Consider the following examples:

During the 1970s and 1980s, a number of Third World countries used the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to press for a "new world information order." This grand-sounding project claimed that governments around the world needed to be more involved in "managing" information flows to better serve the "public interest." Part of this new order was the idea of forcing journalists to obtain government licensing in order to report the news. American journalists were quick to point out the dangers this system posed to media independence — if a reporter uncovers news a government doesn’t like, and exposes it, she could lose her license.
Bob and Hugo have this one down pat.
Despite continuous criticism from the Reagan administration for supporting this obvious bid to impose censorship, UNESCO persisted in supporting this drive for a "new order." In disgust, President Reagan pulled the U.S. out of UNESCO in 1984. (The U.S. rejoined just this year.)

In 1995, delegates attending a UNESCO-convened meeting on "Women and the Media" held in Toronto, Canada called for various forms of government control on the media. These included taking legislative action to combat the "predominantly male culture of the mainstream media" by passing laws mandating "gender-sensitive" hiring practices for media outlets. (This heavy-handed regulatory approach echoed again that year during a UN conference on women’s issues in Beijing].) This attitude does not suggest a very high appreciation on the UN’s part regarding the value of ensuring that media outlets are free from clumsy government interference.
This one doesn’t scare me, but I’m sure it would scare the Mullahs.

It's a camel's nose. The definition of a "media outlet" can be stretched every which way, to include blogs. And if there's a requirement to have a proportion of women, there's every precedent for a subsequent requirement to have, say, a proportion of South Asians, or Blacks, or Samoans. And after that to make sure there's a "representative" proportion of homosexuals. And a "representative" proportion of Protestants to Catholics to Muslims. And a "representative" slice of the political spectrum — how many commies and how many fascists have you hired lately? So it scares me. I might also point out that except for the terriblevision and radio, you can't tell a person's gender or color or sexual preference or height or weight by what he/she/it writes. F'rinstance, at least two of the people who comment regularly here are women, but I only know that from their e-mails to me, and was surprised to learn it in both cases.

The UN’s readiness to sympathize with supporters of censorship made an appearance last year. Its 2002 Human Development Report praised South Africa’s Human Rights Commission (a government-funded body) for persecuting journalists in 2000 who dared to write investigative reports of high-level corruption. The Commission slapped the journalists with trumped-up charges of "subliminal racism."

"Subliminal" = too faint to be seen by any but a trained observer...

The UN, bizarrely, said that this persecution helped to build "respect for human rights™."
Usually the main stream media censors itself against criticizing African governements.
Now, ICANN is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It could use some reform. But ICANN should not be scrapped simply to appease a few critics, without those critics explaining what they would substitute in its place.