D2.2 - FIDELIS TDR Network Establishment

Project Title FIDELIS: Establishing A European Network of Trustworthy Digital Repositories Project Acronym FIDELIS Grant Agreement No. 101188078 Start Date of Project 2025-01-01 Duration of Project 36 months Project Website www.fidelis-project.eu D2.2 - FIDELIS TDR Network Establishment Work Package WP2, Preparing and establishing the network Lead Author (Org) S. Venkataraman (DANS), Jan Meijer (Sikt) Contributing Author(s) (Org) Ingrid Dillo (DANS), Mari Kleemola (CESSDA/TAU-FSD) Due Date 2025-12-31 Date 2025-12-18 Version V1.0 DOI https://zenodo.number Dissemination Level X PU: Public PP: Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission) RE: Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission) CO: Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission) 1 | Page Versioning and contribution history Disclaimer FIDELIS has received funding from the European Commission’s Horizon Europe funding programme for research and innovation programme under the Grant Agreement no. 101188078. The content of this document does not represent the opinion of the European Commission, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that might be made of such content. 2 | Page Version Date Author Notes 0.1 2025.11.03 S. Venkataraman (DANS) TOC and V0.1 0.2 2025.11.25 S. Venkataraman (DANS), Jan Meijer (Sikt) Text and figures added, with some content still to be finalised. Reviewed by direct project partners. 0.3 2025.12.03 S. Venkataraman (DANS), Jan Meijer (Sikt), Ingrid Dillo (DANS), Mari Kleemola (FSD), Tobias Paulsen (Sikt) First full draft. Sent for WP-external review to Damien Lecarpentier. 0.4 2025.12.14 S. Venkataraman (DANS), Jan Meijer (Sikt) Processed feedback from Damien Lecarpentier and last unaddressed comment from Martina Drascic Capar on legal entity. Sent for PMO-editorial review. 0.5 2025.12.15 Sara Sintonen (CSC) Editorial review 1.0 2025.12.18 S. Venkataraman (DANS), Jan Meijer (Sikt) Final version submitted to the EC Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 5 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 FIDELIS project Network governance and value-add.................................................. 6 2. Network Establishment and membership........................................................................ 7 2.1 Membership development............................................................................................8 2.2 Membership geographical distribution..........................................................................9 2.3 Membership segmentation........................................................................................12 2.4 Potential for membership growth................................................................................15 3. Network activity................................................................................................................15 3.1 Network activity in 2025............................................................................................. 16 3.1.1 Engagement through virtual meetings...............................................................16 3.1.2 EOSC Federation as a common TDR interest.................................................. 17 3.1.4 Special Interest Group Legal Understanding.................................................... 18 3.2 Project activity in the Network.................................................................................... 19 3.2 Experiences from running the Network...................................................................... 19 3.3 Network activity 2026................................................................................................. 20 4. Governance and sustainability....................................................................................... 20 4.1 Business model development & sustainability........................................................... 21 4.2 Governance................................................................................................................22 4.3 Observed main membership challenges....................................................................23 4.3.1 Minimum trust threshold.................................................................................... 24 4.3.1 Umbrella organisations......................................................................................24 4.3.2 Non-European members................................................................................... 24 4.3.3 Legal-administrative framework........................................................................ 24 4.3.5 Technical service providers............................................................................... 25 5. Conclusions and next steps...........................................................................................25 Table of figures Figure 1 Timeline of Network establishment work through the course of the entire FIDELIS project. 7 Figure 2 Map of Europe and relative status in joining the FIDELIS TDR Network. 10 Figure 3 Geographic spread of European Network members. 11 Figure 4 Distribution of FIDELIS TDR Network member repositories based on repository type or domain of specialism (if applicable). 13 Figure 5 Certification and TRUST principles endorsement status of Network members. 