I'm going to reject the premise of this question, because I think it will lead to disagreement. I think you first need to ask what goals would a redesigned internet seek to fix/maximize. Would we be designing for increased security, with some sort of key exchange embedded into low-level protocols? Would we be designing for lack of control, where no country or corporation can gain undue control over a large part of the infrastructure? Would we be designing for future-proofing, to minimize the impact of migrations to improved protocols? Or would we focus on other problems that people feel exist in our current implementation?
Basically, there are a lot of things that people consider problematic about the internet, but not everyone agrees on that. Following the GRPI model (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/GRPI.html), we'd first need to align on the goals for this project. To skip right to the end result will result in people solving different problems and arriving at very different results.
Personally, I think the three areas I identified above are the most important goals for the redesign. I think core protocols, whether low-level, like TCP, or higher, like SMTP, should be designed to require encryption. I'd want to remove centralized organizations like ICANN and even well-behaving organizations like IANA and the regional registries. I don't know if its possible to prevent consolidation of internet infrastructure, like the long-haul backbones, but we could optimize protocols for mesh networks and local connections to make it as easy as possible to avoid last-mile monopolies.
One of the technologies that I think we could learn from would be BitCoin. While I'm not really in favor of it as a currency, you could use a similar strategy as a replacement for DNS registrations and IP assignments. With a large enough address space, you could simply "mine" the addresses you'd want to use in the same way that BitCoins are mined. And domain names could be mined in the same way. The blockchain would be huge, but you'd have a way to issue a signed route to your IP address.
Basically, there are a lot of things that people consider problematic about the internet, but not everyone agrees on that. Following the GRPI model (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/GRPI.html), we'd first need to align on the goals for this project. To skip right to the end result will result in people solving different problems and arriving at very different results.
Personally, I think the three areas I identified above are the most important goals for the redesign. I think core protocols, whether low-level, like TCP, or higher, like SMTP, should be designed to require encryption. I'd want to remove centralized organizations like ICANN and even well-behaving organizations like IANA and the regional registries. I don't know if its possible to prevent consolidation of internet infrastructure, like the long-haul backbones, but we could optimize protocols for mesh networks and local connections to make it as easy as possible to avoid last-mile monopolies.
One of the technologies that I think we could learn from would be BitCoin. While I'm not really in favor of it as a currency, you could use a similar strategy as a replacement for DNS registrations and IP assignments. With a large enough address space, you could simply "mine" the addresses you'd want to use in the same way that BitCoins are mined. And domain names could be mined in the same way. The blockchain would be huge, but you'd have a way to issue a signed route to your IP address.