Nothing that ECOSOC (and by extension UNDG and ITU) pushes forth is legally binding and even if this particular trend gains momentum the USFG can always bargain with its wallet (assuming they aren't complicit).
Plenty of crazy drafts get passed around in the UN all the time, but the beauty of it all is that no entity is forced to change. Instead you get plenty of gawking and reprimanding that doesn't have any enforcement. The noteworthy exception is the SC, but its permanent members can veto anything that they disagree with.
When it comes to the UN, nothing matter if it doesn't come from the UNSC (and even then, it only really matters if everyone's OK with it). ECOSOC and the ITU have a bunch of treaties underpinning them, but they've all got enough cave-outs to drive a supertanker through. The ITU can hem and haw all it wants about how ICANN should be turned over to them, and nothing will happen save a follow-up report coming out in a year about how this hasn't happened, and how unfortunate that is.
The larger issue, as other have alluded to, is that this is more evidence that the global south isn't happy with the US-centric management of the Internet (which isn't news), and that they'r getting organized to try and make this an issue (which is). Having said that, if you'd like to see how well that group does getting things of substance passed when the US isn't interested, check out most things the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs leads end up.
Even SC resolutions, which are in theory binding, are frequently ignored.
The brass tacks reality of the internet is that the ICANN roots only have power because individual networks expliticlty cede them that power. If you want to secede from the ICANN DNS, you can replace your root.hints file anytime you want.
in light of google's "alarm" over take-down notices from usa, canada, and other "free" nations, i wouldn't be surprised in the least if our own governments were complicit in this authoritarian takeover.
The US is planning to participate in WCIT. They recently appointed an ambassador. We have a US comment on the treaty revisions from 2011 on WCITLeaks.org:
I sincerely like the fact that someone on here can answer with something like that. I had no clue and it would have taken a lot more time to look that up than read it (and off the cuff it sounded plausible re: the security council). And if I want to pursue it, I can start from what you said and check that.
