Interesting post on Good Morning Silicon Valley, my favourite Internet column (which is now called blog since columns are getting out of fashion).
GMSV talks about the Internet community being losers as long as ICANN stays in place. Granted, ICANN can't exactly be accused of doing a heck of a job (sorry Dubya) and additionally there's increasing criticism in the international community why one ringleader (the US) should rule them all.
So what's the alternative? The ITU? C'mon, gimme a break. The ITU fosters a great legacy of standing in the way of innovation in order to protect the interests of telcos and other obsolete monopolists. And to add insult to injury, a powerful number of its members have their own definition of Internet mismanagement: keeping a lid on freedom of expression.
Would anyone with the smallest regard for civil liberties have the likes of China and Iran among those in charge of what happens on the future Internet?
Personally, I'm torn here. There's no rational reason why one state should mismanage the Internet, as opposed to an international organization that represents the entire world. However, that boils down to a choice between ICANN (mission statement: "We can, really. At least we try") and the ITU (mission statement: "We can't. Have to protect telcos and other obsolete monopolists. Plus, with 200 members we're guaranteed to fail to keep up with technology").
So perhaps having US control and ICANN mismanagement is the lesser evil.