There are some people who think when it comes to DNS ICANN should basically be frozen - no new gTLDs, no wildcard DNS, no supporting domain name seizure, no price or policy changes, and so on. Just delegating to each TLD's providers, and maybe some policing of providers' behaviour.

If you believe that, hypothetically the best choice would be some sort of private nonprofit, independent of the government but bound to inaction by charter.

Whether being directly controlled by government would be an improvement is somewhat debatable - would lawmakers be reasonably hands-off, like they are with things like GPS and NIST time services? Or would the opportunity to block pornhub/piratebay/wikileaks prove irresistible?

> bound to inaction by charter

That's probably too extreme, but I love it as a starting point / baseline!

What's the problem supposed to be with new TLDs?

You can read more at [1] - in short, critics of the new gTLDs would argue that:

1. It doesn't deliver the claimed increase the supply of domain names, as no-one would build a business or brand on whatever.info without securing whatever.com

2. It does shake down domain registrants for cash - if you already own whatever.com you'd better get whatever.info and whatever.sucks before someone else squats them.

3. These factors mean .info domains and suchlike are a stereotype of sketchy sites, which is a negative feedback loop.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICANN&oldid=93014...

> At least the goal of the public sector is to serve the public whereas the goal of the private sector is to serve the interests of there shareholders.

Goal, yes. In the abstract. Unfortunately, humans run everything. Most humans are decent and will try to uphold the public good. Some get into positions of control and decide they can profit off of it, so why not?

Society's constant struggle is to keep these greedy F*'s from screwing the rest of us. Just like freedom must be paid for, so must we constantly root out corruption and greed.