13 Figure 6 Analysis of the TRUST-endorsing repositories from RDA. 14 3 | Page TERMINOLOGY 4 | Page Terminology/Acrony m Description API Application Programming Interface CTS Core Trust Seal EC European Commission EOSC European Open Science Cloud EOSC EDEN FIDELIS’s sister project for Enhancing Digital preservation strategies at European and National level ERIC European Research Infrastructure Consortia GA General Assembly GDPR General Data Protection Regulation FAIR Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable IPR Intellectual Property Rights KPI Key performance indicator Re3data Registry of Research Data Repositories RDA Research Data Alliance TDR Trustworthy Digital Repositories TRUST Transparency, Responsibility, User focus, Sustainability and Technology TTRAM Transparent Trustworthy Repository Attributes Matrix WP Work package Executive Summary Following previous work and recommendations from the FAIRsFAIR project1, a community working paper and findings from the EOSC Association Task Force on Long-term Data Preservation, the FIDELIS project aims to establish a European TDR Network that would be able to build a community, foster harmonisation and interoperability of trustworthiness and relevant technology and provide training and support. This report provides a summary of the results of the first phase of Pillar 2 activity on the FIDELIS Network’s Governance & Business model; preparing and initiating the Network. It describes how the Network was established and its membership developed, which project and membership driven activities took place in the 6 months the Network can be considered active and key observations from the work executed towards the Network’s future governance and business model. It includes observations and lessons learned which will serve as input for the work in the next year of the project. 1. Introduction In June 2022, a group of renowned European repository owners and infrastructure providers published a working paper titled Towards a European Network of FAIR-enabling Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDRs)2, articulating a shared community vision to launch “a European network of FAIR-enabling Trustworthy Digital Repositories which will support the development and growth of TDRs”. The paper, which received broad input from the community and was endorsed by the EOSC Association Task Force on Long-Term Data Preservation3, argues that such a network “can unite the repository community beyond finite project efforts, and offer a coordination and networking mechanism for addressing common challenges, like the need for long-term sustainability resources.” These outcomes subsequently influenced the EC to provide financial support in the form of a Horizon Europe funding call which directly addressed the needs outlined above. The call was eventually won by the FIDELIS consortium, which aims to further develop and implement the vision set by the communities in this paper and establish, by the end of its three-year lifetime (2025-2027), a healthy, vibrant and self-sustaining FIDELIS TDR Network (hereafter referred to as the “Network”) that will foster a supportive open science environment and guarantee FAIR data sharing for the future. For the purposes of our work we will define “digital repository” thus, which will hereafter be referred to as “repository”: 3 https://eosc.eu/advisory-groups/long-term-data-preservation/ 2 Philipp et al. (2022). Towards a European network of FAIR-enabling Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDRs) - A Working Paper (v2.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7034315 1 http://www.fairsfair.eu (FAIRsFAIR “Fostering FAIR Data Practices In Europe”; funded via EU Horizon H2020-INFRAEOSC-2018-2020; Grant agreement 831558) 5 | Page “Physical or digital storage location that can house, preserve, manage, and provide access to many types of digital and physical materials in a variety of formats. Materials in online repositories are curated to enable search, discovery, and reuse. There must be sufficient control for the physical and digital material to be authentic, reliable, accessible and usable on a continuing basis. (Source: CODATA Research Data Management Terminology4)” and in this report it can include research repositories and archives as well as repository and archive services. 1.1 FIDELIS project Network governance and value-add The work described here is tasked with the establishment of a FIDELIS TDR Network and creation and development of its governance and business model proposals that will ensure that it is sustainable and upholds the principles of inclusivity and fairness for its constituent repositories. Work is divided into three phases: (i) preparing and establishing the Network, (ii) consolidating the Network and value-add, and (iii) transition of the Network and value-add to sustainability. Each WP lasts for one year and progresses consecutively. This deliverable report represents the culmination of work to date at the end the first phase (year 1; see Figure 1). In brief, the timeline of work through the lifetime of the project involves establishment of the Network in the first year and drafting proposals for its governance and business plans with an eye on its long-term feasibility and sustainability; year 2 (phase (ii)) will see a strategy, roadmap and work plan being drafted, and later delivering a general assembly for members and a specific sustainability plan; finally, year 3 (phase (iii)) will prepare for the transition of the Network to a self-sustaining organisation through ratifying a post-project budget and work plan and handover of day-to-day running of the Network (i.e. the Secretariat) to a host. The team working on Network establishment works in an agile way, iterating with the FIDELIS project consortium and the FIDELIS Network membership in incremental steps towards achieving the FIDELIS project’s Objective 1: Set up, develop, and operate a European network of trustworthy repositories that will support the development and growth of TDRs within the EOSC ecosystem; an operational and inclusive network delivering value to its members and creating recognition as a key component of the EOSC ecosystem; a sound value proposition and a recommended organisational and governance model to sustain the Network beyond the project timeframe. 