"The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community."

"President Obama intends to do so on his own authority – just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him.  The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton’s Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet."

A statement of Donald Trump's opposition to Obama's "Plan to Surrender American Internet Control to Foreign Powers."

The U.S. created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship – a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution’s Free Speech clause. Internet freedom is now at risk with the President’s intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost.

I cannot understand Obama's policy or his willingness to act alone.

What is Hillary Clinton's position? Politico's article on Trump's statement ends says:

Hillary Clinton, in her tech policy platform, says she supports the transition as a "critical step towards safeguarding the internet’s openness for future generations."

How is the change a safeguard? Is this Newspeak? Here's the context, from her website. See if you can fathom this:

Promote Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance: Hillary believes that internet governance – the coordination of the technical systems that allow the internet to function seamlessly across the globe – should be left to the global community of engineers, companies, civil society groups, and internet users, and not to governments. That is why as Secretary of State she championed the “multistakeholder approach” to internet governance and vigorously fought back against efforts by national governments to control the internet through government-led multilateral organizations, such as the International Telecommunications Union. She supports the Department of Commerce’s plans to formally transition its oversight role in the management of the Domain Name System to the global community of stakeholders, viewing the transition as a critical step towards safeguarding the internet’s openness for future generations. She will continue to fight to defend the internet from government takeover and to empower those internet governance organizations that advance internet openness, freedom, and technical innovation.

ADDED: Here's the Wikipedia article on "multistakeholderism." It includes this quote from a critic of the idea:

"In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."

I'm not an expert on this notion. Perhaps Hillary could be asked to explain it at the debate that occurs before October 1st.