UN wants to control the InternetWizbang points out this good post by Meryl Yourish on why the UN having any control over the Internet is bad idea. It is actually worse than her analysis. There are a variety of reasons why this is a bad idea, some of which she hits on the head. Here is my short list.
1. Constraint of the freedom of speech. By this I mean out and out oppression of certain types of speech. For proof see this LGF article on the insanity of European "sensitivity". Do we really need to ban Pooh and Piglet from the Internet or our places of business?
2. Defamation and Libel laws. We have a different sense of the law in these matters and allowing the UN any control over the Internet could supplant our own laws prohibiting me from declaring that the "President" of Syria is a terrorist and a thug, for instance.
3. Domain Name Registration. We have a privately managed system that is controlled by US law on who can and cannot control certain domains. This system is imperfect but pretty darn good. Can you imagine the EU being in charge of this process? Instead of $8/domain/year it would be $800, with all profits going to Saddam's remaining buddies.
4. Taxes. There are currently no fees in the US imposed by our government for access to the Internet. This is true for dial-up accounts, home broadband, coffee shop access, work access, or use at your local library. Do you think that would remain the case if the UN had any say? This is the only thing I do on a regular basis besides sex with my wife that isn't explicitly taxed. I, for one, would like to keep it that way.
There are more, but this is the top 4 that the average non-geek can easily comprehend. The list gets much longer for those of us who deal with the IETF and other such standard's bodies on a regular basis.