# Why should the UN "control" the internet? Why not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990 "2005-10-06T02:18:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/41 "2005-10-07T14:21:26Z")
One other thing. > [@hildea](#): > > I also see some problems in having something with this much international relevance subject to the laws and politics of one specific country. The [.XXX domain](http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/ecommerce/0,39020372,39201556,00.htm) is one example. This is exactly the point. A country can relegate certain addresses to .xxx. The countries _already have control_ of what happens with their own domains. > [@Neurotik](#): > > I didn’t understand anything in that article, except that it looks like the world decided they were taking control and there’s nothing anyone in the US can do about it. Huh? No, you got it. That’s all there is. As I said, sound and fury. ---
**Author:** ![esquimalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@esquimalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esquimalt)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/42 "2005-10-07T14:36:24Z")
I honestly don’t know exactly what to make of all this. I tend to agree with the sentiment that it is working well don’t screw it up. A couple things in the Guardian article that troubled me a bit. "But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that “even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies”? No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN’s special adviser on internet governance. “There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users.” This part came after this - “A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused.” ---
**Author:** ![esquimalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@esquimalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esquimalt)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/43 "2005-10-07T14:49:40Z")
Here is another interesting take on the matter by a Canadian professor [Link](http://www.mgblog.com/resc/july112005.html.) ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/44 "2005-10-07T15:37:16Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > One other thing. > This is exactly the point. A country can relegate certain addresses to .xxx. The countries _already have control_ of what happens with their own domains. **.xxx** , if implemented, would as a gTLD necessarily be an _international_ affair. **.xxx.us** would not concern the non-US world, but that’s not what is being proposed. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/45 "2005-10-07T15:40:40Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I’m not aware of any track record of UN bureaucrats “meddling” with the ITU, which [existed independently](http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/history.html) for a century before the UN was formed. Surely, if these member countries wanted to mess with international telecommunications, they would’ve done something to the telephone or telegraph networks by now. Says ITU is operating within the United Nations System right there on the link you provided, and a trip to the United Nations Systems shows the UN logo and everything. I’m not sure exactly what ITU’s relationship to the UN is, but I guess the real issue is where does their money come from? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/46 "2005-10-07T15:50:29Z")
> [@esquimalt](#): > > Here is another interesting take on the matter by a Canadian professor > > [Link](http://www.mgblog.com/resc/july112005.html.) Thanks for the link. Ah, FFS. Who needs to actually do work, anyway? The “issues” identified by the WGIG (pdf report found [here](http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf)), ordered (by WGIG) by importance: [ol] [li]Administration of the root zone files and system[/li][li]Interconnection costs[/li][li]Internet stability, security and cybercrime[/li][li]Spam[/li][li]Meaningful participation in global policy development[/li][li]Capacity-building[/li][li]Allocation of domain names[/li][li]IP addressing[/li][li]Intellectual property rights (IPR)[/li][li]Freedom of expression[/li][li]Data protection and privacy rights[/li][li]Consumer rights[/li][li]Multilingualism[/li][/ol] As far as I can tell, numbers 1, 5, 7, 8, and 13 come down to “yes, it works, but we’re indignant that we can’t control it ourselves”. Numbers 2, 6, are “we don’t have the money to do it ourselves”. Numbers 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are “we’re not sure what the problem is (if there really is one at all), but we’re indignant that we can’t control it ourselves”. The only ones I think have merit (and this is purely personal opinion that could be changed) are at the bottom of the list – numbers 11 and 13. Essentially, I think Dr. Geist has at least the first part of his closing sentence correct: > [@](#): > > Stripped to the core, however, the issue is now simply about control – control over core functions of the Internet and control over the policy making levers that impact Internet free speech, privacy, and e-commerce. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/47 "2005-10-07T15:58:07Z")