4 https://terms.codata.org/rdmt/repository 6 | Page Figure 1 Timeline of Network establishment work through the course of the entire FIDELIS project. M = month; D = deliverable (reports, including this one, D2.2, will be publicly available). The lifetime of the project and the resources at its disposal are used to build up the FIDELIS TDR Network, and test its value proposition and governance over time, aiming for a thriving and self-sustaining network by the end of the FIDELIS project. 2. Network Establishment and membership The FIDELIS Network was established early in the project to leverage the project period to build up a healthy membership, co-create and test governance and business models with the membership while there is solid project funding support. The Network started with pragmatic governance, with the Network establishment team leader, Jan Meijer, and respected TDR community member Ingrid Dillo acting as co-chairs, backed by the FIDELIS project governance in case escalation is needed. More on governance in section 3. While the Network is to be open and inclusive, it should clearly represent the well-scoped target group of trustworthy digital repositories in Europe, otherwise it will be difficult to confidently lay claim to representing the voice of European TDRs. An enforceable minimum trustworthiness threshold for Network membership was discussed in depth but proved to be 7 | Page difficult. The choice was made to use a pragmatic and open approach during the establishment phase and consider potential limitative membership criteria at a later stage, when the separate ongoing work on TDR harmonisation and interoperability will have progressed and discussions on governance would inform of the necessity of such membership limitations. When the Network was launched in April 2025, the membership criteria were limited to the following: With the launch of the FIDELIS Network, we aim to support digital repositories in Europe to become and remain trustworthy over time. FIDELIS welcomes digital repositories that practice or aspire to practice TRUST5-inspiring and FAIR6-enabling ways of working to join the Network.7 New members are required to publicly endorse the TRUST principles through the Research Data Alliance (RDA)8, which is to be verified by the FIDELS Network secretariat. The launch of the FIDELIS Network was announced through the EDEN/FIDELIS website9 and the EOSC Association forum and news channels, and was accompanied by an Infoshare (see section 3.1.1) to explain the process and membership benefits. 2.1 Membership development Membership development is one of three defined key performance indicators (KPIs) to assess whether the FIDELIS project is on track to achieving its specific impact #3, “an operational, tested and sustainable Network of Trustworthy Digital Repositories, with healthy membership and well perceived membership value”. 30 members constitutes “low”, 50 is a “medium” result and 80 network members a “high” result. As of December 2025, the FIDELIS TDR Network counted 57 European members from 26 countries (and 62 including non-European countries and technical service providers - see also section 4.3). The membership list is published on the project website (latest additions may not be visible as yet): https://eden-fidelis.eu/network-member. In the next project phases, additional KPIs will be tracked when project and Network development allows them to be usefully measured: membership commitment for 9 https://eden-fidelis.eu/news/fidelis-network-trustworthy-digital-repositories-has-officially-launched 8 https://www.rd-alliance.org/value_rda/rda-and-trust-principles/ 7 https://eden-fidelis.eu/news/fidelis-network-trustworthy-digital-repositories-has-officially-launched 6 Wilkinson, M. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3, 160018 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 5 Lin, D. et al. The TRUST Principles for digital repositories. Sci Data 7, 144 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7 8 | Page sustainability resources; score on membership satisfaction survey for perceived Network value and number of Network Member individuals signed up to the online TDR forum. While the Network primarily aims for a membership of European repositories, there has been interest from non-European repositories and entities which are not repositories per se, e.g. technical service providers (see also section 4.3). Discussions on the scope of Network membership in both the FIDELIS project and the Network have shown a lack of consensus on the direction the Network should take. Therefore at these early stages of Network establishment, a narrower focus will be applied and the topic will be further explored, with the Network members, in the second year of the project. Ultimately, decision making lies with the Network members. To build a membership base, an “early adopter” cohort of repositories were invited, with the outcome being 24 such repositories that were signed up (out of an initial 36 that expressed interest), and which could then be grown further through the course of the project. This initial cohort consisted of repositories that had direct connections to FIDELIS project partners and were thus low-hanging fruit with respect to ease of contact and ability to engage – indeed, some of these repositories were being directly managed by a project partner. From this foundation, a further 36 repositories had signed up to the open invitation to join the FIDELIS TDR Network (as of December 2025). This invitation was made through public events and joining can be done through a registration link from the EDEN/FIDELIS website to “become a provisional FIDELIS Network member”10. Altogether, the total number of repositories (62) to date means that we have surpassed the medium KPI of repositories that were written at the proposal stage (see also above). To encourage participation in the FIDELIS Network membership and avoid long decision making processes at prospective member organisations, membership is currently presented as provisional and as of yet without strong commitment. As the FIDELIS project progresses and develops its business and governance models this provisional membership will transition into proper membership. The process for this will be elaborated in the second project year, as we work towards the first Network General Assembly in November 2026 and the Network’s sustainability plan in December 2026. 