Tunisia is a usually a quiet Mediterranean backwater little involved in the cut and thrust of international politics and business but this week the north African country is host to hundreds of government officials and technology delegates as they conduct an increasingly bitter battle over who controls the technology behind the internet.

The inter-governmental negotiations going on in Tunis are a prelude to the UN-organised World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which begins on Wednesday. At stake is how the technical and administrative infrastructure at the root of the internet is managed.

It is America’s power over the internet that has rankled other countries and led to calls for change.

At present, a private California-based organisation called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) administers the global domain name system to ensure that all users of the internet can find all valid addresses.

It does this by overseeing the distribution of unique technical identifiers used in the internet's operations and the delegation of top-level domain names (such as .com, .org, .co.uk). Without this "universal resolvability", the same domain name might map to different internet locations in different countries or networks.

The US Department of Commerce oversees the organisation giving it the theoretical power (or at least technical ability) to disconnect countries and disrupt communications for political or economic reasons. For example, it could turn off all domain names that point to websites in a particular country- for example all ".ir" websites run from Iran.

Some developing nations, including Iran and China – both of which regulate the content available to their domestic internet users - want a governmental body affiliated to the United Nations to oversee ICANN.

The European Union is proposing a formula that would remove American control and replace it over time with a purely technical intergovernmental body - though not necessarily the United Nations. Goverments, industry and campaigners would also gather in a separate "forum" to discuss other related issues, including "public policy", according to the text of the EU proposal.

But the Americans steadfastly refuse to even consider relinquishing their control arguing that ICANN’s performs a technical function that works well, fosters innovation and investment and is responsive to the needs of the global internet community. The Americans say that the alternative of intergovernmental governance would be costly and bureaucratic. On a political level, it also objects to countries with unimpressive records on freedom of speech having any say in the control of the internet.

The Paris-based journalist’s rights campaign group, Reporters Sans Frontieres has lent its support to the Americans.

"The situation can certainly be criticised but the proposed remedies seem much worse," RSF said, warning that "repressive countries" might be able to take advantage of weak United Nations oversight.

These concerns have driven Condoleeza Rice, the US Secretary of State, and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez to write to the EU calling for it to drop its proposal for an international alternative.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive