and policy makers so that the upcoming internet standards are well understood and shaped with real social and economic impact? As Sarah, you talked about the way we design technology, it impacts the way we live our lives. So how can you better create and build a communication channel between the technical experts and policy makers?

Mirja Kuhlewind: Anyone? I want to say one thing first. It’s like we cannot expect everybody who uses or works on the internet to understand all the technical details about the internet. The internet is complex. Maybe we all don’t understand everything about the internet. So that shouldn’t be the goal here, right? So the challenge really is to identify the pieces where we need input from different stakeholders, from society, from policy makers, in order to improve our work to make sure we understand the requirements that come from these communities. But we also understand the implication that drives on these communities. And that is challenging because it’s a big space. The internet is complex. Of course, also the technical standard space of the internet is not only the IETF. There are more systems around, and it’s hard to navigate. So I think the only way to make progress is to talk to each other and have these forums where we can openly talk to each other.

Mark Nottingham: And I’ll just add to that. I think we’ve talked a lot about how we try and make sure that it’s easy to come to the IETF and participate and understand what’s going on. But it is also, I think we realize, a two-way street, that we need to go out and find the communities that are affected by our work and engage with them and understand the requirements. Take the work to them and gather that feedback so that we’re not expecting people to always have to come to the IETF if they want to have an effect on the IETF. And that’s something that we’re still getting better at. But there’s a sense there, I think, that we are improving.

Mirja Kuhlewind: I mean, also talking about online participation, I don’t think you have to come to the IETF to be effective because there’s so many ways to reach us. But I think in line with what you said, it is maybe a useful experience because it makes it easier to navigate the space. Every organization has their own rules, their own understandings. That’s true for wherever you engage. So getting a little bit of initial push, taking the advantage of the policymakers program will give you maybe, hopefully, this kind of knowledge and connections that you can then enter in the conversation more easily.

Lynn St. Amour: I’m Lynn St. Amour I was the president and CEO of the Internet Society from 2001 through 2014, so a few weekends, and attended virtually every IETF meeting during that time. And I also served as the IETF MAG chair from 2016 to 2019. I have been fighting and trying to push the technical community and the technical voice into the internet discussions since 2001, in the first WSIS ones, actually even a couple of years earlier than that. And it is just so heartwarming to see so many people here, particularly the leaders from the organizations, both current and past. And even this morning on a panel that I was on, I made the point about the technical community and how important it was. And just as a point of pride for all of us here, the technical organizations are the second largest donor to the IGF, so bigger than private sector. We’re obviously behind governments. And I use that as a measure of how important this organization and all the factors that are here are to our work, and obviously how important we are to theirs. But I just really wanted to recognize the fact that so many IRTF, IAB, W3C, IETF. I went through CCTLDs, GTLDs. I went through RIRs, root server community, every one of them this morning. So just very, very appreciative that everybody’s here, and really quite heartwarming. That’s great.

Olaf Kolkman: Thank you for calling that out. Thank you for calling that out, Lynn, because it’s actually important that we are being seen. And we’re not always, because we’re a shy bunch.

Mirja Kuhlewind: I mean, as I said, it’s also a big space to be here and to navigate around here. It’s also challenging. But it’s always good to be here and learn.

Mark Nottingham: Anyone else? OK. I think we can end a little bit early then. Thank you to all our panelists. I really appreciate it. And thank you for the questions and the engagement. And we are convening our second plenary meeting of the year in Madrid in several weeks. Please join us online or please join us in person. We’d love to have you. Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder participation is essential and valuable for technical standards development

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw
– Mirja Kuhlewind
– Sarah Jennings
– Olaf Kolkman
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

IETF draws robust participation from industry (over half), government, civil society, and academia across 77 countries in plenary meetings

Internet Architecture Board provides architectural oversight and serves as the outreach face of the IETF to other organizations and stakeholder groups

Standards development intersects with social and political factors, as technology is not value-neutral and impacts how people live their lives

Internet Society’s policy program has trained over 300 policymakers globally to understand how internet standards are developed

Australian government has successfully used the policymaker program to build technical expertise and values the direct access to technical advice for domestic and international policy challenges

Summary

All speakers agree that diverse stakeholder participation from government, civil society, academia, and industry is crucial for effective technical standards development, with multiple examples of successful multi-stakeholder engagement programs and outcomes.

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Capacity development

Remote participation is effective and necessary for inclusive standards development

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw
– Sarah Jennings
– Audiance

Arguments

All IETF meetings are hybrid with remote participation options, and about half of working groups convene remotely only to remove cost and geographic barriers

Nearly 40% of published standards have at least one author who never attended an in-person meeting, proving remote participation effectiveness

IETF participation fees are too high for many potential participants, though remote participation in individual working groups is free and fee waivers are available for those who cannot pay

Summary

There is strong consensus that remote participation is both effective and essential for inclusive participation, with evidence showing meaningful contributions from remote participants and recognition of the need to address financial barriers.

