This is actually a great interview - put some very fine touches on what have been somewhat elusive issues for a while (at least in my books). Last week, over at ICANNwatch, Ray Fasset posited "Why not the ITU?" Esther nails the answer in the interview (did I say "read it!" ?)...
"Okay, here's the scenario: it loses its contract with the US Department of Commerce, and its functions revert to the United States. Then there's a huge outcry from the EU and other governments saying, 'It's unconscionable that this thing be in the control of the US government,' which it would be. The US government then says, 'You're absolutely right. We'll hand it over to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)' - which has been holding meetings, making moves and planning how to take it over. ICANN will then become part of the ITU, which for years was basically lobbying against the very existence of the Internet. This will then have all the derived power of all the governments of the world. Then it could say, for example, 'These particular web sites which criticise governments should lose their domain names because they are not in the public interest'; that is, 'We're governments and we represent the public interest - and these sites are not in our interest.' The ITU will be successfully lobbied by trademark interests and, if it follows the US, trademark interests will impose much more restrictive rules than ICANN's dispute-resolution policy. There will be very, very little progress in anything. End of scenario."
More at OpenDemocracy...