US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of g

I've been following this story for a couple of months now, but I've yet to see much on the big media outlets, to date.

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html

US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments.
<snip>
A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.

Then eventually handed over for all practical purposes to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann).
Icann has 20 or so "computer farms" globally that literally control the entire infrastructure of the cyber world.

there are a couple mentions of essentially alternate internet structures; open source and "starting their own"

My question is, wouldn't this idea cause a lot of problems in terms of competing Icann's? Isn't what they do control IP addresses and routings so that when someone puts in an IP address or a domain name they reach the site they intend to? I'm thinking alternate internet structures would make it much more likely that there would be overlap in names, addresses, etc. and so less functionality overall.

Comments?

thanks :hi:

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/05/10/06/1241227.shtml?tid=95&tid=219

I'm sure the comments from the die-hard US jingoists only convince the rest of the world of our own inability to manage this resource

Who in the world would trust the U.S. with control of anything these days? We're not just sowing hatred, we're sowing fear. Based on the actions of the Bushreich, there is little reason to trust our motivations and intentions.

i don`t think so..i`ll leave it up to good ole` western corporate greed to keep the internet free from censorship

would/would not be more bureaucratic than what currently exists. Plus, the US did invent the bloody thing, while early University involvement (almost from day 1) really shaped the structure and form that most take for granted.

It belongs to the human beings -- not the corps the edugiants or government EnTiTieS.

US tax dollars paid for it's development. But the commercial market has really pushed it forward as a viable source and vehicle for information transfer. Doesn't negate the fact that the US developed and "Owns" the infrastructure we use today.

Could computerprogrammers make or set up a better, rival internet,make it open sourced and it not be centralized,not owned by anybody ,any nation or corporation? Make it a people's net? Could it operate in a different way? Could some liberal minded folks who have money get together and buy a media source,build phone lines or get a satellite or whatever it takes hardware wise to do the net?
Because I dunno,but the linux software is good,and open and the corporates use it,why not have a internet that is done in the spirit of openess and non-ownership like linux?

...having used Mac, Windows, Linux over the course of the last few years, (just love big toys) I found Linux the most difficult. I only say this because I think we as a people don't want to have to jump thru too many hoops. We're an instant society...now!...now!...now! And I think the corporately developed network that is in place both as the computer nodes up to the browser of choice, are so ingrained, most people would never take to a network that is loosely bound with no central source in which to complain.
Just like Linux (was?...it's been @5 years since I last used), wouldn't you be dependent on your fellow users for support, patches, fixes.....

Look there will always be the wanted it yesterday fools.Let them be on the owned net until they see what the free net is and start to desire it..As the people's net gets fixed up,the word will get out,to people who would want to better it,it will get simpler over time and the owned net will die,and the people left on there will be non-thinkers and smarmy spammers,con men,,and church marms looking for a rounded corners net space for their jesus slobbering kids with no cussing, no medical drawings of sexual body parts ,no controversy,no satire or science . The peoples net will do well over time because it is free and the convenience at any cost types of people who think surfing the people's net is too hard will stay on the owned EZ net because they do not care it is owned.Like AOL.Some times people on AOL get mad because AOL blocks certain sites and scrubs speech..and so they switch to a less uptight provider without all the restrictions who doesn't make it easy.

standardized or open source software. But the net is also composed of hardware resources ... servers, fiber optic trunk lines, etc. And without a set of conventions and standards, the net would become rapidly unusable.

"Control of the internet" basically means control of the standards ... and control of the evolution of TCP/IP, the fundamental protocol layers that make it all hang together.

waging war in Iraq, is the world going to take over control of the existing internet?

And then we will have a choice between splendid isolation
and being less rigid about things.

and do whatever they want