I suspect the problem is that it's hard to discuss this issue without raising the topic of why the American government controls the Internet right now which would entail conceding Al Gore really did take the initiative in creating the Internet while he was in congress.

Why does Matthew state that Gore invented the Internet when that's a lie? 

Fuck that, we're keepin' it.

Oh bloody hell. Is it too much to ask that people learn something about the Internet before writing about it?
Kaus: Why does the U.S. have little choice but to acquiesce? They're our servers, aren't they?
Except the rest of the world can, you know, choose not to use them. If every ISP everywhere else in the world decides to use their own root servers and DNS infrastructure, it's the US who'll be the odd man out, not the rest of the world. And I'm sure corporate America would love it when their domains don't resolve properly anymore to the markets in China and Europe because of a fit of pique from the Bush administraion.
The Internet works because everyone involved cooperates. If every else decides to ignore the US root servers and use a set ran by the UN, we're the ones not cooperating. They'll be the Internet and AmericaNet. And there are more Internet users in the rest of the world than in America.
pinson: You want an Internet? Build your own.
Hey, all that fiber, those web and email servers, etc in Europe and China? News flash, they were bought and paid for by Europe and China. They have already built their own Internet infrastructure or they wouldn't be on the Internet. There are in fact root servers in other countries owned by entities in other countries, they just "follow the lead" to speak of the US-controlled ICANN. They can quite easily choose to follow the lead of a UN-ran Internet governing body just as easily.
Really people, if you don't know how this stuff works, don't comment on it like you do. There's no unalterable law of physics that requires anyone to pay attention to the ICANN domains. If everyone else on the 'net but the US chooses to ignore ICANN, they can, and it's us that will get left out. Which is exactly why this won't happen, no way US corporations will allow the Bush administration to splinter them from the rest of the world. 

If every else decides to ignore the US root servers and use a set ran by the UN, we're the ones not cooperating. They'll be the Internet and AmericaNet. And there are more Internet users in the rest of the world than in America.

That's right.  And quite depressing given that the UN conference is being held in a country that actively blocks Internet sites for its citizens.  And further depressing because there's good reason to believe that the support for wresting control from the US comes from a desire to impose rules and constraints on the net and move away from the laissez-faire US approach.   You thought the co-operation between China and Yahoo, Google, MS, etc was bad, wait until a coalition of authoritarian countries starts getting cooperation out of a UN Internet agency.  Be afraid.  Think of the Internet version of the UN human rights commission featuring Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc.

Of course, there might be advantages to having two sets of competing root servers, where the U.S. servers might still continue to contain entries that China, for example, has strong armed the UN agency into removing.  

 

It might be disruptive, but there is no reason that the other countries couldn't agree to a system that wasn't controlled by the US.  

The idea that the Internet can't be regulated is a bit of a myth.  China heavily regulates the Internet operating within that country and there is no reason an agreement of multiple countries could regulate how the Internet operates everywhere outside the United States.

And if they did so, it would likely force most US businesses to follow along.

So don't be too skeptical of this potential initiative.  

Structure: Originally funded by the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation, the internet is now paid for and operated by the thousands of institutions that use it. A committee known as the Internet Engineering Task Force defines TECHNICAL STANDARDS. THE INTERNET IS NOT CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY; rather, it is an aggregation of schools, corporations, government agencies, and other organizations that share resources and jointly fund the regional “backbones” that interconnect their campuses.

I know nothing about how the internet works,  but cwk if your description is right could the administration:

1. Allow the UN to make its "Worldnet" and turn the current internet into "Americanet."

2. Cut off access to "Worldnet" because of alleged security issues (war on terror and all)

3. Leave Americans access only to Americanet, where the press can be relied on to be relatively sympathetic to the administration's views

In other words, could I end up with no internet access to the Guardian and stuck getting my news from Fox?

Shit, this could be serious . . .

I know nothing about how the internet works,  but cwk if your description is right could the administration:

< insert absurd paranoid fantasy here >
 

Yes, it is technically possible for any country to have private network that is completely disconnected from the global internet.  But not even non-democratic authoritarian governments (e.g. China) have done that (or anything like it) because the economic impact would be enormous.