A large and highly probable consequence of transferring ICANN’s authority to a UN body is censorship. America has lived with the freedom of speech for over 300 years, but not without exception. The first amendment explicitly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Radios and televisions, the most current mass media developments prior to the internet, have regulations in place by the Federal Communications Commission to censor inappropriate language or pictures from being used. The internet has not faced as near as much regulation to date, and Americans have enjoyed a universe of knowledge, opinions, art, and products at their fingertips. Censorship of the internet could occur, and not from a US commission, should the UN take its reigns.

Recently, at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s General Conference, the “Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions” was passed (US isolated over). Explicitly, it granted countries the authority to take whatever action is necessary to prevent a cultural breakdown or extinction. The power included, but was not limited to, blocking certain foreign imports that a country deemed dangerous to cultural growth (US isolated over). If the internet lay in the hands of an international body, it could censor what is allowed on the basis of cultural endangerment. The worry is not unjustified either, as Le Monde was quoted as saying, “They have called on the creators of tomorrow... to rise up against the dominant culture and block the American steamroller” when the aforementioned Convention was passed (US isolated over). The possibility of censorship extends beyond an attempt to break down America’s culture block.

Dictators, tyrants, and similar governments would stand to gain a two way control of information with ICANN being overseen by a UN body. The flow of information could be much more easily controlled so at to avoid Western ideals and beliefs from entering their borders. A mass spread of the freedoms possessed by citizens of America, France, England, etc. could easily undermine an autonomous government, and the internet certainly has the capabilities. Governments around the world already possess the power to regulate what parts of the internet are available to their citizens, however. China, for example, has policies in place which force major search engines, such as Google, to prevent its citizens from retrieving web pages that mention topics including, but not limited to, democracy and freedom (LET IT BE!). It is the control of information spread to other countries that can occur. Dictators with poor reputations, such as Kim Jong Il, will be able to have control on his image over the internet. The possible power is invaluable for rising or future despots, as having public sympathy could provide the means necessary to avoid run-ins with the United Nations, the US, or other peace keeping entities. Keeping ICANN intact would ensure that such a scenario does not unfold, but the current system is not perfect.