I am increasingly of the view that it is untenable for the IGF's members to rely any longer on the Secretariat to maintain the Internet presence of the Forum. To give just three examples:

• The five minute video presentations that were to have been screened during the IGF meeting, have not been made available as promised. Now I'm not even sure if my own presentation, which I provided two weeks ago, will even be added to the IGF Web site, since the Athens Outline page of the IGF Web site (which still claims to have last been updated on 22 October) has removed MPEG-4 as an acceptable video format, in favour of the proprietary Microsoft Windows Media Video (WMV) format.
• Despite setting up a mailing list for IGF members (at my request), it has not been announced to attendees or even mentioned on the IGF Web site. So nobody knows about it, and nobody has joined, rendering the list useless. As for the Secretariat dynamically creating additional email addresses and mailing lists as required, forget it: when they required new addresses to receive questions for sessions by email, they turned to me and Kieren.
• The failures of the official IGF Web site, including:
  • the lack of any adequate online systems for remote collaboration, requiring myself and Kieren McCarthy to voluntarily pick up the baton;
  • the failure to respond quickly or at all to requests to add information to the IGF Web site;
  • withholding from the Web site adequate information about the decisions and activities of the Advisory Group and the Secretariat;
  • the poor organisation of the Web site, including the lack of chronological ordering of material and the failure to update its RSS feed;

call into question whether the Secretariat should continue to maintain the IGF's Internet presence at all.

Instead, I call upon the IGF Secretariat to form a multi-stakeholder committee open to volunteers from amongst all IGF participants to maintain the IGF's official Internet resources on its behalf.