2.2 Membership geographical distribution Figure 2 shows the distribution of repositories making up the Network across Europe and whether these were from the initial intake at the very start of the project, or subsequent to that. (Please note that some (14) of the “early adopters” that have been included in the 10 https://eden-fidelis.eu/form/join-the-fidelis-network 9 | Page challenges and used the Network actively to consult on the future business and governance model. 3.1 Network activity in 2025 3.1.1 Engagement through virtual meetings At the time of writing, three online Network member meetings have been organised of 1.5 hours each, and two Infoshares of 1 hour each, and one more Network meeting is planned in December : ● 13th May 2025: First Infoshare which was a public event that outlined much of the introductory text in this deliverable and laid the groundwork for inviting new candidate members of the Network (82 participants). ● 1st July 2025: 1st Network Meeting. This introduced the network and its members to each-other, a roundtable to measure member expectations and introducing the EOSC Federation build-up process to the FIDELIS members (46 participants). ● 9th September 2025: 2nd Network Meeting. The first drafts of both the governance and business model proposal were presented and provided an opportunity for the Network members to share feedback (the very first version of the governance proposal was shared three weeks before this meeting with WP2 colleagues to gauge initial thoughts on the subject. This generated several talking points which required a major overhaul of what was written to date of the governance model proposal. This meeting also introduced the EOSC Federation Handbook and the feedback the FIDELIS project delivered on it, pointing to an opportunity for joint strategic engagement with the EOSC Association on the EOSC Federation, resulting ultimately in a joint position statement on that topic (see below) (52 participants). ● 28th October 2025: 3rd Network Meeting. Further progress on the governance and business model proposals was discussed before opening for a two-week consultation period; the draft position statement on the strategic engagement with the EOSC Association on the topic of the EOSC Federation and the EOSC Federation Handbook (see below) was also discussed, and the Legal issues special interest group being established was presented (39 participants). ● 19th November 2025: session on the FIDELIS TDR Network and its relationship to the EOSC EDEN project at the 1st EDEN/FIDELIS Bootcamp. This was an in-person only event in Paris that was organised through dedicated funds from the EDEN project and whose aim is in part to foster collaboration with the FIDELIS project and showcase their work together since they are sister projects. This session was presented alongside three other sessions that focused on work being done in the EDEN project (20 participants). ● 24th November 2025: 2nd Infoshare. This provided an opportunity to share feedback received from the public consultations for the governance and business model proposals and to provide a forum for discussion (38 participants). The Infoshares, 16 | Page unlike the Network meetings, are open to all. In this particular Infoshare, when quizzed about their opinions on governance and sustainability, respondents showed an overwhelmingly preference for inclusion of repositories rather than institutions, but had mixed feelings about inclusion of umbrella organisations. When asked about non-European repositories or entities that are better described as technical service providers, respondents were unanimously in favour of including these, at least as observers. ● 16th December 2025: 4th Network meeting. This will be an opportunity to reflect on various FIDELIS project activity and to start exploring members’ interest in data sovereignty and data rescue, two topics which emerged over the past months both from direct inquiry to the Network and from the EOSC Symposium 2025. These meetings followed the official launch of the Network in April, when there was an open call for candidate members to join and which was greeted enthusiastically as we saw a steady rise in membership (see section 2). However, based on the data available from re3data and elsewhere, we know that there are many more repositories that could be targeted and encouraged to join the Network (see also section 2.4) and this will require continued and sustained dissemination activities through the appropriate channels and in tandem with the communications team in FIDELIS. 