"But if we believe in free speech, we ought to keep control of the Internet away from foreign governments that value it far less than we do."

Oh. Sorry. Yeah, I forgot that for a moment. The last (and the current..) administration of the US of A certainly showed that they value freedom, and personal rights, on a really high level. Now - mod me troll for this all you want. I would always stand up against any single country claiming to be better (Yeah, it's not the country that claims the thing, it's just a lousy CS student). The whole idea is flawed. Who's right or wrong isn't a question that can be answered easily.
The current model just "solves" this issue by favoring one country, for historical reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the decisions (from the article) taken are hard and that they are made arbitrary.

The whole point of the story is: If someone needs to arbitrary decide about the internet, it should be us (We have the First Amendment! Hail us!).

I argue that an international body would be less biased and more "free". Isn't that what the constitution over there is about?

The worst part for me (Disclaimer: Not from the US) is, that you just think of the protocol and law first. It seems you don't think about the effects, consequences and you seem to be consent.
I (hard a hard time to resist writing "for one" after this) won't ever, in my whole life, visit a country that treats me as a criminal at the border. Yeah, I never visited the states and never will unless this is rectified.
Funny sidenote: Israel is a borderline country regarding any rights. Boarding a plane to IL involves annoying people asking you for your intentions and connections to the country, reasons to travel there. Armed guards with UMPs guard the room after you check in (twice, because you have to work yourself through the usual checkin first and then the Israeli guys think they can do it better). Everything in your luggage is taken apart (most/all of it in front of you, though). My fingerprints and personal details aren't recorded though.
See - I HATE going through that procedure and I wouldn't visit Israel if the job wouldn't require it. I feel insulted everytime I have to go through this.
But - and here's the catch - the procedure doesn't involve me giving something unalterable personal details to strangers. US of A, you fail.

It's a poor "Alliance", where _offensive_ actions have to be backed up by all members of the treaty.
See - there are good reasons to call that action "necessary", but about the same number of reasons to call this a major mistake.
Sidenote: You DO understand that the NATO treaty is about _defense_, right? Invading a country for immoral/suspicious reasons is not covered. Sorry.

Sorry..
"Citation needed".

Your opinion is _vastly_ different from mine: Military intervention is almost never useful at all.

Neither is backed up yet.