It seems that some other countries are worried about American imperialist hegemony with regards to the internet. So, morally speaking, other countries should be able to have joint control over it to make sure that nothing bad happens. It sounds all so wonderful. Well, until you look at who wants it, and when you realize that they just might get it.

The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive issue, and for 11 days the world’s governments traded blows. For the vast majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is getting on it. But with the internet now essential to countries’ basic infrastructure – Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection – the question of who has control has become critical.

And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it.

But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet’s foundation – its “root servers”, which act as the basic directory for the whole internet.

A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting “was going nowhere”, Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a “cooperation model” comprising governments that would be in overall charge.

Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it “can’t in any way allow any changes” that went against the “historic role” of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.

But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world’s governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.

But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that “even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies”?

No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN’s special adviser on internet governance. “There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users.”

Hendon is also adamant: “The really important point is that the EU doesn’t want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework.”

Ah, good wholesome countries like China, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia all want their part in controlling the flow of information around the world. Countries that are doing this out of the indignant moral righteousness of preventing any one superpower from controlling a basis of the world economy. If it’s shared, then there’s no way that the U.S. could blackmail the world like it obviously plans to.

I have a really good idea though: let’s just give it to them. However, there will be conditions. They have to prove that their governments uphold at least equally the personal and economic freedoms and rights that American citizens enjoy. Only then should the U.S. government even consider ceding an iota of control over the internet to other governments. If they can’t stack up, then they don’t get a say, because when it comes down to it, all of these governments only want control because they want to stamp out dissent and the flow of information and commerce.