This is, perhaps, one of the most asinine things I’ve ever read. The article presumes a conclusion: that the Internet should be governed. ICANN is explicitly de

This is, perhaps, one of the most asinine things I’ve ever read. The article presumes a conclusion: that the Internet should be governed. ICANN is explicitly designed to be an organization that is run from the bottom up (Internet users up to national governments) not from the top down (national governments down to Internet users). Decisions are made on, as far as possible, objective standards, not subjective or political rationale. Who gets allocated an IP address is based on technical need, not whether the content they’ll put on that IP furthers the status quo. The Obama Administration’s decision to give up “control” of ICANN was one of the most brilliant foreign policy decisions they’ll never get credit for. The US government had a never-exercised veto on ICANN decisions from the Internet’s earliest days. Other governments, rightly, asked: “Why should the US get a veto and we don’t.” Perhaps it was justifiable when the US dominated Internet use. But when China and, soon, India surpassed it, it made no sense. China and Russia pushed for a division of the U.N., the ITU, to take control. It’s hard to argue against. Why should one nation have unilateral veto rights? Why shouldn’t it be a decision of a multi-national organization who can be on the Internet? Because… ahhhhh! Terrifying to think if the Internet would revert to the lowest common denominator of International policy. While there’s much to criticize about the US’s radically libertarian approach to free speech, an International group consensus on what’s allowed online is far more terrifying. The FIFA metaphor is apt, but not for the reason the writer intends. I’ve spoken before the ITU. The last time was to talk about anti-email spam issues. When I finished my talk a wisen gentleman stood to speak. You have to imagine a room in Geneva. It’s very large. There are curved tables with placards for each country. This gentleman was from Syria. “Thank you, Mr. Prince, for your wise words,” he bellowed. “Email spam is one of the top problems that vexes the Syrian people. And your suggestions will help us deal with this most pressing concern.” This was 2006, if memory serves. Email spam was not one of Syria's top problems. Yet here we were. After my talk I went out to dinner with a handful of staffers. We went to a nice Geneva restaurant. They talked about how they tried to keep people like the Syrian bureaucrat in his lane and not causing too much trouble, but not offending him too much. “If I do my time here,” one suggested, “someday I hope I can get a gig with the International Olympic Committee or FIFA. That’s where the real loot is scored.” For all its faults, I’ll take ICANN over any of that.