The supporters of this plan have obviously been fed lies about the UN "taking over the internet" . I think some light needs to be shed on this. This is old news : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4441544.stm THE UN IS NOT GOING TO TAKE OVER . . . at least not anytime soon ! It might be a blessing however if Commerce steps in and sets some things straight AGAIN. With that said, let's quit the scare tactics . Pushing the approval of a bad setllement to avoid a worse fate is a great tactic. I think we're all too familiar with this tactic in politics, but the simple fact is that there is no truth to the UN gaining control over the internet. Let's try and refocus on the issue of granting an inherent monoply even more power to raise pricing, control AND sell the registry data and extremely valuable traffic data . The technology that is used to maintain a registry likely hasn't changed since verisign began the registry so why has it become more expensive to run and why do they think it will become more expensive instead of less expensive ? Why is the .net registry services cheaper per name to run than .com ? Litigation does cost money, but if Verisign and stuck to the rules of their contract in the first place we wouldn't be in this position would we ? Scare tactics don't hide the obvious flaws in this proposed back-room deal. ICANN not being able to enforce the rules and Verisign doing as they please really doesn't seem too much different to me than putting the UN in control anyway. Keep trying to scare us. It's obvious by the "In support" posts that these all came from the same "script".