It's an international idea that will be voted on in December - giving the UN more control over the internet.
Congress, if it knows what's good for it, will refuse to support it.
At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."
"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.
Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.
Next week's hearing is expected to bring more attention in the U.S. to the measure, which would give the UN more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web's address system. It would also allow foreign government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international traffic and allow for more price controls.
The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold the hearing and hear testimony from Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); David Gross, a former State Department official; and Sally Shipman Wentworth, the senior manager of public policy for the nonprofit Internet Society.
The Internet is currently governed under a "multi-stakeholder" approach that gives power to a host of nonprofits, rather than governments.
Strickling said that system brings more ideas and flexibility to Internet policymaking.
"We lose that when we turn this over to a group of just governments," Strickling said.
This is such a bad idea, it's hard to know where to begin. Rubio's warning is spot on - allowing China or Russia to regulate the internet would be ridiculous. And given the UN's track record, does anyone believe they wouldn't screw things up royally?
Excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the proposal can be found here.