Even leaving aside the poster debacle, which has soured many against the IGF perhaps for good, the Secretariat has made a real mess of this meeting.

First, consider the schedule changes. On Friday, every workshop and main session scheduled for the final day of the IGF was rescheduled - without notice to workshop organisers - to make way for a new session from the host country. This left my own workshop in a precarious position, as two of my speakers were due to leave the country only two hours after the workshop's new closing time. Then yesterday, the schedule changed again - some workshops reverted to their original times, others remained changed, and yet others had an entirely new time allocated.

Also consider the facilities provided for remote participation. Last year, an open source product DimDim was employed with success, allowing remote participants and those present in person to discuss the proceedings. This year, DimDim has been dropped in favour of not one, but two proprietary web conferencing products - WebEx and Elluminate. Presenters, even when they have monitored remote activity at all, haven't known which product to use. Participants using one platform have been ignored by presenters focussed on the other. Worse, the IGF has instructed participants in Sharm to "refrain from using the Webex remote participation facility" - completely defeating the purpose of a platform that is designed to bring together remote participants and those who are present in person.

Finally, last Wednesday, the IGF Web site was updated with a notice inviting participants to apply for a speaking slot in the final day's Taking Stock session. I wrote straight away, and was told

We acknowledge receipt of your email about the IGF main session "Taking Stock and Looking Forward".

Details of the session format and arrangements for speakers will be posted on the IGF Website shortly. Please watch the IGF website for more information.

Unperturbed, I wrote back pointing out that I had written in response to the details on the Web site, and reiterated my request for a three-minute speaking slot. I received another reply:

Based on demand for speaking slots in the Taking Stock and Looking Forward session, it will not be possible to accommodate all requests in the 3-hour session. It will be necessary to limit the number of slots for each stakeholder group.

We encourage you to look for possible partners within your respective stakeholder groups with a view to making a joint statement. We will try to accommodate as many statements as possible within the time available.

I replied:

I have spoken about this with others, including Milton Mueller who has also asked to speak, and our conclusion is that it is not possible to have a meaningful joint statement from civil society because our opinions are so diverse.

I represent Consumers International and would be speaking on behalf of 220 member organisations from 115 countries. Therefore I would like to maintain my request to speak during the first hour.

I have received no reply, but I will bet good money that there will be no individual civil society statements - and certainly none from critics of the IGF such as myself - read in the closing session.