The synthesis paper for the stocktaking session has just been released, and the Secretariat have done at least as good a job as last time, although there were a few passages that brought either a smile or a grimace to my face.

For example, it starts off by claiming that 813 users had joined their discussion site. This intrigued me, as I knew that hardly anyone has posted there. Sure enough, amongst their 813 users (now over 900) are such notables as !Pharmacy!, -VIAGRA- and ADULT_WEBSITE.

All in all, there were 13 contributions received and 10 on the discussion site (though some of those were of very tangential relevance to the questions asked). The paper divides its consideration of what worked well and less well into four categories:

1. The preparatory process;
2. Input papers;
3. The inaugural meeting; and
4. The way forward: further comments and suggestions

In regard to the preparatory process, the first criticism noted is from my submission about the lack of transparency in the appointment and operations of the Advisory Group, though the majority view (which I don't essentially disagree with) was that it had nevertheless performed its duties well, without seeking to impose substantive positions into the content of the first meeting.

My criticism was again the first one noted in respect to the input papers for the last meeting, and more specifically the synthesis paper which summarised them, in that inadequate use was made of it during the sessions. This may well have been because it was distributed so late, as others noted. However many also rightly commended it as an invaluable aid to those whose first language was not English, given that it was translated into the UN languages.

It was also suggested that a more formalised procedure for the distribution of other working documents should have been devised, perhaps drawing from the IETF's RFC document series.

The majority of comments, naturally, were in respect of the inaugural meeting itself. Comments were further subdivided into those on structure, format and content, and those on logistical matters.

There was broad agreement that the meeting had succeeded in creating a valuable space for discussion across stakeholder groups. In this context it was felt that the meeting format worked well and that the four main themes were appropriate. Although the lack of a decision-making role for the forum was also seen as a positive factor in facilitating discussion, it also limited its ability to fulfil its mandate, as subsequent criticisms noted.

Criticism was also widely levelled at the size and duration of panel sessions. The fact that they were held concurrently with workshops, many of which were themselves duplicative of each other's content, was another area of concern.

On logistical matters, the interpretation and real-time transcription service was applauded, along with the Webcasting and audiocasting and the free seating arrangements and Internet access. Predictably, this last point was also one of those drawing most criticism due to its lack of range and reliability.

Other criticisms were that insufficient attention was paid to remote participation, that the division between official, host country and community Web sites was confusing, that proprietary document formats should have been avoided, and that there was a lack of affordable food at the meeting venue.

For me, the most pertinent section of the synthesis paper is the final section looking at further comments and suggestions on the way forward. These are further divided into comments on the role and nature of the IGF, the preparatory process, and the Rio meeting.

In respect of the role of the IGF, the synthesis paper mischaracterises the position of those who argue (as I did) that the IGF ought to go further in developing a capacity to deliberate in a multi-stakeholder context and to make recommendations upon policy issues, rather than merely discussing them. The paper recounts without comment the erroneous view that this would be an expansion of the IGF's mission as agreed during the WSIS process.

In any case, clearly there is no consensus on this point which means that it is likely that the status quo will be preserved. This is a textbook example of how a notionally impartial institution such as the first-appointed Advisory Group can come to exercise ongoing political power through the substantive implications of its early procedural decisions.

In regard to the preparatory process, the two main opposing views as to the composition of the Advisory Group were that it should be retained in its present form with new members only brought in to replace those who have departed, or that it should be reconvened, perhaps utilising as I suggested a multi-stakeholder nominations committee that would make recommendations to the Secretary-General.

It was widely considered that there should be a more open and participatory planning process than occurred in advance of the Athens meeting, utilising online discussion fora and making relevant material available well in advance.

Finally, suggestions regarding the Rio meeting were wide-ranging, but recurrent themes were that discussions should be more focused, in-depth and practical, that the IGF should have the capacity to hold its own workshops rather than relying on individual stakeholders to organise them, that there should be a meta-workshop on multi-stakeholder governance, and that the circulation of discussion papers in advance of sessions would assist to elevate the level of debate.

My suggestion that the relationship between Dynamic Coalitions and the IGF should be more clearly defined was also recognised, along with the proposal that a session be devoted to the reception of reports from Dynamic Coalitions on their activities and work plans.

It will be interesting to see to what extent the themes of this synthesis paper are reflected in the actual discussions and decisions made in Geneva next week. Since I am unable to afford to attend, I am also waiting with bated breath for the revelation of the address at which the stocktaking session is to be Webcast.