The status quo has been very successful; don’t fix something that is not broken.  The current system for control of the internet has been successful in managing phenomenal growth in the internet with very few problems. ICANN has been a success precisely because it does not focus on politics but on making the internet as efficient as possible, in contrast the telecommunications sector remained static and costly for a long time as a result of government interference. [1] Experts such as Rajnesh Singh argue ICANN’s “multi-stakeholder approach has proven to be nimble and effective in ensuring the stability, security, and availability of the global infrastructure, while still giving sovereign nations the flexibility to enact and enforce relevant Internet legislation within their borders… This model has been a key contributor to the breathtaking evolution and expansion of the Internet worldwide.” [2] It is this openness that has contributed to the internet generating 10% of GDP growth in the rich world over the last fifteen years. [3]  The change to CIRP would cause a lot of disruption; it would mean changing the current bottom up model of regulation to a top down model such as that used by the ITU. [4] The White House has highlighted the likely effect this would have on the internet; “Centralized control over the Internet through a top-down government approach would put political dealmakers, rather than innovators and experts, in charge of the future of the Internet. This would slow the pace of innovation, hamper global economic development, and lead to an era of unprecedented control over what people can say and do online.” [5]  [1] ‘America rules OK’, The Economist, 6th October 2005.  [2] Kwang, Kevin, ‘’Multi-stakeholder’ management of Internet should stay’, ZDNet, 15 June 2012.  [3] ‘In praise of chaos’, The Economist, 1 October 2011.  [4] ‘OECD input to the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance’, OECD.  [5] Strickling, Lawrence, Verveer, Philip, and Weitzner, Daniel, ‘Ensuring an Open Internet’, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2 May 2012.