> [@tschild](#): > > **.xxx** , if implemented, would as a gTLD necessarily be an _international_ affair. **.xxx.us** would not concern the non-US world, but that’s not what is being proposed. Right. But, as I read it, that’s not really the issue. Who cares if there’s another TLD, so long as it doesn’t pre-empt another one? What country is going to have a .xxx extension? The great people’s republic of Xxxanistan? The issue (from the link provided earlier) is “One worry is that some nations may force sites dealing with sensitive topics like homosexuality or birth control into the .XXX zone, where they can be easily blocked.” Yeah, and? As I said, the countries themselves have control. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/48 "2005-10-07T16:24:01Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I’m not aware of any track record of UN bureaucrats “meddling” with the ITU, which [existed independently](http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/history.html) for a century before the UN was formed. Surely, if these member countries wanted to mess with international telecommunications, they would’ve done something to the telephone or telegraph networks by now. The ITU, formerly the CCITT, has a long history of being a politicized disaster area. It does not represent the interests of users, researchers, or private/commercial networks. The only people with power are representatives of governments. Even AT&T, back when it was “Ma Bell”, was only an observer. Many of its standards were designed to further the political and economic agendas of government-owned telecommunications monopolies. Their standards have also often been baroque, expensive, vague, and poorly written. Ask an engineer about X.25, X.400 and other examples of their work. The IETF was largely a reaction to the incompetence and uselessness of the ITU. ---
**Author:** ![Oslo\_Ostragoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a9a28c/32.png) [@Oslo\_Ostragoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oslo_Ostragoth)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/49 "2005-10-08T23:26:43Z")
[Neal Boortz](http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html) has this to say: > [@](#): > > We won’t go into depth here, but you need to know that the machinery is in motion to turn the operational control of the Internet over to the United Nations. Here’s a link for you to read the story. > > Where can this go? Let’s consider for just a moment that document that Bill Clinton called the greatest document ever written by man in support of human rights and freedom. That would the the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document is supposed to be the great international blueprint for human rights around the world. The document says that it represents “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Does the UN Declaration of Human Rights protect free speech? Freedom of the press? Well … in a word, yes it does. Article 19 says that everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. So far so good. The declaration also says that everyone has a right to rest and leisure and a right to a standard of living. Interesting. It also says that all mothers and children are entitled to “special care and assistance.” > > Problematic, to say the least. But, let’s cut to the chase. Let’s go to Article 29 Paragraph 3. “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” > > Do you need to read that again? Please do. It’s critical. This one clause negates every single right recognized in this so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” You have no freedom of speech. You have no freedom of expression. You have no right to own property. You have no right to your precious standard of living … you have nothing … not one thing if your exercise of those rights interfere with the goals of the United Nations. > > Now … back to the Internet. When the United Nations gains control just how far will it go? Will it start censoring the Internet to make sure that nobody posts any information or opinions that might interfere with the "purposes and principles of the United Nations?There is talk, for instance, of a world-wide income tax on the wealthy to fund UN operations. Would anyone be allowed to post an opinion in opposition to this scheme? > > Are you worried? You should be. But then maybe you’re more concerned about this evening’s top story on Entertainment Tonight. ---
**Author:** ![hildea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ebca7d/32.png) [@hildea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hildea)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/50 "2005-10-09T00:09:33Z")
Too bad Neal Boortz stopped reading after §29. 'Cause §30 says: > [@Universal Declaration of Human Rights](#): > > Article 30. > > Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. I don’t think you need to fear the blue helmets kicking in your door just yet, **Oslo**. You have a point, **mks57**. At least, I remember X.400 as a rather bulky protocol. Would you mind mention briefly what was wrong with X.25? Feel free to be technical – it’s not my core field, but close enough that I ought to understand the lingo. Do you see the same problems in ITU now that the government-owned monopolies mostly are history? Your comments illustrate an important point: Choices about technology are seldom only about tech, it _is_ a political, ideological, and economical area. I do agree that a forum that’s dominated by only one kind of actors is ill suited for staking out the course for all of us. Ideally, these decisions should be influenced by governments, operators, vendors, and (perhaps most of all) users. It could well be that ITU isn’t the best forum for this. However, a forum that’s dominated by different actors from one nation is at least as biased as one that’s dominated by one kind of actors, but from all nations. **Digital Stimulus** , you are right in that different nations are free to use the .XXX domain how they like. But the point you are missing is that the creation of the .XXX domain is in itself a political and ideological choice. The domain is a tool that’s useful for censoring. Period. (Admittedly, it’s also useful in helping people to find porn on the Internet, but I’ve never heard anyone complaing that porn’s too hard to find…) Now, you might argue that _“protecting our kids from … awful, awful filth”_ is a noble and worthwhile goal, and that .XXX is therefore a good thing. My point is that whether we should incorporate tools for censoring in the fabric of Internet is an issue that concerns everybody who use the net, and therefore it’s **not** a good thing that such choices are made by one single nation on behalf of us all. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/51 "2005-10-09T02:57:21Z")
