The improbable conclusion that the U.N. could actually provide any help in any of these areas has been discussed in various Internet-savvy forums and roundly dismissed as a very bad idea. But that did not stop India from formally proposing it to the U.N. on Oct. 26. Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives is trying its best to come up with an even worse idea for Internet governance.

Fundamentally, the IBSA proposal is to take Internet management away from the motley collection of organizations and companies that have made a roaring success of the Internet, which is now used by billions of people and serves as the mechanism supporting trillions of dollars of commerce, and turn it over to the diplomatic core, a group not noted for its ability to do anything other than talk and obstruct. Or, to put it another way, the IBSA proposal is based on the premise that the Internet is too important to leave to those people who know what they are doing. This would be a good way to ensure that the Internet of the future would not resemble the dynamic and innovative Internet we know today.

Currently the Internet is basically unregulated, from the point of view of traditional telecom regulators. Technical standards for Internet protocols and largely come from the (IETF), the (W3C) and many private companies. The Internet runs over new as well as traditional telecommunications standards from organizations such as the (IEEE) and the U.N.-based (ITU).

But there are no meaningful international Internet-specific regulations or policies. The (IGF) and the (ICANN) serve as voluntary multi-stakeholder forums for discussion and coordination of Internet policies and operation, but have little decisional power (on purpose). Both organizations held meetings last month in Africa.