US vows to keep internet in competent hands

Open note to the UN: SHUT UP! Everyone capable of rational thought knows you destroy everything you touch! Get your FILTHY, STINKING, hands off of my internet!

Now I feel so much better

In the News Of The Day, the US refused to give control of the internet over to countries like Sudan (genocide, corruption, and all-around death), Zimbabwe (kills white people, politically-caused starvation, and genocide), the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo (killed all the democratic people, then killed the rest of the people – the republic is just a term it holds on to, and genocide), North Korea (nukes, oppression, politically-caused starvation, deathcamps, and genocide in that let's-just-kill-everyone way), Venezuela (kills people from Columbia, the leader is a raving lunatic, horrible corruption, and just generally unfettered murder whenever government officials feel like it), China (murder of political opponents and people "not wearing enough red", extreme censorship of the internet, upwards of 95% of China's software is pirated, genocide when it comes to Tibet), Russia (upwards of 90% of software is pirated; one of the world's highest suicide rates; haven for software piracy, hacking, launching/controlling viruses, and spam), and a handful of others.
What do all those countries have in common? Let's try a checklist of things that should not happen in a country, and determine how those nations stack up compared to the US.
__ genocide
__ civil war was started by government, rather than by a rebel group
__ murder by government officials outside of law enforcement duties
__ current leader assassinated predecessor
__ current leader assassinated family of predecessor
__ current leader assassinated appointed successor and/or family thereof
__ political imprisonment
__ silencing of anyone who opposes the government
__ silencing of anyone who does not show enough support for the government
__ corruption so common and extreme that no one tries to hide it
__ the population is starving, but government officials are gaining weight
__ companies are run by the government, rather than by qualified managers
__ private property laws impotent when government officials say otherwise
__ companies and/or parts of government are run by organized crime
__ companies seized by government without adequate reason
__ parts of government seized by other parts of government without adequate reason
__ elections obviously rigged, but the government claims legitimacy
__ elections obviously rigged, but government-controlled media proclaims legitimacy
__ healthcare exists only in the capital – ie, for government officials only
__ education exists only in the capital – ie, for government officials only
__ government blames a nation thousands of miles away for all problems
__ blamed foreign government sends million in aid
__ aid sent by blamed foreign government ends up entirely in government's coffers
__ UN sanctions are in place on country
__ UN sanctions on country are circumvented
__ country helps any other country circumvent UN sanctions placed on the other country

I believe the listed countries meet much of the criteria on the list. In other words: they are the type of countries that should have no international responsibilities whatsoever. But would any control of the internet actually be given to them; and if so, why? Strictly speaking, they would not get control of the internet (or more accurately, the Domain Name Service, which is the backbone of the internet). Rather, the non-profit company that controls the Domain Name Service (DNS) would be free of US oversite. Over time, however, it is likely that the company would be increasingly dragged into the UN's grasp, where it would be slaughtered in a fashion reminiscent of the BTK killer (maybe Jack The Ripper, for brits).
Mind you, this would not be the first time the UN wrecks havoc with the internet. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – which appears to include everyone on the list above; yes, even North Korea – saw the internet as a problem waiting to be solved and is the creator of such notorious things. Such things include the "notice and takedown" rule, which requires internet service providers (ISPs) to remove any website that is claimed to display anything copyrighted without permission – no proof is needed, just the claim. The website will go down in a day, and can take weeks, sometimes even months, to get back up, and sometimes even require going to court. Scientologists have used this to remove thousands of websites which are critical to them, hence the everlasting battle Scientology Vs. The Internet. Diebold, which made voting machines for the 2004 election, claimed that leaked memos detailing Diebold's illegal response to voting machine failure were copyrighted and had websites which published the memos taken down. I do not believe the memos were copyrighted, but that does not matter in this particular law. Fortunately, WIPO's power is quite limited.
If the UN injected its corruption, unreliability, and incompetence into the internet, then countries or groups of countries would use their own DNS servers, and break the internet into chunks. Those chunks may not be compatible with each other. Among the problems that have a good chance of occurring, that is probably the worst. The internet would not be killed, but it would be disjointed, and that would the global accessibility and freedom that makes the internet as great as it is.