3.1.2 EOSC Federation as a common TDR interest The EOSC Federation is currently in the “build up” phase with a first wave of 13 Candidate Nodes with various backgrounds - national, e-infrastructure and disciplinary nodes - working together in a Build Up Group established under the auspices of the EOSC Association. This process started in November 2024 and seemed highly topical for TDRs. For that purpose, a presentation on the EOSC Federation was organised during the 1st Network meeting, with former EOSC Association President Karel Luyben as invited speaker. Simultaneously it was brought to FIDELIS’ attention that there was a subgroup tasked with exploring how data repositories can onboard to the EOSC Federation and which appeared to have some overlap with some of the work being planned in FIDELIS. We therefore made contact with the subgroup to initiate discussions and offer our cooperation where necessary. This cooperation continues through work being carried out elsewhere in the FIDELIS project, but serves as an example of where the FIDELIS TDR Network was able to come forward as a collective voice in shaping discussions with the EOSC Federation. Also in the context of the build-up of the EOSC Federation of Nodes, a first version of a Federation Handbook15 was published earlier this year by the EOSC Association. After its publication, an open consultation with the EOSC community provided an opportunity for the FIDELIS project to provide feedback which was done; the TDR harmonisation and 15 https://eosc.eu/building-the-eosc-federation/eosc-federation-handbook/ 17 | Page interoperability team analysed the relevant texts pertaining to TDRs and concluded there was room for improvement. This was discussed in the FIDELIS Network and communicated to the EOSC Association. The FIDELIS project now contributes systematically through the Federation Handbook author group to the TDR-relevant text of the Handbook, to Chapter 5, that has direct consequences for repositories. The experiences with the Federation Handbook and subgroup in the EOSC Federation build-up process demonstrated TDRs are recognised as crucially important for the fledgling EOSC research data commons but insufficiently involved in formulating realistic expectations and requirements pertaining to TDRs. This presented an excellent opportunity for our Network to take an initial step in using its collective voice and channel opinions of its members. A position statement was published16 which put forward the need for a systematic dialogue between the Network and the EOSC Association “to prepare TDRs for participation in the EOSC Federation”. Moreover, the expertise present amongst the Network membership was offered to “help shape requirements for repositories to enter the EOSC Federation”. The process towards the position statement was short and agile, the chairs of the Network prepared a one-page proposal, this was discussed during the 3rd Network meeting and the position statement was published and distributed using project resources. This instance of putting forward arguments on behalf of the Network members provides a clear example of how the Network can operate in the future and the influence it can seek over decision making in EOSC and other possible entities that will have a direct bearing on TDRs. 3.1.4 Special Interest Group Legal Understanding One of the specific impacts that the FIDELIS project aims for is the improvement of repositories’ FAIR-enabling capabilities, common legal understanding and trustworthiness, helping them to be recognised as authoritative sources of quality data. To contribute to the “common legal understanding” aspect of this impact, online workshops will be used to increase the Network members’ understanding of common legal issues and requirements facing TDRs, related to e.g. GDRP, contract-legal, IPR aspects and other applicable EU legislation. After the February project kick-off meeting it became clear that a format where content for these workshops, diving deeper in particular legal issues, would be provided by the FIDELIS project was unrealistic due to the limited (legal) resources available in the project. The choice was made to attempt to galvanise the Network members’ interest for and competence on these matters and test establishment of a Special Interest Group on legal matters. A steering group of interested members was established which has diligently worked towards a first workshop, to be held on 8 December 202517, facilitated by the FIDELIS project. This approach also allows the project to test the general concept of a Special Interest Group as a light-weight vehicle for membership engagement around topics of 17 https://eden-fidelis.eu/events/help-shape-legal-challenges-sig-join-fidelis-workshop 16 Dillo, I., & Meijer, J. (2025). FIDELIS TDR Network's position statement on EOSC Federation Handbook. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17494605 18 | Page interest. A second potential topic of interest has already surfaced - data sovereignty and data rescue. 3.2 Project activity in the Network The FIDELIS project is an important source for driving activity in the fledgling FIDELIS Network. In its first year, the project has worked on building a common understanding of TDRs and a harmonised matrix of repository capabilities and characteristics (the Transparent Trustworthy Repository Attributes Matrix (TTRAM)18; offering training and support; and increasing common legal understanding of challenges facing TDRs. The Network has this past year been used for dissemination and consultation. At the same time there are several initiatives outside of the FIDELIS project which have a direct bearing on the Network’s members and which potentially need to be addressed in some way whether passively or actively by both the project and the Network. One example of this is the EOSC Federation Handbook and the role it plays in onboarding repositories (see section 3.1.3) to the EOSC Federation. The integration of project driven activity with the FIDELIS Network can be improved. This is to be expected, when establishing a network there will be a degree of unpredictability regarding engagement and topics of interest at a given time, especially in a rapidly developing environment like the EOSC. Now that there is an established Network with a substantial membership, there is a good basis for increasing integration between the project and Network and use the FIDELIS project to drive the momentum of activity in the Network. 