> [@black455](#): > > I don’t necessarily see a problem with it. > > The area of conflict that’s most likely to raise patriotic hackles is probably the question of the TLDs, but from a technical perspective, the biggest problem is IP addresses. You can limp along without a domain name, but it’s a helluva lot harder to use the Internets without an IP. > > ICANN/IANA _already_ delegates internal address space control to the RIRs, and I don’t see why the ITU can’t take over that function. Hell, let em run the TLDs, too, provided they grandfather in the current configuration. > > When everybody finally takes the leap to IPv6, it’d be dead simple to divy up the address blocks according to population, assign permanent, country-specific TLDs, and let the regional agencies take over. But that probably makes too much sense. Wow. Can you cross-patch all that to the main deflector dish, running it through the tachyonic resonating buffer first, to provide a temporal quantum inverted flux cascade? 😉 My big question is this: _if_ control of the internet were to be turned over to the U.N., is there any way they could control what they consider “politically unacceptable” websites in any given country? Like anti-U.N. web-sites? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/52 "2005-10-09T03:31:56Z")
> [@hildea](#): > > **Digital Stimulus** , you are right in that different nations are free to use the .XXX domain how they like. But the point you are missing is that the creation of the .XXX domain is in itself a political and ideological choice. Only as much as the .com or .biz TLDs are. This would fall into the “we’re not sure what the problem is (if there really is one at all), but we’re indignant that we can’t control it ourselves” category I mentioned earlier. At this point, there’s nothing broke about it and it doesn’t need fixing. When there are signs that some egregious action might be taken, then I’ll be as up in arms about it as anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/53 "2005-10-09T04:54:06Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > My big question is this: _if_ control of the internet were to be turned over to the U.N., is there any way they could control what they consider “politically unacceptable” websites in any given country? Like anti-U.N. web-sites? No more than the US can control politically unacceptable or anti-US sites in other countries today. They could perhaps shut down the DNS for an entire top-level domain (meaning that, say, you wouldn’t be able to access an Iranian site by typing www.foo.ir, you’d have to know the numeric IP address), but shutting it down for a particular web site would be much more complicated and would have negative effects on other sites in that TLD. In any case, if that were to happen, the rest of the world would probably be shaken up for a while, but soon enough someone would set up their own alternative root servers and everyone would switch. In fact, I’d say the types of attacks that _are_ easy to implement (like shutting down the DNS for an entire country) are more likely to be launched by an individual nation, not the UN. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > [**hildea** : “But the point you are missing is that the creation of the .XXX domain is in itself a political and ideological choice.”] > > Only as much as the .com or .biz TLDs are. Not really. First because .com isn’t some closet that businesses are swept into–anyone can get a .com domain whether they’re an individual, a business, or any other organization, and a business can get a domain in .net, .org, .cx, .tv, or most other domains–but mainly because no one is going to block all .com addresses; that would be insane. The whole purpose of .xxx, on the other hand, is to force all adult sites into one easily-blocked domain. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/54 "2005-10-09T06:00:53Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > The whole purpose of .xxx, on the other hand, is to force all adult sites into one easily-blocked domain. No, it’s [voluntary](http://www.icmregistry.com/). A country/ISP/individual can do what they like with addresses in the domain, but no one is being forced into it. Unless you’re arguing that anyone should be able to get an address in any domain (including a .mil or .gov)? Certain domains have criteria for their use; that’s a good thing. There should probably be more of them, not less. But even if not a single one more is established, or ICANN goes on a TLD assigning rampage – so what? As I’ve said, I think it’s just a “we don’t control it but we want to” mindset. ---
**Author:** ![hildea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ebca7d/32.png) [@hildea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hildea)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/55 "2005-10-09T08:29:21Z")
You’re still missing the point, **Digital Stimulus**. The purpose of a knife is to cut things. Noone’s forcing anyone to use knives to cutting things. I’ve got a knife in some closet that’s still in its orignal package and has never been used for cutting anything. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a tool made for cutting things. It’s not made for anything else, and it’s not useful for anything else. The .XXX domain is a tool for censoring. Like a knife, I can choose not to use it. If I’m lucky (and I am) I live in a country where the government is unlikely to use it, too. But that doesn’t alter the fact that _the only purpose of .XXX is to make censoring easier_. Some nations (and ISPs, and parents, and whatever) will use it, some won’t. You may agree or disagree with the censoring goal, of course. What I’m trying to make you see is that deciding to create the .XXX domain is _not_ an ideologically neutral choice. