> The goal is to transfer the power from the corporation is to the people via government regulations I think your proposed solution is even worse than the exis

> The goal is to transfer the power from the corporation is to the people via government regulations I think your proposed solution is even worse than the existing system. Right now no single corporation controls the internet and domain names (well, except for ICANN). Because it's only loosely federated right now, different corporations have to work together to come up with and adhere to interoperability standards. Google may own Gmail, but they have to work with Apple and Microsoft and Protonmail and Mailchimp and everyone else to adhere to ensure their email is intercompatible. No one company can break email for everyone else. If you transferred it to a single government, well, first of all, which one? If you gave it to the US, that means Trump and Musk could directly read and control everyone's emails, which most foreigners would not want, and half the US too. It would give them absolute power over world communications, like the RIAA censorship years but applied to all worldwide emails and communications. If you gave it to a multinational entity like the United Nations, then it still becomes subservient to the Security Council countries, to the detriment of all the other countries of the world. The relative decentralization combined with shared standards is what allows any country, company, org, or individual to join the network. It's a network of networks, and any one operator can only control the part of it assigned to them, not the whole thing. Your proposal would give one government, and by extension a tiny handful of individual corruptible humans, absolute power over the entire system. No government can be trusted with that much power. The existing solution, paying $10 a year for a personal domain name, is both far less fragile and far less corruptible.