EU: Represented officially by the U.K. this year, the EU has emerged as a would-be WSIS conciliator, which might possibly succeed in brokering a compromise solution to what otherwise appear to be irreconcilable differences on Internet governance in a politically divided world. If any position can carry the World Summit, it will be the one the EU has offered, or some variation thereof. The EU position already would seem to have the support of each of the EU member states, who spoke consistently in favor of the creation of a forum. Canada and Japan are also apparent allies with this position.

U.S.: Accused by its opponents of filibustering and dragging out the PrepCom-3 meeting in Geneva to avoid full consideration of the governance models that had been proposed by the WGIG, the U.S. was not alone in applying brakes to the process. Regardless of the intent, the fact that nothing was resolved in Geneva supported the primary U.S. position. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But now that the EU has taken a stand favoring some reforms, can the U.S. hold the rest of the world to maintaining the status quo?

China, Brazil, Islamic Republic of Iran, and The Arab Group: As staunch supporters of more formal, more centralized, and more government-dominated Internet governance models, these groups tended to cling to the WGIG report during PrepCom-3 deliberations. By the end of the session in Geneva, Iran seemed to hold truest to the WGIG vision, but there is no reason to conclude that the others have surrendered their ideals. …