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Unless you’re arguing that anyone should be able to get an address in any domain (including a .mil or .gov)? Certain domains have criteria for their use; that’s a good thing. I agree, that’s a good thing. But that’s not what we are discussing here. We’re looking at the opposite problem. Not everybody can get at .mil domain. But if you make a website [about the military](http://www.military.com/), there’s zero chance of you being forced to use a .mil domain. Say the military was treated like porn on internet. There was a two click rule on SDMB about linking to websites with explicit military content. You might add a “not safe for work” warning if you linked to a site which had pop-ups of people in green. Politicians were talking about protecting our children from the “awful, awful filth of military websites”. In that kind of climate, wouldn’t you be the tiniest bit leery of someone who advocated a new .war domain? You wouldn’t worry that this new domain would be a godsend for those who wanted to censor military content? And if you could see _no_ purpose to the .war domain apart from making censoring easier, would you still say that people who wanted a say in whether the .war domain was created or not were only motivated by a _“we don’t control it but we want to” mindset_? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/56 "2005-10-09T14:39:03Z")
> [@](#): > > **hildea** said: > But that doesn’t alter the fact that the only purpose of .XXX is to make censoring easier. If you’re going to say this, you might as well say that the existence of any TLD has the sole purpose of making censorship easier. The TLDs were, and still are, designed to organize the hierarchy of the DNS namespace such that it can be more effectively managed by dividing up the burden of second-level domain name to nameserver mappings between various TLD nameservers throughout the world. Certain nameservers exist to provide those mappings for each of the TLDs, and the addition of more TLDs means that you can increase the number of servers over which the database is distributed easily and in logical manner. Also, if you weren’t aware, namespace is running short. Just about every English language dictionary word has a domain attached to it at this point in time. The creation of more TLDs opens up more new namespace and furthers the growth of the Internet by allowing millions of new possibilities for domains to be created. Clearly there are other purposes to opening a new TLD, even one that you don’t like the name of, than censorship and repression. You may not have considered them, but there they are. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/57 "2005-10-09T14:43:34Z")
> [@hildea](#): > > You’re still missing the point, **Digital Stimulus**. No, really. I’m not. > [@](#): > > But that doesn’t alter the fact that _the only purpose of .XXX is to make censoring easier_. No, really. It isn’t. From the earlier link: > [@ICM Registry](#): > > The online adult-entertainment industry wants to create an identifiable space with which its members can elect to associate themselves and wherein they can responsibly self-organize and create guidelines to promote credible self-regulation. In other words, another purpose is to provide a certain community the ability to exert their own standards. As I said, this is a good thing and there should probably be more of it. > [@](#): > > What I’m trying to make you see is that deciding to create the .XXX domain is _not_ an ideologically neutral choice. If by “ideologically neutral”, you mean “there is some characteristic content that distinguishes these web pages from other web pages”, I’ll agree. I’d be happy if some group successfully petitioned for a .xtian (or .muslim, .taoist, .wiccan, etc.) TLD. (Although I guarantee that .xxx is more in demand.) But I think It’s a convenience, facilitating naming options. Can you come up with one other (preferably more) example where this might _actually_ be a problem that needs to be addressed? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/58 "2005-10-09T15:01:03Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > No, really. I’m not. > > No, really. It isn’t. From the earlier link: > > In other words, another purpose is to provide a certain community the ability to exert their own standards. As I said, this is a good thing and there should probably be more of it. > > If by “ideologically neutral”, you mean “there is some characteristic content that distinguishes these web pages from other web pages”, I’ll agree. I’d be happy if some group successfully petitioned for a .xtian (or .muslim, .taoist, .wiccan, etc.) TLD. (Although I guarantee that .xxx is more in demand.) But I think It’s a convenience, facilitating naming options. > > Can you come up with one other (preferably more) example where this might _actually_ be a problem that needs to be addressed? If you do not understand that A) A xxx domain would be a powerful weapon for censorship B) Political forces in all countries would seize on that weapon as soon as they could you are not paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/59 "2005-10-09T15:08:05Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > If you do not understand that > > A) A xxx domain would be a powerful weapon for censorship > B) Political forces in all countries would seize on that weapon as soon as they could > > you are not paying attention. Correction: A) A xxx domain _could_ be a powerful weapon for censorship if it were not voluntary. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990/60 "2005-10-09T15:11:03Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Wow. Can you cross-patch all that to the main deflector dish, running it through the tachyonic resonating buffer first, to provide a temporal quantum inverted flux cascade? 😉 You forgot to reverse the polarity … 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-the-un-control-the-internet-why-not/324990.md?page=4)