The Guardian is giddy at the prospect of the Internet's control being moved from the US to the UN:

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.

I'm a little confused to be honest. What kept popping up in my head while reading the article was "... or what?" and "... because why?"

The US will have to acquiesce... because why?

The US will have to bow to an international consensus... or what?

The basic question is what can happen if the US says "No"? Will the rest of the world pull out of the Internet and do its own? Will they take the servers with military force? If they don't get what they want, what leverage do they have? Stern disapproval doesn't count. I can't think of any and the article didn't mention any. And without leverage, I don't think even President Clinton would give in, much less President Bush.

So the article failed in one of two ways. Either it did not adequately explain what leverage the UN has over the US or it presupposed an outcome where none was imminent.

Update: Declan McCullagh provides considerably more background. The primary fear here is indeed a fracturing of the Internet (or, as I put it, the UN "starting its own"). The danger here to us is that since all of the servers are not located in the US, other nations could redirect theirs to the UN, which would force us to lose the universality of current addresses and locations.