Net governance forum: Hot air or hot opinions?

Last year in Tunis, both the U.S. and the E.U. claimed victory in an agreement reached over Internet governance, despite remaining at opposite ends of the governance debate. While the U.S. interpreted the agreement to give it continued control over the Internet's core components, including its addressing systems, the E.U. read it as an opportunity to open the door for Internet oversight to be shared by governments of the world.

Proposals to create a governmental organization that might control many technical aspects of the Internet, were taken "off the table" as a result of the agreement, David Gross, ambassador for the bureau of economic and business affairs at the U.S. Department of State and the person leading the U.S. delegation in Tunis, said at the summit. "There is no change to the U.S. role, no change to ICANN," he said.

Gross warned that opening the process to intergovernmental oversight could weigh down the Internet with bureaucracy and stifle innovation.

The only change that Gross acknowledged was an agreement to create IGF as a platform to discuss issues, such as cybercrime and spam, but to play "no role in oversight."

As the E.U. read the agreement, the U.S. had consented to considering a new oversight body by agreeing to the wording "enhanced cooperation." The E.U.'s position: The role of ICANN shouldn't change but rather the oversight role.

The E.U. and other countries are demanding oversight in cooperation and on equal footing.

E.U. Commissioner for Information Society and Media Viviane Reding referred Monday to the IGF as a "new step" toward an international consensus on Internet governance issues.

Whether the IGF itself could evolve into a global Internet oversight body someday is "a possibility," U.N. spokesman Gomez acknowledged. "You can't rule it out but Athens isn't the place where any decisions will be made," he said.

The forum runs through Thursday.