It's also quite surprising to see Crovitz's WSJ editorial referred to as an "article". It's classic unsubstantiated fear mongering, typical of the editorial section of that paper.
Having the ITU be the responsible party for resolving cross-border disputes over internet policy isn't entirely crazy. However I wouldn't expect too much of it one way or the other; by their very nature trans-national governance entities are mostly advisory; and make a convenient stalking horse for multiple national agendas.
This seems to come up every few years ago, then there's buzz about it, and then everyone realizes that the Internet works just fine and everything goes back to normal.
From a technology standpoint, sure.
From a jurisdiction, big brother, we hold all the power standpoint, the current setup of "the Internet" is dysfunctional at best.