A stalemate over who should serve as the principal traffic cops for Internet routing and addressing could derail the summit, which aims to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world.
At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet’s master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.
That role has historically gone to the United States, which created the Internet as a Pentagon project and funded much of its early development. The U.S. Commerce Department has delegated much of that responsibility to a U.S.-based private organization with international board members, but Commerce ultimately retains veto power.
Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.
They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won’t get derailed by some future U.S. policy.
Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/Internet/2005/09/30/pf-1242850.html
Note: http://cnews.canoe.ca/C...

U.S. Commerce Dept. should certainly not have ultimate veto (no single government should), although Commerce is probably the least likely to implement restrictive policy based on politics. If internet structure was approved by the UN Security Council we probably wouldn't have it.
Allocating IP addresses and domain names on the basis of politics will only hurt the internet. The EU should stick to doing what it does best, whining. Leave ultimate control with a country that knows how to be successful, the U.S.