This isn't Snow Crash.

Something something generating power and electricity at sea is complicated.

For an example of why this would never be a good thing, look at North Korea. The "internet" their people have access to is not much more than a countrywide LAN with no real connection to the global internet and is heavily restricted. It has kept the population in relative ignorance and maintained control for a corrupt dictatorship in a world where free access to information has directly led to the toppling of multiple dictatorships elsewhere. In the meantime, the rest of the world with its pretty much unrestricted internet has made massive technological, political, social and economic advances online that have left NK even further behind the rest of the world.

If the internet were divided into a restricted, NK-like internet and a separate "free" internet, all those people stuck on the restricted side would likely end up falling behind like NK. Even on the "free" side, things would be impacted, as they would lose access to any new ideas that manage to make their way on to the restricted side. That doesn't even begin to address how it might affect the global internet economy. It might not a world-ending catastrophe, but it certainly would not be a good thing for anyone.
That had nothing to do with ICANN. Regardless of who controls ICANN, sites like Megaupload and torrent trackers still violated US and international law, meaning the FBI and Interpol could still take them down.
Believe it or not, the repurposing of an oil rig and placing it in international waters as the "internet headquarters" was once proposed, but placing it someplace that is basically lawless is almost worse than someplace with restrictive laws.

http://i.imgur.com/TVkn3yM.jpg

I think that Dotcom guy wanted to make a new Internet but I don't know if he is even in a position to do that anymore/ still.

I noticed you used the word "almost".

My view is that the internet benefits the world and no country should have the right to interfere with a free and open internet. If ICANN thinks a free and open internet is bad, then they're not the people best suited to looking after it.

Although a ship or an oil rig would probably be very difficult to secure. Some mad dictator might just send a nuke in their direction. I guess they're going to have to buy a sub instead.

I hope I didn't give the impression that the ICANN organization itself is pushing for more restrictions, they are not. Members of the international advisory committees are the ones that have been pushing ICANN to be less egalatarian.

I said almost because in a basically lawless area, there is nothing to stop the less than ethical from doing whatever they want, including being even more restrictive than any existing country might be. The internet should be free and open from any country's interference, but that is not going to happen without treaties and laws to enforce that freedom and lack of interference. I might be a bit of cynic, but you can't count on humans acting in the best interests of the world as a whole. We simply aren't that good natured on the scale of international politics.

This just in. The story is true and they are handing over control of the Internet...

to this guy.

If you did then it wasn't your fault. I confess to my ignorance on this matter as I wasn't even aware until seeing this thread that such a momentous change to how the internet could be controlled is imminent.

I do understand though. I certainly wouldn't be a good candidate for managing a free and open internet. I'd ban child pornography.

I'm ok with that.

This is not the right place to post your dating pictures...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

it's staying in LA and not going to the UN, so we will be fine. no looting or pillaging yet. ...yet.

The facts in that article are exceedingly spun. They talk about "control" as if US government gremlins were overseeing every decision ICANN made. The reality is quite different. Outside of the laws that apply to every company operating in the US, the US government had no more influence over ICANN than any other government that was part of the advisory panel. They could object to anything ICANN proposed, but ICANN was under no obligation to agree and they could be easily outvoted by the other panel members (which ICANN was also under no obligation to listen to). That's exactly what happened with the .XXX TLD. In one of the only instances of the US supposedly trying to exert its "control" over ICANN, it was ignored.

<span class="bold">The Internet</span> :)

great episode :)

Yup, so funny :D