Private investors have invested tens of billions of dollars over the past decade in Internet-related businesses partly because such investments would help to build an international communications system and because the Internet would remain beyond the regulatory reach of ordinary governments. Most governments would now beg to differ with both assumptions.

A few weeks ago, the aptly named World Summit on the Information Society, an initiative of the United Nations and its subsidiary organization the International Telecommunications Union, met in Tunis. There government officials from practically every country in the world gathered to consider new methods for international control of the administration of the Internet.

In the months leading up to the Tunis meeting, many developing countries and ultimately the European Union demanded international control of a small administrative organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which coordinates such matters as Internet address assignments. ICANN has an international board that meets at venues around the world. ICANN is not – to the dismay of much of Congress and the Bush administration – controlled by our government.

Although it initially had few allies, the Bush administration persuaded the European Union and others during the autumn months that U.N. control of the Internet was in no one’s interest but the United Nations’. It would have turned ICANN from a small professional organization into a large bloated political institution with many objectives other than the efficient operation of the Internet. The Bush administration rightfully claimed a victory in averting this disaster in Tunis.

But the Tunis meeting was more than just a review of ICANN. The United Nations and the ITU both claim unequivocal victory in Tunis. The ITU describes a “breakthrough” agreement with the following principles:

* “All governments should play an equal role and have equal responsibility for Internet governance while ensuring its continuing stability, security and continuity;

* “nations should not be involved in decisions regarding another nation’s country code top level domain; and

* “there is a need for strengthened cooperation among stakeholders for public policies for generic top level domain names.”

These goals are not for the indefinite future. “The process of moving towards such enhanced cooperation will be initiated by the end of Q1 2006.” These goals cannot be reached by ICANN, America, or any individual government. They are predicated on international coordination of an intrusive form that only the United Nations can possibly provide.

The ITU goes further and proclaims: “Another important element of the Tunis output document is the creation of a new Internet Governance Forum (IGF), to be convened by the UN Secretary-General, to foster and enable multi-stakeholder dialogue on public policy and development issues.” In plain English: The United Nations wants control of the Internet. Although the ITU clearly states that the new governance forum will have no authority over Internet governance, the protests are but the pretexts of future U.N. initiatives. As the ITU observes: “The principles and elements agreed at Tunis mark the turning of a new page in the ongoing internationalization of Internet governance.”

The United Nations is not merely interested in controlling Internet governance. It wants developed countries to subsidize government investment in developing countries. “The document welcomes the creation of the Digital Solidarity Fund. It underlines the importance of providing quality, affordable communication access to all citizens, and notes the inequalities that presently exist.”

The ITU and the secretary-general are not the only U.N. player that covet control of the Internet. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization was also an active participant at the meeting. It sponsored a “political and strategies” roundtable to promote its “UNESCO World Report 2005: Towards Knowledge Societies.” The report, which America opposed, is a blueprint for U.N. interference with the Internet and intellectual property rights. UNESCO has such troubling recommendations as: “widen the content available for universal access of knowledge” and “intensify the creation of partnerships for digital solidarity.”

These reports – written as Marxist texts filled with redistributive propaganda and an aggrandized view of expanded U.N. meddling – are scary. Few countries actively oppose these documents; all too many actively support them. The same countries seek expanded private investment, particularly for Internet-related activities. Such investment is difficult to rationalize.

A former FCC commissioner, Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is president of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com.