So in conclusion, the choice is a stark one. The IGF could be just a “talk shop” that exists to make its participants feel good, and in that event, make no mistake, policy development would still occur. However, it would occur in back-room deals brokered between its most powerful participants away from public scrutiny. The alternative is that the IGF embrace its potential as a true multi-stakeholder governance network, and by its adherence to the democratic public values of accountability, transparency and inclusion, to build up the trust and respect of the Internet community. It would then have the potential one day to become an effective and legitimate source of consensual order for the Internet.