Here are summaries of some of what I consider the most insightful criticisms and suggestions about the IGF that came up at this week's open consultation meeting in Geneva, for those who weren't able to attend personally or virtually, and can't be bothered wading through the transcript or synthesis paper. The overall theme of the comments was that as the IGF is maturing, it is time to raise the level of the discussion, and at the same time to narrow the number of parallel sessions in which it takes place.

First to paraphase comments from APC, it was observed that:

• the programme of an IGF meeting is a bit of a hotch-potch, with no obvious linkage between the workshops and main sessions. (I would go further and argue that in general the linkage isn't just non-obvious, but non-existent.)
• They suggested that now the issues have been well aired, the time is ripe to adopt more focussed methodologies for exploring them in main sessions, such as roundtables and debates.
• APC also underscored the importance of ensuring that outputs of the IGF, particularly those around which a degree of consensus has formed, find their way into more authoritative global forums or are otherwise put into action.

ETNO was amongst those who also pointed out that:

• Main sessions should have more focus in order to avoid repeating standard views well-known to many.
• Still too many workshops are being held in parallel, with no adequate justification for the failure to merge workshops on similar topics. (Tech America, formerly the ITAA, was one of the few who stood against this principle.)
• The very basic requirement of an open mailing list for participants is still missing from the IGF. Such a list could be used to distribute a regular electronic newsletter.

Nitin Desai (supposedly summarising the discussion, but in fact adding his own spin to it) stressed that:

• There is the need for flexibility in the formats for discussion that are adopted at the IGF, rather than assuming that one size will fit all.
• In particular he drew a distinction between three type of topics: those intended to introduce a lay audience to the subject matter, those in which there is room for disagreement and debate, and those which have moved beyond debate and on which we should be seeking to produce some form of action.
• In this regard, he referred to the distinction that others had observed between recommendations of the IGF and recommendations from or at the IGF, which need not carry the same implication of a negotiated document on which full consensus is required.

The second day of consultations was devoted to the question of the upcoming review of the IGF. ETNO was amongst those who suggested that both internal and external evaluations should take place. The internal evaluation would take the form of a call for contributions much like those that are made in advance of the IGF's open consultation meetings, whereas the external evaluation would overcome the lack of representativeness in an internal review, and ensure that the IGF's success was assessed without prejudice or bias. Even the ICC to some degree recanted its earlier resistence to the appointment of an external evaluator (which I criticised at the time) - provided that it was balanced with internal evaluation.

So it is extremely disappointing that in the concluding comments of Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer it was all but settled that the eventual review will be internal only, save that any external evaluations that might be voluntarily provided will be taken into account alongside those of the participants. This deplorable decision runs counter to the most fundamental principles of organisational accountability. The pretext given is that it will be sufficient that the review can be shown to be "objective". I really must remember that line, if the government ever tells me they would like to audit my taxes...