From: Wesley Parish <email@example.com>
Secondly, the US legislature and the US executive have claimed that its governance should remain in US hands. I find this is somewhat "sophomoric" to use a popular US expression. The US is not the economic powerhouse it was once - it is now deeply in debt and due to certain "absolutely brilliant" policies undertaken by the current Federal executive and supported by the current US Federal legislature, it is likely to descend even further into debt. The which making its ability to maintain an equitable governance extremely improbable.
Thirdly, the reason often given why governance should remain in US hands - that one does not want a repeat of the farce much of the UN Human Rights committees descend into, in the Internet world, isn't that convincing. One should consider the Internet as a form of the Free Press. States such as Iran - often mentioned in such negative terms - are equally interested in getting their issues across, and feel that their point of view is often ignored. If they have a hand in Internet governance, they will be forced to moderate their position, without being able to trot out the excuse that they have been prevented from presenting their point of view. To cut to the chase, "better 'jaw, jaw, jaw' than 'war, war, war' "!
In short, the Internet is now of international consequence and international importance and should be considered as part of the international legacy of the cold war; the US Federal government does not inspire confidence in their ability to maintain their governance; and granting participatory rights to its governance even to states such as Iran, with the concommittent obligations that can be found in various Human Rights instruments and in the codes of ethics any Western newspaper is require to adhere to, is likely to have a salutary effect on such states.
Just my 0.02c