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Digital access

Direct communication and accessibility are fundamental to effective stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw
– Mirja Kuhlewind
– Mark Nottingham

Arguments

IETF operates on four guiding principles: individual participation regardless of organizational affiliation, focus on building blocks rather than end-to-end infrastructure, judging contributions by technical merit, and measuring success through voluntary adoption

Direct communication is encouraged as IAB members can be reached directly without formal secretariat barriers

IETF needs to take work to affected communities rather than expecting them to always come to the IETF

Summary

All speakers emphasize the importance of direct, accessible communication channels and removing bureaucratic barriers to enable effective engagement between technical experts and other stakeholders.

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Capacity development

Civil society input significantly improves technical standards development

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw
– Mirja Kuhlewind
– Sarah Jennings

Arguments

IETF benefits from civil society input, as demonstrated by work on digital Red Cross/Red Crescent symbols and detecting unwanted location trackers for intimate partner violence prevention

Internet Research Task Force bridges technical experts and researchers, including groups focused on human rights and global access policy topics

Standards development intersects with social and political factors, as technology is not value-neutral and impacts how people live their lives

Summary

There is clear agreement that civil society participation brings valuable perspectives that improve technical outcomes, with concrete examples of how non-technical stakeholders have enhanced standards development.

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Digital standards

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the bidirectional relationship between technology and society, recognizing that technical standards have broader social and economic implications that require improved communication between technical and policy communities.

Speakers

– Sarah Jennings
– Enoch Singano

Arguments

Standards development intersects with social and political factors, as technology is not value-neutral and impacts how people live their lives

Better communication channels are needed between technical experts and policymakers to ensure internet standards are shaped with understanding of real social and economic impacts

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Economic | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for structured capacity building programs that help policymakers understand technical standards processes, with evidence of successful outcomes in building expertise and connections.

Speakers

– Olaf Kolkman
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

Internet Society’s policy program has trained over 300 policymakers globally to understand how internet standards are developed

Australian government has successfully used the policymaker program to build technical expertise and values the direct access to technical advice for domestic and international policy challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Capacity development

Both speakers highlight the significant and valuable presence of the technical community in internet governance forums, demonstrating commitment to broader policy discussions beyond technical venues.

Speakers

– Mark Nottingham
– Lynn St. Amour

Arguments

There are many technical community representatives present at IGF who can provide different perspectives on standards work

Technical community organizations are the second largest donors to IGF and their presence in internet governance discussions is crucial

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards

Unexpected consensus

Government officials participating as individuals rather than representatives

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw
– Sarah Jennings

Arguments

IETF operates on four guiding principles: individual participation regardless of organizational affiliation, focus on building blocks rather than end-to-end infrastructure, judging contributions by technical merit, and measuring success through voluntary adoption

Key challenges include communication barriers, education needs, community integration difficulties, and coordination between different stakeholder groups

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus on acknowledging the tension between IETF’s individual participation principle and government officials’ inability to separate their official roles, with both technical and government perspectives recognizing this as a legitimate challenge rather than dismissing it.

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Financial barriers to participation need addressing

Speakers

– Roman Danyliw
– Audiance

Arguments

All IETF meetings are hybrid with remote participation options, and about half of working groups convene remotely only to remove cost and geographic barriers

IETF participation fees are too high for many potential participants, though remote participation in individual working groups is free and fee waivers are available for those who cannot pay

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus between IETF leadership and developing country government representatives on acknowledging financial barriers as a legitimate concern, with technical leadership showing openness to addressing participation costs rather than defending the current fee structure.

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Digital access

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals strong consensus on the value of multi-stakeholder participation, the effectiveness of remote engagement, the importance of civil society input, and the need for accessible communication channels. There is also agreement on the bidirectional relationship between technology and society, and the value of capacity building programs.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive acknowledgment of challenges. The speakers demonstrate remarkable alignment on fundamental principles of inclusive, accessible, and socially-aware technical standards development. This consensus suggests a mature understanding of the interconnections between technical and policy domains, with implications for more effective collaboration in internet governance and standards development processes.

