EDventure on ICANN: "One thing that seems clear is that it needs to figure out how to give up control of ICANN entirely. That's a hard thing to do, but I think it's necessary. When I was chairman - and after - I didn't think the USG role mattered that much. It certainly wasn't telling us what to do....But now I think that it's past time for the USG to have the courage to let go."

I agree, but with one caveat. If the U.S. government gives up control and ICANN becomes "a real boy" in the private sector at last, the U.S. should have some assurance that ICANN will remain private. In other words, a completely free ICANN could pick up and move out of the United States entirely, turn its authority over to some other government (or coalition of governments, like the UN or ITU), or increase the role of the GAC to the point where the private sector no longer mattered. I don't think that's likely, but I also don't think I'd feel comfortable giving up the last vestiges of control without assurances that a private ICANN would stay private.

What I would propose is that the U.S. government place the ICANN resources now under U.S. control in a trust of some sort to be managed exclusively by ICANN (and a certain kind of ICANN; one that met the elements of the White Paper, was private-sector led, with appropriate checks and balances, and bound to perform in the public interest). I would hold a contingent reversionary interest in the trust res so control would revert back to the U.S. if ICANN tried to place itself within the control of the GAC, the UN, the ITU or some other government entity.