Oh well.
Let me clarify: I do not think that the current system is the best system, or even a good system. But what lies on the table might only make it worse.
It is for me a mystery that people would have so much more confidence in a body that would be dominated by a majority of governments that have an interest in limiting the freedom of the internet than in a country that has a fair though patchy record on the protection of freedoms. I'm not saying the US is a good "keeper" (I'd say its fair to middling), I'm saying there's far worse out there, and that the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.
Ah, you say, but this body will be totally independent from any government. And no single government will be able to dominate it.
But what I'm afraid of is not a single government dominating, but a coalition of governments with an interest of limiting the freedom of the internet: add most of the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, more than half of Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, Belarussia, China, North Korea, some South East Asian countries, some Latin American countries and even India (and others) on an ad hoc basis and you easily get a majority of governments which would be more heavy-handed than the US is. And frankly speaking, I don't think these countries will agree to a body in which they have no say.
And yes, Aegis, the record of the UN does not consist of failures alone, the UN can point to quite some successes, even in conflict resolution (as I'm witnessing every day, it's a bit hard to miss the white painted armoured vehicles in the streetscape). But in my professional life I've been in contact with quite a few of the agencies in different countries, and talked with other people who also had personal experiences, and it does not exactly inspire confidence.
When it comes to guidelines, studies etc., I think they do a fair to good job (WHO springs to mind as an example, their guidelines are more or less universally accepted). And also in fields which are more or less politically neutral (e.g. regulation of international air traffic through ICAO).
But when the political stakes are high, either individual countries end up taking the upper hand or the issues get mired in endless discussions. And the internet is an issue were the political stakes are high. But if anyone can cite me an example of a UN organisation that stood up against one of the bigger geopolitical players and won the day concerning a political sensitive issue, and prove me wrong, please feel free to do so.
And my question remains: which UN organisation(s) do you see as a model for a body to replace ICANN?
In theory it would be nice if there could be an agreement that would allow the creation of a body that would be truly independent and recognised by all countries. In practice, it won't happen, because ultimately the UN represents the interests of governments, and there are too many authoritarian governments out there, who have an interest in meddling.
[QUOTE=Xandax]I feel the inevital influence from the US government(s) as to what is being accepted on the internet, is a hinderance to its development. [/QUOTE]And having a large number of other governments, with much more restrictive views having a say, would not hinder the development of the internet? Not to mention the possibility of a stiffling and/or unresponsive UN bureaucracy.