In demanding shared control of this resource, the Russian state information agency recently proclaimed, "it is still not quite clear how the World Wide Web came under the control of the United States."  In reality, it is quite clear that the Internet's creation was not an international effort.

The Internet ‘post office' was a project sponsored by the American government to organize the growing list of participants in the Department of Defense's ARPANET network (the Internet's precursor).  In 1998, operation of this system was transferred from the government to a California-based nonprofit, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  ICANN operates largely as an independent multinational organization; however, the U.S. government retains veto power.

Though ICANN exerts no influence on the flow of information across the Internet, it helps ensure that all information reaches its intended destination.  Without a centralized ‘post office,' it would be difficult to prevent two ‘houses' from being built with identical addresses.  If an address were removed from the system, however, a ‘house' (in reality a web site or e-mail server) would disappear, becoming completely invisible to other Internet users.

This explains why some countries are fighting for access to this "critical resource."  The ability to choose which sites "exist" on the Internet would be a powerful asset.  The continued existence of a web site could easily be made conditional on meeting arbitrary UN demands.  Consider the following scenarios suggested in a November 2005 editorial in the Columbus Dispatch:

"Some possible outcomes: China might demand that sites run by dissidents and Taiwan be suppressed. Russia would object to sites sympathetic to Chechen rebels. Cuba likely would object to sites run by Cuban exiles.

Nations might seek to ban sites that offend their religion or that they view as conduits for cultural pollution. Arab governments might demand that Israeli sites be barred. Various European nations, such as Germany, might seek to have sites banned as centers of hate speech."

The most vocal supporters of placing ICANN under UN control are totalitarian regimes with strong motivations to censor the Internet.  In a moment of remarkable candor, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe told the UN that management of the Internet should be used to prevent "nihilistic and disorderly freedom of expression." Similarly, Iran's minister of communication and information technology believes that "international authority" should be used to block the "propagation of falsehoods" on the Internet.

Under UN rules, these countries could be granted an opportunity to act on their intentions.  After all, the UN once ousted the U.S. from its Human Rights Commission, and at the same time granted seats to Sudan, Libya, and Syria.

Control over ICANN would also grant the UN with the power to tax web and e-mail traffic.  Failure to comply with international will could result in removal of any or all U.S. sites and servers from the Internet.  The international community has previously expressed support for these initiatives, such as a global e-mail tax proposed by the United Nations Development Program to "offset inequalities in the global community."

In addition to censorship and taxation, an international regulatory agency could also impose policies which devastate the Internet's growth.  Attempts to impose "Net neutrality" on U.S. broadband networks have stalled in the face of increasing evidence that such rules would degrade access and harm innovation.  A recent report from the Internet Governance Project, however, suggests that it might be possible to bypass the will of U.S. lawmakers, and push for an international "Net neutrality" regime.  According to IGP, "because Internet connectivity does not conform to national borders, Net neutrality is really a globally applicable principle that can guide Internet governance."