Different viewpoints

IETF participation fees creating barriers to access

Speakers

– Audiance (T Santosh)
– Roman Danyliw

Arguments

IETF participation fees are too high for many potential participants, though remote participation in individual working groups is free and fee waivers are available for those who cannot pay

Nearly 40% of published standards have at least one author who never attended an in-person meeting, proving remote participation effectiveness

Summary

The audience member from Government of India raised concerns about high IETF participation fees limiting access, while Roman Danyliw defended the current model by emphasizing free remote options and fee waivers, though acknowledged limited flexibility for reducing on-site fees

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Digital access

Unexpected differences

No unexpected disagreements identified

Speakers

Arguments

Explanation

The session was characterized by collaborative discussion rather than contentious debate, with speakers generally supporting each other’s points and building on shared themes

Topics

Overall assessment

Summary

Very minimal disagreement found, primarily around practical barriers to participation rather than fundamental principles or approaches

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high consensus on core principles. The main tension was around accessibility and participation barriers, specifically IETF fees. This suggests strong alignment on goals with minor differences on implementation details. The collaborative tone indicates effective multi-stakeholder dialogue focused on building understanding rather than resolving conflicts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the bidirectional relationship between technology and society, recognizing that technical standards have broader social and economic implications that require improved communication between technical and policy communities.

Speakers

– Sarah Jennings
– Enoch Singano

Arguments

Standards development intersects with social and political factors, as technology is not value-neutral and impacts how people live their lives

Better communication channels are needed between technical experts and policymakers to ensure internet standards are shaped with understanding of real social and economic impacts

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Economic | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for structured capacity building programs that help policymakers understand technical standards processes, with evidence of successful outcomes in building expertise and connections.

Speakers

– Olaf Kolkman
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

Internet Society’s policy program has trained over 300 policymakers globally to understand how internet standards are developed

Australian government has successfully used the policymaker program to build technical expertise and values the direct access to technical advice for domestic and international policy challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Capacity development

Both speakers highlight the significant and valuable presence of the technical community in internet governance forums, demonstrating commitment to broader policy discussions beyond technical venues.

Speakers

– Mark Nottingham
– Lynn St. Amour

Arguments

There are many technical community representatives present at IGF who can provide different perspectives on standards work

Technical community organizations are the second largest donors to IGF and their presence in internet governance discussions is crucial

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards

Key takeaways

The IETF operates on principles of individual participation, technical merit-based decisions, and voluntary adoption, making it accessible to all stakeholders regardless of organizational affiliation

Remote participation in IETF is highly effective, with nearly 40% of published standards having authors who never attended in-person meetings

Government engagement in internet standards development is crucial for both technical input and policy horizon scanning, helping bridge the gap between technical development and societal impact

The Internet Society’s policymaker program has successfully trained over 300 policymakers globally, demonstrating the value of structured technical education for policy communities

Technology is not value-neutral and the design of internet standards has significant social and economic impacts, requiring multi-stakeholder input

Direct communication channels exist between technical experts and policymakers, with IAB members accessible without formal barriers

The technical community is heavily invested in internet governance discussions, being the second largest donor to IGF after governments

Resolutions and action items

Continue developing hybrid meeting formats to maintain accessibility while preserving valuable in-person interactions

Expand outreach efforts to bring IETF work to affected communities rather than expecting all stakeholders to come to the IETF

Maintain and expand the Internet Society’s policymaker training program based on positive feedback from participants

Encourage direct engagement between technical experts and policymakers through informal roundtables and one-on-one conversations

Provide technical input to the WSIS Plus 20 review process as governments navigate internet governance challenges

Unresolved issues

High participation fees for IETF in-person meetings remain a barrier to broader participation, particularly for developing country participants

Communication barriers between technical and policy communities persist, requiring ongoing efforts to improve mutual understanding

The challenge of identifying which technical standards work requires policy input and at what stage in the development process

Difficulty for government officials to participate as individuals while representing official positions, creating tension with IETF’s individual participation model

Need for better mechanisms to make ongoing IETF work visible and legible to policy communities before standards are technically advanced

Suggested compromises

Unlimited fee waivers for remote participation in plenary meetings for those who cannot pay, while maintaining fees for in-person attendance

Hybrid approach combining formal liaison processes with informal direct communication channels to accommodate different organizational needs

Balancing individual participation principles with recognition that some participants cannot completely separate personal and official views

Two-way engagement model where technical community both welcomes policy input and actively reaches out to affected communities

The stakeholders come together and we come up with a better solution. So I’m going to pass the mic over to my colleague that’s going to talk more about the Internet Architecture Board.

Speaker

Roman Danyliw

Reason

This comment encapsulates a fundamental insight about collaborative problem-solving in technical standards. Danyliw uses the example of the detecting unwanted location trackers (DALT) work, where engineers and policymakers thought they understood the threat model until civil society experts on intimate partner violence completely reframed the starting point. This demonstrates how diverse stakeholder input doesn’t just add perspectives but can fundamentally transform the technical approach.

Impact

This comment established a key theme that ran throughout the discussion – that technical standards are not purely technical but require diverse input to be effective. It set up the foundation for later discussions about the bidirectional relationship between technology and society, and influenced how other speakers framed their contributions about multi-stakeholder engagement.

