The UN is broadly as impartial and 'intelligent' as its voting members, which is kinda by design. The happy reality is that the UN is successful at most of the almost unimaginably diverse myriad of thing it's has to do. It seems to me to be a great choice for the role.

> voting members

Except 5, other countries don't have a permanent say in the system. The 5 can veto any resolution. The sad reality is that UN has been successful on various issues (while still failing on very many) despite being an utterly undemocratic establishment and that is constantly being used as an excuse to continue with the current system.

Five is the number of permanent members of the UN Security Concil which has nothing to do with things like managing internet.

Some kind of iana.int, perhaps?

It's really an unresolved question at the moment.

I agree that this should be under control of an international organization as long as this organization includes all countries and isn't a closed club of America's lapdogs.

it's only as impartial and intelligent as its members are.