Re: @Kurt Meyer Doom I tell you

@ ZootCadillac

"I hope that sates your curiosity."

It does, and thank you for your well written post in reply to my question.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that "The US government is not representative of anybody but its citizens. They do not speak for or have responsibility for 95% of the world."

Not for the last time, I would that my government thought the same.

The many, many, ramifications of that attitude are perhaps best left for another time, and another thread.

To return to the subject of internet governance, I am of two minds. On the one hand as you say, it doesn't seem right that any single nation have control of the internet.

As you are no doubt aware, nations act in their own interests first, last, and always. This may, or may not, coincide with the interest of other nations at any given time.

To allow another nation to have control of a vital resouce requires a level of trust that does not exist today, if indeed it ever existed.

Given that lack of trust, where do we turn? I (and many others around the world) am not convinced of the trustworthiness of many of the "independent international bodies" that have attempted to regulate or administer international interests.

The lack of trust does not spring only from chauvinism, jingoism, or nationalism. It comes from the conduct of many of the existing international bodies, The UN, FIFA, The IOC, and many, many others too numerous to mention.

Their performance has been mixed in the opinion of many, and while international governance of the internet will represent a change from it's present state, the hope of greater trustworthiness may prove to be ephemeral.

This may actually be of benefit to the US, in that the mistrust will be spread amongst the members of this group rather than the current focus on a single country.