3.2 Experiences from running the Network Network members have been offered several opportunities to provide feedback and inputs through the Network meetings, Infoshares, and collaborative documents including the drafting of the governance and business model proposals (at least those Network members that are also project consortium members in the latter two cases; see section 3.1.1 for more information on these). During all of these, the atmosphere has been collaborative and constructive in their criticisms (where applicable) and has allowed the project members tasked with the establishment of the Network to gain valuable information and opinions that has directly influenced their outputs. Mutual respect has been shown amongst the members which bodes well for the thriving community that we wish to grow in the Network. The members have shown their understanding of what we wish to achieve and the benefits that they will inherit and therefore are also exhibiting a willingness to be involved for the long-term sustainability of the Network. 18 Kleemola et al. (2025). FIDELIS MS12 First version of TTRAM. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17157958 19 | Page There are, of course, points of contention. Mainly, these relate to the finances that the Network may require for sustainability and the governance structure it will use (section 4). However, these are areas which will be discussed and tested in more detail through the remainder of the FIDELIS project to achieve actionable consensus. Of particular note in this initial phase of the establishment of the Network, there has been success within the FIDELIS project in the way the Network has been able to feed into other parts of the project, namely the analysis of the EOSC Federation Handbook through colleagues that are specifically working on TDR harmonisation and interoperability (see section 3.1.3), training and support activities and set up of a special interest group in legal considerations (see section 3.1.4). New work that has already been identified for the immediate future will include the theme of data sovereignty. 3.3 Network activity 2026 The most important Network activity priorities for 2026, the consolidation phase, are: ● growing organic Network activity; activity which is pursued because the Network membership finds it useful. Increasingly this should involve Network members while the FIDELIS project facilitates less. This involves further exploring concepts like special interest groups and other membership groupings around topics of interest. ● achieve actionable consensus on proposed Network governance ● Test and evolve the business model proposal for the FIDELIS Network ● increasingly integrate the work conducted in the rest of the FIDELIS project with the Network to test the business propositions identified in 2025. At the very least this implies leveraging the Network as a dissemination and consultation platform but alternative involvement e.g. through open working groups may be considered ● building up the Network as an entity that can persist after the project ends. This may have consequences for the branding and tooling of the Network vs. the project. These priorities will be further elaborated in the deliverable D3.1 Network strategy, roadmap and work plan, due March 2026; and the results feed directly into D3.2 Sustainability plan, due December 2026. 4. Governance and sustainability The FIDELIS project aims to develop and test the Network’s governance and sustainability during the project period, making it an integral part of building up the FIDELIS Network and ensuring there is a thriving Network with a well-tested sustainability plan at the end of the project. In this section we describe what has been done in the first project year, where the results deviate from the original plan and what the next steps for this particular topic are in the next project year. 20 | Page 4.1 Business model development & sustainability The purpose of explicitly developing a business model for the Network is to ensure a good understanding of the different value propositions the Network could provide to whom, how this value can be produced and where the financing can be arranged. The business model is developed in close interaction with the TDR community through multiple iterations and ultimately expressed as per best practice through a Business Model Canvas. The work started with an interactive session at the FIDELIS project kick-off workshop which was complemented with the FIDELIS Survey and interviews with TDR representatives in the project consortium. The choice was made to focus on articulating potential value proposition scenarios. Consolidated business proposition options were presented and discussed at the Network meetings in July, September and November, resulting in three high-level scenarios describing three distinct business propositions): ● Proposition 1: Specialist training, shared knowledge, and resources ○ highlights the Network’s role as a source of expertise and a collaborative hub for advancing TDRs, through a centralised collection of high-quality resources ● Proposition 2: Collaborative Network for peer learning and shared solutions ○ promotes informal learning, collaboration and mutual support among members of the Network. Emphasises the value of connecting individuals and organisations to share knowledge, tackle common challenges, and facilitate collaboration. ● Proposition 3: Amplified impact through collective position ○ leverage the Network’s ability to act as a unified voice, collectively representing its members to shape policies and influence decision making Proposition 1 sees a major portion of the value creation being driven by a centralised team and a secretariat, which will require a significant amount of effort. Proposition 2 is driven by volunteer effort from the Network, with the Network secretariat facilitating member-driven effort to produce value. These scenarios would likely require different skill sets. The results of the 2025 business modelling activity are documented in detail in Deliverable 2.1 FIDELIS Business Model Proposal19, which underwent a public consultation in the FIDELIS Network in November 2025. This consultation did not result in any significant change of approach. During the discussion and poll of the Community Consultation Infoshare of 24 November 2025 the 43 person audience was asked to prioritise the scenarios; proposition 3 “Amplified impact through collective position” came last while the other two propositions received an equal level of support. 