Even if you can successfully make the case that some body more "international" than ICANN should be running things, I wonder *why* you would want that body to be under the control of the UN.
The UN! Where China has a veto and counties led by dictators are known to work as a block and try to pass resolutions that attact democracies. Isn't China exerting enough influence already (getting Google, MSN, et al. to block news about "democracy" and "freedom")?
The UN! Yes, lets give our free-est form of communication over to a government representing other governments to control.
FTA: "Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you can successfully make the case that some body more "international" than ICANN should be running things, I wonder *why* you would want that body to be under the control of the UN.
The UN! Where China has a veto and counties led by dictators are known to work as a block and try to pass resolutions that attact democracies. Isn't China exerting enough influence already (getting Google, MSN, et al. to block news about "democracy" and "freedom")?
The UN! Yes, lets give our free-est form of communication over to a government representing other governments to control.
FTA: "Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."
*where they need to be* that sounds reassuring.