September's open consultation meeting was a little more structured than previous consultations, with discussion being divided into five topics: general discussion; the organisation, structuring and scheduling of the Rio meeting; the dynamic coalitions; the logistical arrangements for Rio; and finally the question of the Advisory Group's constitution and rotation.

This consultation also featured a couple of other innovations. First, remote participants were finally provided with an official Web-based chat forum by the Secretariat, which participants mainly used to ask "why isn't the Webcast working?".

The second innovation was that the meeting was co-chaired by Minister Hadil da Vianna of Brazil. So far, I like him. Have a read of this:

I am aware of the general expectation that ... the Rio meeting will represent one step ahead in the incremental IGF process, in accordance with its mandate as contained in the Tunis Agenda. In this context, the UN Secretary-General's decision to invite Brazil to co-chair this preparatory process is welcome. The idea of having the host country as co-chair is a step further in gradually involving the stakeholders in the conduct of the meeting from a substantive standpoint. I accepted this task in good faith and I am willing to contribute to my best in order to meet all stakeholders' expectations with regard to the second IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro.

Brazil also continued to push the envelope in the general comments it made during the first of the meeting's five segments, in stating that it and Argentina

support the inclusion of a main session dedicated to the future of the IGF as an opportunity for the addressing of these fundamental issues in a constructive manner, with a view to the full implementation of the IGF mandate.

Not for the first time, this accords closely with a previous call made by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus; on this occasion, back in February.

Moving on to the schedule for the Rio meeting, Markus Kummer revealed that there is no longer to be any distinction between the two types of workshops - thematic and general - that were proposed in the original schedule that was released in May.

On dynamic coalitions, at least the Secretariat has acknowledged one of the most pressing reforms that I have long championed: the need for (in Kummer's words) "clear criteria" to be developed by which for the legitimacy of new coalitions to be assessed. Perhaps surprisingly, this call was also supported by the usually quite reactionary ICC and WITSA.

Another respect in which the Secretariat changed its tune was in Desai's acknowledgment for the first time, during the discussion on the Advisory Group, that the hierarchical leadership of the IGF by the United Nations might not persist indefinitely. First, he explained the reason for the UN's leadership of the IGF to begin with, noting that

the United Nations itself is not a player in Internet governance directly. And to that extent, the secretary-general is a disinterested party. And to some extent I suppose somebody like me, who is his representative, is also seen as a disinterested party. Not a representative of any particular stakeholder group. But we have never thought of that as anything more than an interim measure till the thing stabilizes.

Then he foreshadowed that in the long term, reform of the IGF's structure to increase its independence from the UN could find its way on to the agenda:

At the moment, this process is constituted as an instruction to the Secretary-General to call a meeting and constitute an Advisory Group. That's the formal status of this meeting. It's a meeting called by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I'm talking of the main IGF. Because that's the way in which that mandate was specified. But it is a long-term issue. It certainly needs to be looked at.

Wonders will never cease.