19 Paulsen, T., & Cilento, W. (2025). D2.1 - A proposed business model, Business propositions for the FIDELIS Network (V1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17791251 21 | Page This was the second time the proposition “Amplified impact through collective position”20” was considered the lowest priority by representatives from TDRs. The first time was during the extensive round table in the first FIDELIS Network meeting in July, where all participants were asked to elaborate on their interest in and expectations of the FIDELIS Network. However, during the 3rd Network meeting there was strong support for the Network position statement on the EOSC Federation21 (see also section 3.1.3). This ambiguity in stance of Network members needs to be further investigated in 2026, and the process towards the Network strategy, roadmap and work plan to be delivered in March is a good starting point for that. Clarifying prioritisation of the three aforementioned scenarios by the (potential) membership goes hand-in-hand with investigating their achievability in terms of resourcing (production), cost and potential realistic revenue streams. This will be an important topic of the Business Model activity in 2026. An obvious source of income for the Network will be membership fees, which could go a long way towards supporting a minimum viable Network and its secretariat, implementing proposition 2 Collaborative Network for peer learning and shared solutions. While this will be properly explored in 2026 as part of operationalising the Network’s governance and proposing its sustainability plan to the members in December 2026, we have used the opportunity the Network meetings offered to probe acceptance for membership fees and the likely range where these would fall. A poll conducted in September indicated an acceptable range of membership fees between €500 and €1000 annually, while a poll conducted during the November Community Consultation Infoshare indicated strong support for tiered membership fees, connected to size of the repository. Now that the high level scenarios have been articulated, the next project year will be used to test activities pertaining to the different scenarios, using both project activity and Network member-generated activity. This will serve as input for the December 2026 Sustainability Plan. 4.2 Governance As described in section 2, the FIDELIS Network was established with minimum provisional governance, to ensure an early start of the Network, to get going with value creation and building up a membership, without getting lost in the vagaries of governance options. To co-create governance through useful and representative discussions with the FIDELIS membership a minimum number of members was required. 21 Dillo, I., & Meijer, J. (2025). FIDELIS TDR Network's position statement on EOSC Federation Handbook. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17494605 20 https://eden-fidelis.eu/events/fidelis-network-trusted-digital-repositories-infoshare-session 22 | Page The Network establishment team prepared for these discussions in the months right after the Network launch, while allowing membership to grow. The majority of the work to establish the Network has been undertaken by a core team and this has involved regular meetings and coordination with other members of the FIDELIS project, including the training and support, communications and outreach and TDR harmonisation and interoperability teams. This core team is also responsible for the considerations around the governance and has been the main driver. However, part of our consultation process with respect to the governance also involved reaching out to project partners that have limited effort in the work towards Network establishment and who are infrequently engaged. This involved setting up a series of closed virtual meetings with these partners and the core team to discuss their opinions and for them to provide their expertise. Indeed, many of these particular project partners are directly linked to their own repositories and thus have real world experience from which to gain insights. Meanwhile, three membership meetings were used to also field opinions and requirements (see section 3.1.1). A document with governance considerations was prepared, containing consolidated results of those discussions, team discussions and feedback received from the whole team responsible for Network establishment. This will be revised iteratively through the remainder of the FIDELIS project as the governance model proposal is refined and finalised. In brief, a representative governance model is being proposed and will require at least a secretariat, general assembly, elected board, and potential working groups that will work on specific tasks that all or some Network members have a vested interest in and that could be consequential to the repository community. Open questions that remain relate to whether the Network should aspire to become a legal entity, be independent or become hosted, whether umbrella organisations that have their own membership should be allowed to join the Network and what the composition of the Network should be with respect to geography and type of member (i.e. whether to make the Network open to other stakeholders that are not repositories themselves). Separately, there are the considerations around sustainability of the Network and which is covered in section 4.1. 