In the early 1800s, Mexico offered lands to people from the US if they would become citizens of Mexico. These people accepted Mexico's offer and within less than thirty years with the assistance of the lies of Zachary Taylor through warfare stole the land which had been given to them by generosity.

The internet was originally built within the United States. The network was willing to freely allow access without restrictions across national boundaries.

If other countries wish to build an internet which is unconnected to the current internet United States and therefore independant of the structure and governance which was first created within this country, then they may do so.

However, to attempt to wrest the network from the US who has been generous in their governance is just as evil as the theft of the lands of northern Mexico.

James, would you like to go as far back as some years before 1492 and talk about stolen land?

James, I'm sorry, but that is completely irrelevant. The internet has nothing to do with land, space is next to free (and yes I know this, I run a development firm). I don’t necessarily believe an international organization is needed at the current time, but everyone needs to understand that the internet is no longer a possession of our nation. It is now the global communication device. Information is going to have to become free at some point, and one nation is not going to be able to control the medium that transmits it.

If the right precautions were taken in the charter for a new organization it might have a very beneficial effect. We need global communication and cooperation. If there is even the possibility that each nation (or set of nations) might create their own network and cut it off from everyone else’s we need to take action to prevent it. The last thing we need is borders on the internet. This creation is a major step towards a more productive and unified human race.

So what the debate needs to focus on is how can we bring the internet to the world as quickly and cost effectively as possible, not who gets the chance to run it. If this question results in governance remaining the hands of the US, great, if it is more reasonable to hand control over to an international organization then we must do so.

The reach of internet is increasing day by day and it is good.But the monopoly of US is bad and I disagree with the theme of the letter.There is need of internet governance definitely.The views of EU is welcome.It will be a necessity days to come.Quicker the better.

I guess what strikes me about the discussion is that we are talking about the concept of ownership or administration of the Internet and who should be in charge. This is really more a discussion of academics no one has put forth any valid argument that the UN would do a better more fair job of administrating the Internet than the ICANN has so far.
mahendrakumardash says "monopoly of US is bad", I don't think monopoly is quite the right word. Monopoly (at least for me) implies some kind of strong arming or activity that is a detriment to consumers such as unions (labor monopolies), price fixing, public utilities. But I'll let someone else argue that point.
My thoughts here are a little more utilitarian. What decision has the big bad US made in the administration of the Internet that has underserved some segment of the global population.
I'm not asking what "considerable" or "significant" decision but really any decision that has held back some segment of the global Internet.
While I generally don't subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" crowd this seems to be one of those times I have to agree with the current US administration.