These comments on the flurry of IGF developments during February is a little belated, since my dissertation on the IGF is due this month, and it will not be possible to reference those developments in the submitted version (particularly when I am attempting to reduce, not increase its word length). However it would be remiss of me not to make a few brief comments here.

Synthesis paper
First came the release on 20 February of another synthesis paper by the Secretariat that attempted to summarise the content of submissions made since Rio on taking stock of that meeting, and separately of submissions made on the rotation of the Advisory Group. This was the first synthesis paper to come in for direct criticism (by ETNA in this case) for its selective reporting.

This was especially serious given that only twelve contributions from eleven stakeholders were included, and unhelpfully the views summarised were not attributed to any of them in particular, making it difficult to verify the Secretariat's assessment of what commentators "generally felt". Worse, the Advisory Group's own views as expressed on its private mailing list (and lately published to the IGF's discussion space) were intermingled with those of ordinary stakeholders.

Even so, there was sufficient consensus on a number of broad criticisms of the Rio meeting that the synthesis paper could hardly do other than to record them fairly.

Thus the paper records the popular view that in view of the poor attendance in Rio of the plenary sessions, which were largely repetitious of those of Athens, better use should be made of them in India (now Hyderabad; previously New Delhi). It reports the view "that the main sessions should be focused on a more in-depth discussion of a limited number of specific issues drawing on the outcomes (including recommendations) of the relevant workshops."

The synthesis paper also recognised

that in order to strengthen the dynamic coalitions, they should be given more visibility during and also between the IGF meetings, and their work should be better reflected into the meetings during reporting back sessions. There should also be some way for the IGF to promote the outcomes from the dynamic coalitions.

An alternative approach (from Switzerland!) was the suggestion that a new strata of working groups be established, with greater accountability than dynamic coalitions to the IGF at large, to carry forward the IGF's substantive work programme including the making of recommendations.

The synthesis paper's treatment of the Advisory Group's rotation was particularly one-sided, reporting very few critical comments and none at all of mine. Instead the synthesis paper favoured the (inevitably self-serving) views of Advisory Group members themselves on how the group should be constituted and chaired.

Open consultation meeting
At every consultation meeting, Nitin Desai surprises me afresh by frankly acknowledging something that he has never acknowledged before, in such a way as to present it as an obvious truth. This time, it was the statement that

in many ways the way the IGF as actually operated in Rio and in Athens and possible [scil possibly] how it can operate in Hyderabad onwards is possibly quite different from what people thought it would be like when the decision was taken to set up an IGF. Do remember that the origins of the IGF lie in a political compromise in Tunis.

Until now, it had seemed that Desai had regarded the structural and procedural limitations of the IGF as inevitable rather than a choice.

The open consultation meeting held in Geneva on 26 February generally reflected the views expressed in the written contributions that preceded it. The meeting was divided into sessions on taking stock of Rio, the Advisory Group, the 2008 meeting, and reports from related activities (though the last two sessions were switched mid-meeting).

Milton Mueller was amongst those who addressed the problems of the workshops during the taking stock session at the open consultation, cogently noting that "Freedom expression advocates were in one workshop talking to each other. Advocates of stricter controls on content in the name of child protection were in another panel. Those people need to talk to each other, not past each other."

A couple of seemingly untenable positions were taken by governments when the session moved on to the reform of the Advisory Group. The first of these came from the Russian Federation, which spoke "in favor of changing the format of the group in conformity with the procedures within the UN system." Whilst it is undeniable that more structure is needed for the IGF at an executive level, has anyone else ever proposed that this should be along traditional UN lines?

A second bolt out of the blue was from Brazil, contending that there should be four stakeholder groups recognised within the Advisory Group, and that these should be governments, the private sector, civil society, and academia. Academia? Who else has ever suggested that?

And a couple of personal bugbears: Markus Kummer finally explained in response to a question of mine (that I have been asking for what seems like years) that the regional coordinators appointed to the Advisory Group are intended to represent the five UN regions recognised at WSIS; but he still would not reveal who these representatives actually were.

Then bless his heart, Bertrand de la Chapelle put to the meeting that the plenary mailing list that was established at my request two years ago should finally be promoted and used as a channel of communication between the Advisory Group and its stakeholders.

Skipping over discussion of related activities (such as those of dynamic coalitions and the like), the final segment of the open consultation meeting dealt with the programme for the 2008 meeting. Amongst the themes raised as possible replacements for those of the Athens and Rio meetings were (from Switzerland) the implementation of the WSIS principles for public participation in Internet governance, (from the Internet Governance Project) IPv4 to IPv6 transition, and (from the Internet Governance Caucus) the status of the enhanced cooperation process, and network neutrality.

MAG meeting
The Advisory Group met over the following two days, and on 29 February released a report of those meetings; its second such report in all. The first issue discussed was rotation of the Advisory Group itself - or, I should now say, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group or MAG; which it adopted as its official appellation at this meeting.

Whilst the need for rotation of members was accepted, it was made clear that the disproportionate representation of governments, namely 50% of the total, would not be altered. The report of the meeting notes ominously that "the group was informed" - presumably by its Chair - of this fact, rather than being given any say in the matter.

More encouragingly, it was accepted that there was a need for the plenary sessions to focus on more specific issues for the Hyderabad meeting, and a number of such issues were put forward in a draft programme:

• Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion (alternatively "Expanding the Internet")
  • Low cost sustainable access
  • Multilingualization
  • Implications for development policy

• Managing the Internet (alternatively - though strangely - "Using the Internet")
• Critical Internet resources
• Arrangements for Internet governance
• Global cooperation for Internet security and stability

Another widely-requested reform accepted at the meeting was that there should be a new category of "main workshops" linked to the plenary sessions and not held in parallel with them. The content of these workshops is to be defined by the MAG, rather than being left to the decentralised action of stakeholders which has so far led to much overlap and balkanisation.

So the process of reform of the IGF continues to be a difficult and halting one: on the one hand, we still do not have a body capable of deliberating democratically with the aim of reaching a multi-stakeholder consensus upon recommendations and other soft law instruments. On the other hand, the need for the IGF to progress beyond the form of an annual conference on Internet issues has become obvious, and is now slowly being addressed.