4.3 Observed main membership challenges Through the various consultations throughout 2025 of considerations pertaining to the future governance model, a lack of actionable consensus was observed on a few particular topics. These include the following which will require more in-depth considerations through the evolution of the Network. These topics are planned to be addressed by engaging the Network in a concerted effort towards a concrete proposal through a committee of Network members supported by the project, to be delivered and adopted in 2026. 23 | Page 4.3.1 Minimum trust threshold Does the FIDELIS Network represent an elite group of certified trustworthy digital repositories or a wider group of repositories? Is certification an adequate minimum trust threshold or does it establish a bar so high the value of the Network diminishes? As the work in the FIDELIS project’s Pillar 3 on harmonisation of trust through the TTRAM shows trust is a complicated subject, but nonetheless the FIDELIS Network should clearly represent trustworthy digital repositories, if joint opinions are to be voiced with strength. This topic needs to be further explored in tandem with evolving understanding of trustworthiness attributes. 4.3.1 Umbrella organisations Some friction was observed with the aims and objectives of organisations that in themselves have a membership (“umbrella organisations”), such as ERICs, who could potentially become a FIDELIS TDR Network member. How should such organisations be treated vis-à-vis individual repositories? Also, is there a possibility that a repository could become a Network member in their own right and also via an umbrella organisation that they are also part of? 4.3.2 Non-European members Due to the FIDELIS project being EC-funded and it being EOSC-related, the initial discussions revolved around the Network being focused on the European landscape. However, this could be expanded to include other territories once the initial setup of the Network has been firmly established and will require further discussions amongst the Network members. Indeed, in today’s geopolitical climate, there will be important lessons to be learned from experiences both within and outside Europe, and the ability to support each other would be valuable. 4.3.3 Legal-administrative framework Depending on what the Network will be tasked to do by its members, it will need to be able to perform legal-administrative tasks. At a minimum it will need access to a bank account to collect and spend funds for the minimum viable network scenario, and be able to hold (IPR) assets. If the membership also wishes the Network to be able to participate separately in (EU) funding calls, a separate legal entity may be necessary. A dedicated legal entity would come with clear governance, and strengthens collaboration, visibility and impact, which are critical aspects for the Network’s long term sustainability. On the other hand, this option adds cost and complexity. A much simpler approach is to leverage an existing legal-administrative hosting partner or to embed the Network in the EOSC Association. The latter approach may allow the FIDELIS Network to easier integrate with the EOSC fabric. The pros and cons of different scenarios are not yet clear enough and there is currently not yet community consensus on them either. A position will be formulated in the next project year, to allow the Membership to make a decision. Questions of alignment of interest and ability need to be carefully answered, to ensure the objective of establishing a thriving network of TDRs 24 | Page 4.3.5 Technical service providers The definition of “digital repository” used earlier (see section 1 Introduction) is very broad and includes e.g., technical service providers and tools. A more detailed discussion is needed on the extent to which Network membership should be afforded. 5. Conclusions and next steps Basic Network scaffolding has been put in place, a solid foundational membership base has been established, members are actively participating in Network activity and have repeatedly indicated value is being perceived. The first membership-driven activities have started and the first joint position articulated. The governance model has not yet been completed but much of the foundational work on it has been done, and time invested in continuous community consultation should allow a quick landing in the first half of next year, co-creating a governance proposal with the now established Network membership. The business model proposal gives a solid and explicit basis to further discuss and explore how value will be created in the Network, using the members’ activity and project activity to test the three defined scenarios, working towards a sustainability plan at the end of next year. All in all the plan worked as intended, and so far the dynamic with the Network membership has been successfully navigated. Next year the Network needs to be consolidated; retaining and growing its membership base, establishing its strategy, governance and articulating a sustainability plan. The three business proposition scenarios are to be tested through a consistent, focussed effort to stimulate and facilitate membership-driven activity and closer integration of project generated activity with the Network, sustaining and increasing the Network’s momentum. 25 | Page