The original impetus for the formation of the Internet Governance Forum was to provide not only an open forum for discussion, but also a venue for all stakeholders to collaborate towards developing public policy for the Internet, through a process by which they would "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations."

This innovative model for multi-stakeholder governance developed from the understanding that the transnational nature of the Internet required that "requisite legitimacy of its governance ... [be] based on the full participation of all stakeholders ... within their respective roles". Indeed, given the largely non-governmental genesis of the network and of its governance up to that date, the Internet community should have expected nothing less.

Unfortunately this original vision quickly fell by the wayside, as the incumbent powers in the Internet governance regime, aided by a compliant UN-based Secretariat, acted quickly to curb the IGF's empowering potential (for civil society in particular), by shackling it with structural and procedural limitations. Its place was thus reduced to an expensive annual conference on Internet policy issues, which engaged few other than WSIS-insiders.

However debate over the narrowing of the IGF's original mandate may now be re-enlivened, with the release of the United Nations Secretary General's draft statement on the continuation of the IGF. This statement acknowledges criticisms that "that the IGF had not provided concrete advice to intergovernmental bodies and other entities involved in Internet governance", and suggests that such dissatisfaction may point "to a desire for more tangible progress on the issues at hand." More importantly, it points to solutions.

There are three particular areas that receive welcome attention in the document for almost the first time, having previously received short shrift by the IGF Secretariat and MAG. The first concerns the status of the process towards "enhanced cooperation". With refreshingly frankness, it acknowledges:

that there continues to be confusion as to the meaning of enhanced cooperation. Some interpret enhanced cooperation as dialogue among Governments on public policy issues related to the Internet. Others interpret it to mean improved dialogue among Governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations, possibly in multiple Internet governance mechanisms, including at the regional and national levels.

The Secretary-General then makes an overdue call on the General Assembly to provide guidance on ‘enhanced cooperation’ as it relates to the IGF. Whilst the result might not in the end be to civil society's liking (particularly given that there is no multi-stakeholder WGIG to advise the General Assembly, as there was at WSIS), at least we can be grateful that governments' cards will finally be on the table, when for a while it seemed they would rather that the promise of "enhanced cooperation" simply fade away.

Second, the Secretary-General acknowledges "a perception among some civil society stakeholders that the agenda-setting process of the MAG is not sufficiently inclusive or transparent" (hello!), and promises to "undertake a review of the structure and functions of the preparatory meetings of the IGF". A report is to be given in late 2011:

on steps taken to improve the format, functions and operations of the preparatory meetings of the IGF with a view to enhancing inclusiveness, transparency, effectiveness and cost-efficiency while ensuring balanced stakeholder representation and participation.

Already, powerful stakeholders have been moving to contain the effect of the Secretary-General's statement in this regard. At this week's open consultation meeting, the EU representative stated:

It is important to distinguish the question of the continuation of the IGF from more organizational questions. The former should be the only topic addressed in the U.N. spaces such as the CSTD, ECOSOC and UNGA. The latter should respect the spirit of the Tunis Agenda mandate, as well as the operating modalities that have progressively emerged. Further evolutions of the IGF working methods should, therefore, be discussed among all stakeholders through IGF's self-organizing processes.

In other words, the EU would rather the IGF be left alone to determine its own future - or rather, be left to accept its own fate, since over five years the MAG has proven itself institutionally powerless to effect real change to its own "format, functions and operations". But the General Assembly may not be so reticent for reform.

Third, the Secretary-General's report acknowledges the assessment of many "that the contribution of the IGF to public policy-making is difficult to assess and appears to be weak," and encourages the IGF "to produce and offer to the Member States useful capacity-building outputs, such as off-line/online training and toolkits aiming at greater awareness and better understanding of Internet governance related issues to facilitate national and international public policy making."

Apart from the weasel words "capacity building" (which seems to step back from the earlier acknowledged need for the forum to produce "advice and recommendations" on policy issues), the pressure that the IGF now faces to produce outputs - any outputs at all, frankly - is very welcome, and five years overdue. It is also likely to encounter strong opposition, and none more so than from the clique who have brought the IGF to the position it holds today.