From Code to Consensus: A DevOps Engineer’s Journey into Internet Governance

Recently, I had the opportunity to participate in the Internet Governance Academy, held in Kathmandu as APIGA Nepal 2025. I signed up voluntarily, yet I had no idea what I was walking into. While I was familiar with the term “Internet”, “governance” was new to me.

I come from a core technical background and have been working as a DevOps Engineer for the past couple of years. I understand how the Internet works from an infrastructure point of view, but I never thought about how these systems were governed.

Governance felt like a new realm, and curiosity pushed me to explore how decisions around technical systems are actually made. A recent social media ban in Nepal, which led to huge protests, further increased my curiosity about why understanding governance is important.

Initially, I assumed we would be dealing with intense policy-making processes similar to parliaments or government bureaucracy. While policymaking is a complex thing, APIGA Nepal 2025 introduced it in a surprisingly easier way, especially within the context of ICANN.

Day 1 was an eye-opener.

The room wasn’t just filled with engineers, but with people from law, management, academia, and civil society. I knew it was a multi-stakeholder event, but seeing it in practice was something else.

As an engineer, I am always in rooms full of engineers, people who think alike and speak in technical jargon. But this was something different. Conversations were not just technical but also legal, social, and human perspectives that I rarely encountered in my day job.

This diversity helped me realize something important: “The Internet is not built or sustained by engineers alone.” It is shaped by people from many disciplines.

Governance of vs. Governance on

One of the early sessions that set the stage for upcoming sessions was: Governance of the Internet vs Governance on the Internet. Being a newbie, both sounded similar to me, but they had distinctions.

• Governance of the Internet — dealing with core infrastructure like DNS, IP addresses, and protocols.
• Governance on the Internet — dealing with content, platforms, laws, and user behavior.

Internet governance is not about controlling what people say or do online. It’s about maintaining stability and trust in a globally decentralized network.

The Engineer’s Dilemma

As a technologist, sessions on DNS, IP addresses, and ICANN’s role were familiar to me.

I had created and operated systems that rely on these components daily, but I had never truly considered who coordinates them globally. I had heard about ICANN and RIRs, but how did they work? It was new to me.

Understanding ICANN’s mission: what it does and, crucially, what it doesn’t, was a major takeaway. ICANN’s focus on stability, security, and interoperability made sense to me.

Throughout discussions, I noticed a familiar pattern in myself. I kept overengineering solutions. I was constantly wearing my engineering hat.

My instinct was to think in terms of automation and technical control. But governance discussions often led to simpler, more procedural solutions that were rooted in collaboration and consensus rather than technical complexities.

This was a realization that not every Internet problem is solved by writing better code.

The Multi-Stakeholder Model

The multistakeholder model initially felt chaotic to me. Governments, businesses, civil society, and users, all with different priorities, are trying to agree on policy. At first, I thought, why not just one ring to rule them all?

But through sessions on ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, I began to understand why this model exists. No single entity owns the Internet, and no single perspective is sufficient to govern it.

The Model ICANN Conference

One of the most exciting parts of APIGA Nepal 2025 was the Model ICANN Conference. I was assigned to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

Our discussions turned around DNS Abuse, which is a never-ending debate, even at the actual ICANN Conference. Representing GAC meant addressing the concerns of participating countries, while also actively engaging towards consensus with other stakeholder groups.

At one point, GAC faced opposition from the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) over concerns that tighter policies could threaten user confidentiality. This started a meaningful negotiation, and I found myself balancing security, privacy, and public interest, something I had never done before.

This experience brought the multistakeholder model to life. It was no longer theoretical; it was real negotiation, compromise, and collaboration.

A New Perspective

APIGA Nepal 2025 changed how I view myself as a technologist.

Technical decisions have policy consequences, and policies shape what is technically possible. Governance is not a blocker; rather, it is an enabler of stability, trust, and accessibility.

Before this event, governance felt irrelevant to my work. Now, I see how deeply it influences the systems I build and maintain. APIGA Nepal 2025 introduced me to numerous platforms, ICANN, yIGF, IETF, Internet governance forums, and regional initiatives, where meaningful contributions are possible.

To my readers: You don’t need to be a governance expert or a technologist to get started. You can always begin small, and platforms like ICANN and APIGA Nepal provide an excellent entry point.

APIGA Nepal 2025 was more than just a workshop. It was a perspective shift.

I walked in as an engineer wanting to know about governance. I walked out understanding that the Internet is not just engineered; it is governed. And now, I finally understand why that matters.