While the C40 has come to claim a position of global leadership based on a demonstrated ability to generate coordinated action and collective effort, the description of the network presented in Chapter 1 signals that this has not always been the case. This chapter explores the early phase of the C40 (2005-2009) in which the network was characterized by uneven participation and an inability to engender network-wide engagement and coordination. Applying the theory of global urban governance fields brings to light the dynamics of competition and political contestation and links the observed lack of coordination to an inability to achieve convergence around a common identity. The Clinton Climate Initiative and the C40 Chair (occupied by the cities of London and Toronto) and Secretariat each sought to project divergent ideas with respect to how cities of the C40 should “do” global climate governance, yet neither was able to leverage the mechanism of recognition to effectively claim authority and give shape and substance to the governance field. As a result, the governance field remained fragmented and uncoordinated; split, as with so many other city-networks, into a small group of leading cities and a large group of laggards.