Whether we like it or not, this is a very large question for the world. The Internet and other ways of connecting on a cyber level, as evidenced by even this website itself and programs such as AIM and IRC, is quickly becoming the new medium. Blogging's half-assed transition into an independant journalism and other expressions through this plane are transforming into the new 6'o clock news. That being said, one can't samply refute a question such as this with 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It needs a bit more depth. Although I do agree with the above statement, I believe that are far more important reasons that the Internet shouldn't be transferred into the UN. It seems to me that this transfer from a system that works and is sealed away from the government by apathy and red tape, to a transfer that would keep such a system in through red tape, would be disasterous. Countries that don't respect the right of free speech or don't allow it could try to force censorships, or even make the internet politically correct. Countries, the biggest of our worries seeming to be China, would only slow the internet down if we gave it to the UN. I think that the beaurocracy would only muddle the internet and cripple it, if not alter it in ways that it shouldn't. I'm not saying it should stay in the hands of the US. I'm saying it should stay out of the hands of the UN.