With a steady influx of new progressive civil society voices at every renewal (this time including Fouad Bajwa, and last time Graciela Saleiman), the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) cannot forever hold off the momentum towards the eventual achievement of its mandate from the Tunis Agenda.

Apparently as a compromise to those who wanted to see Internet rights and responsibilities discussed in Sharm el Sheikh, following the MAG's meeting last week we will now have a session devoted to Internet governance in the light of the WSIS Principles instead (though no, the two aren't really related - it's like refusing someone a raise, and instead complimenting them on their tie).

This ticks one more box in the IGF's mandate, namely paragraph 72(i) which requires the IGF to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes" - something which I and others had observed having been completely omitted to date.

At the same time, the MAG has, as I predicted, backpedalled on the roundtable sessions that were proposed in February, just as it previously reneged on the promise of moderated debates (for Hyderabad) and speed dialogues (for Rio):

The MAG discussed holding round tables for issues where there is a convergence of views on the principles and the need for action.  However, it was felt that this format would need further discussion and that it would be premature to introduce round tables at this stage. Instead, these slots would be given to merged workshops, provided they were sufficiently representative in terms of regional and stakeholder balance.

Instead, selected workshops will be invited to hold additional plenary sessions in which "best practices" (code for "recommendations") arising from their deliberations can be identified.

The MAG has also failed in its responsibility to arrange an accountable mechanism of review of the IGF's activities in advance of the UN Secretary-General's report to the General Assembly next year. According to Nitin Desai, if the IGF has value for those on the inside, that should be reason enough for its mandate to be extended. The flaw in that logic should be obvious.

In fairness though, that we have apparently now run out of time for an external evaluator to be appointed is really the Secretariat's fault, by failing to act on the calls in February for an external review to be put in place then.

The September open consultations have also been cancelled, because Nitai Desai saw no need for them - after all, he and the Secretariat has already consulted sufficiently with the masses, no? Well, except on trifling matters, like... asking them whether they agree that the September open consultations should be cancelled.