Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance
I disagree.  Google is completely wrong and self-serving here.  Even evil.<p>It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government".  There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not.  If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies.<p>If government declines to be the rule-setter, private industry usually takes up the slack.  Their rules have no accountability to individuals.  But either way, the amount of government is conserved, only the basis for it and accountability of it change.<p>If the U.S. decided to abolish the FDA, for example, there would still be rules governing food quality in the United States.  They would be rules set by consortiums of grocery store chains and meat packers and the like.  "Walmart will buy meat only of this quality and no worse", whatever that quality level might be.  The food protection rules didn't disappear, they just became divorced from accountability to the public.<p>Libertarians (Vint Cerf certainly is one, and corporations generally are as well) pronounce that shifting governance from government to corporations is good.  Certainly it is in the corporate interest.  As for good, any given shift could be good (in the sense that you could have a benevolent dictator, for a time), but in the aggregate, divorcing accountability from governance certainly results in worse governance (the average dictator is worse than the average elected representative).<p>The unelected, unaccountable, responsive-only-to-money Chamber of Commerce is not in fact the right entity to be deciding internet governance issues.  Elected governments are.