said by ISurfTooMuch:
That may be true for us (U.S. citizens) but not for those in other countries. They don't vote in our elections, and they can't influence our politicians (whether we can is debatable, but we won't go there right now).
Finally, some ordinary citizens of other countries may not necessarily favor UN control, but they don't like the U.S. having absolute control, either, and they want another option.
Personally, I don't care what the UN or any government, ours included, wants. I think the best way forward is to come up with a solution that puts ultimate control in the hands of Internet users. One person, one vote, and keep the governments out of it. I don't know what that solution would look like, but I think it's doable.
One person, one vote, runs the risk of becoming "One person, one vote, one time", or as we see out of Chicago, "one person, voting early and often".
I don't like the US having "absolute" (we don't, by any measure) control either.
But until a proposal is offered that demonstrates a better approach, that doesn't strip us further of our basic rights and sovereignty, I don't see any reason to change the status-quo. Change for change sake doesn't achieve anything.
We don't need a "world body" ruling on commerce, employment, banking, religion, entertainment or communications. Its hard enough to have consensus on such with your next-door neighbor.