We've recently seen what's happening in the EU where a publication in one country offends the sensitive in another member country and arrest warrents are issued. What would happen to the net should the UN be 'in charge'?

This latest proposal strives to have the ineffectual ITU re-emerge into prominence, maybe via controls over VOIP. Remember the glory days of the ITU in telecom in the late 80s earliest 90s? The cognescenti running the ITU were mandating deployment of the over-engineered, underperforming OSI protocol stacks. Meanwhile, without the 'benefits' of ITU guidance and oversight in the unfettered real world TCP/IP stole the day. Result, a free speaking Internet, much to the dismay of those favoring strong central planning. Why an org that has demonstrably outlived its usefulness should be given the reigns of control is a mystery. The pro arguement cites the ITU's long existance. To me that's just another example of an autocratic org outliving its productive usefulness.

Do YOU want Kofi Annan and the elite of Belgium* deciding what you can and cannot say?

-p (not I, said the cat)

* I do believe that Tim, Founder of the Web, is a Belgian, so we should not nuke that country