I do not understand why any government should have "control" of it. What does that mean anyway? The only thing government could conceivably do of benefit in this field is to insure consumer protection, by policing fraud and predators.

idiOtic... all part of the larger plan to diminish this nation. Oddly enough how can control be given up when the internet itself consists of tens of thousands of privately owned servers that are managed mostly independently?

This policy works so well on technical calls in India. Watch how quickly things become reliable.

I saw this too. Typical leftie strategy. Give up control of the internet and the world will like us and think we aren't spying on them any more. I know when I asked for less government control this is not what I meant.

Simply put we should control it because we built it, we produced it, it is ours. However the looters in US leadership wish to cede that power to the looters in world government (U.N.).

I am sorry not to understand why anyone who wants to be in Galt's Gulch also wants the U.S. Government to control the Internet? Should the government control railroads, or for that matter, international shipping lanes, or airways, or satellite orbits? Defining and protecting the legality of property rights is appropriate, but what is this "control" that so many here seem in favor of?

How would international control of the Internet be different from the International Civil Aviation Organization of the United Nations? Formed in Chicago in 1944, it has 191 member governments. Earth is one planet. One government makes sense. (See Ayn Rand on the evils of "balkanization".) The question is the _nature_ of that government. The continued popularization of Objectivism and Ayn Rand's cultural influence will eventually allow Terrans to become the species they deserve to be.

ICAO here
http://www.icao.int/about-icao/Pages/def...
Ayn Rand on Global Balkanization here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works...