I only caught the last half hour of the first Participation workshop with ICANN, ISOC and representatives of the RIRs and ccTLDs, which was much like a miniature version of one of the main sessions. The panel, moderated by Chris Disspain, noted that an organisation managing participation must ensure that its participation mechanisms are accessible, that there is no stakeholder segment that is consistently unhappy, and that review mechanisms are in place.

However there is a risk, in managing the balance between openness and representation, that a greater voice will be given to the activists than to the silent majority. Often this majority, even if interested, do not know about the processes going on in Internet governance circles. They are in practice disenfranchised and excluded from participating by their lack of funding, lack of education, and in some cases also by language.

The IETF also announced at the workshop that ISOC would be funding fellowships to allow technologists from the developing world to attend IETF meetings, which was good to hear.

The subsequent workshop on the same topic run by CONGO was considerably less popular, probably reflecting its constituents' lack of background in Internet governance, though to be fair they have a much stronger background than the organisers of the first workshop in managing civil society participation in intergovernmental fora.

The speaker whose talk most caught my interest in this session was Meryem Marzouki who harked back to the Tunis Agenda's assertion that "policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of states". What is a public policy issue, she asked? Where is the line to be drawn?

As I interpret her position, I think she would agree that a successful IGF should at least be able to start blurring that line in civil society's favour. I would however differ from her in that she said that the IGF is not the right place for us to hammer out agreed texts. I think that with the right structures in place, it could be.