It’s not only that the society that we live in kind of impacts the way that we design technology but also the way that we design technology has an impact in how we live our lives. And that kind of bi-directionality I think is often is noted by a lot of fora, you know, the IETF has a statement that technology is not value neutral

Speaker

Sarah Jennings

Reason

This observation challenges the traditional view of technical standards as neutral tools and introduces the concept of bidirectional influence between technology and society. It’s particularly insightful because it comes from a government perspective, acknowledging that technical decisions have policy implications and vice versa.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from focusing primarily on how to get policymakers to understand technical work, to recognizing the mutual interdependence of technical and policy domains. It provided intellectual justification for why government engagement in technical standards is not just helpful but necessary.

We found that it was almost 40% of documents had at least one author on them that had never come to any on-site meeting in recent memory… So that’s evidence to us that the remote is really high quality and you can make a meaningful contribution.

Speaker

Roman Danyliw

Reason

This data-driven insight challenges assumptions about the necessity of physical presence for meaningful participation in standards development. It provides concrete evidence that remote participation can be as effective as in-person engagement, which has significant implications for global inclusivity and accessibility.

Impact

This comment directly addressed concerns about participation barriers and fees raised by the Indian government representative. It shifted the conversation from focusing on cost barriers to demonstrating that effective alternatives exist, potentially changing how participants view remote engagement opportunities.

The other reason, and it’s sort of a slightly unseen element of government engagement in standards development, is also to bring back what is happening within a particular forum and explain it to policy teams and say you may not be aware of this, but this is coming down the line in two, three, four years

Speaker

Sarah Jennings

Reason

This reveals a crucial but often overlooked function of government participation in technical standards – serving as early warning systems for policy implications. It highlights the temporal mismatch between technical development cycles and policy response times.

Impact

This comment introduced the concept of ‘horizon scanning’ and reframed government participation from being purely input-focused to being bidirectional intelligence gathering. It influenced later discussions about the need for better communication channels and the value of the policymaker program.

We cannot expect everybody who uses or works on the internet to understand all the technical details about the internet. The internet is complex. Maybe we all don’t understand everything about the internet. So that shouldn’t be the goal here, right?

Speaker

Mirja Kuhlewind

Reason

This comment demonstrates intellectual humility and reframes the challenge of technical-policy engagement. Instead of expecting universal technical literacy, it focuses on identifying specific intersection points where diverse input is needed.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion away from the assumption that better engagement requires policymakers to become more technical, toward a more nuanced approach of strategic engagement at key decision points. It influenced the conversation toward practical solutions rather than idealistic expectations.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a one-sided presentation about technical organizations into a nuanced dialogue about the interdependence of technical and policy domains. The discussion evolved from explaining how the IETF works to exploring the fundamental challenges and opportunities of multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance. The comments introduced themes of bidirectional influence, evidence-based participation models, strategic engagement, and intellectual humility that elevated the conversation beyond typical outreach presentations. The progression showed a maturing understanding of internet governance as a complex system requiring diverse expertise rather than simply technical knowledge dissemination.

How can participation fees in IETF be reduced or eliminated to increase participation, especially for those who cannot afford current fees?

Speaker

T Santosh from Government of India

Explanation

This addresses a barrier to participation that could limit diverse voices in technical standards development, particularly from developing countries

How can we create better communication channels between technical experts and policy makers so that upcoming internet standards are well understood and shaped with real social and economic impact?

Speaker

Enoch Singano

Explanation

This is fundamental to ensuring that technical standards development considers broader societal implications and requirements from different stakeholder communities

How can the IETF improve its approach to proactively engage with affected communities rather than expecting them to always come to the IETF?

Speaker

Mark Nottingham (implied)

Explanation

This addresses the need for the technical community to reach out to stakeholders who may be affected by their work but are not naturally part of the technical standards process

How can the experimental roundtables between policymakers and the IETF be optimized to find the best form and modus operandi?

Speaker

Olaf Kolkman

Explanation

This is an ongoing experiment to improve policy-technical community engagement that needs refinement based on learning from initial attempts

How can the ‘ornithology’ experiment for identifying new IETF work with policy angles be evaluated and potentially improved?

Speaker

Olaf Kolkman

Explanation

This is a new experimental approach to bridge policy and technical work that needs assessment of its effectiveness and utility

How can spaces be better created within standards development to discuss potential impacts of different protocols and their societal constraints?

Speaker

Sarah Jennings

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of incorporating broader societal considerations into technical standards development processes

How can the timing of policy community awareness of IETF work be improved so that engagement happens earlier in the technical development process?

Speaker

Sarah Jennings

Explanation

This addresses the problem of policymakers becoming aware of standards too late in the development process when meaningful input becomes more difficult