Despite what we learned in kindergarten, sharing isn’t always the right thing to do.

And competence ranks ahead of generosity on the hierarchy of qualities that make the world go ’round.

That’s why the United States need not play nice this coming week when many in the international community suggest we give up administrative control of the Internet.

Just because other nations say fairness demands the United States give an international group, perhaps the United Nations, control of cyberspace, is no reason to comply.

What’s fair?

The United States – the Pentagon, not Al Gore as he once suggested – built and nurtured the Internet. In the real world that equates with ownership.

There are times to accede to international opinion, and there are times to become the Ugly American because to comply would compromise U.S. interests.

Turning the Internet over to a world body risks killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

The Internet is the most important business and communication tool in the world. It has revolutionized the way we shop, converse and learn.

The Internet has been the key catalyst in shrinking the globe. In the wrong hands, however, it could be a tool for political manipulation.

Today, it is simply a loosely managed “information highway” open to everyone, the essence of laissez-faire, free-market capitalism.

Although the U.S. government has little direct control, thank God, the Internet has prospered because of the bedrock American value of freedom that dominates its culture.

There is bipartisan support in Congress for telling the rest of the world to take a hike. Even the New York Times editorial page, which rarely misses a chance to denounce the Bush administration’s unilateralism, sees the light on this one.

But a coalition that includes supposedly friendly types like the European Union and those for whom anti-Americanism is a core value, like Iran, are demanding the United States turn over control.

They think the United Nations would be better equipped to do the job because it would reflect international values. Translation: Give them some leverage.

That is both true and a major reason why turning it over is a bad idea, much like the effort some years back by UNESCO to license journalists.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan denies he wants to seize control, but talks about the “need for change” in Internet governance.

The coalition will make its point at an international meeting in Tunisia, where Internet governance will be discussed.

The United States will tell them to take a hike.

But when the usual suspects start complaining about American arrogance, unwillingness to be a responsible part of the international community, you will pardon me if I barf.

The Internet was built by the Pentagon and used by academics for years before it caught on as a worldwide center of business and communication.

An obscure nonprofit group based in California, but with a board of directors from around the world, administers the Internet. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was created by the U.S. Commerce Department in 1998 and keeps track of Internet addresses worldwide.

Other than that, Icann, as it is known to the nerds, does very little to regulate the Net.

That’s why the Internet has grown to become the most important invention since fire.

Because the Internet was created by Americans, it shares our values of openness, freedom and capitalism.

Imagine if some world group got control and decided what could and could not be allowed on the Internet and who would be allowed access. Perhaps it would decide that some products, or ideas, were not permissible, as is the case with state-run television in some societies.

Don’t laugh; that’s the reality of the Internet in China and some parts of the world even now, without any say in its governance.

Think of the U.N.’s Human Rights Commission, with members such as Cuba, Libya, China and Sudan dominating it, much like the fox would like to guard the henhouse.

What’s the worst that could happen if the United States refuses to share Internet control?

Those nations could set up their own Internet and compete for traffic with what we know as the World Wide Web. That would be the right way to get what they want – providing a better product, so people could decide which one to patronize.

Of course, not even they believe they can do that, which is why they are trying to steal it politically.

– Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel.