[nitrogen]

For one thing, the ITU is a governmental body (that is, its members are governments; it is an agency of the UN), while the W3C and IETF are open membership organizations that anyone can join.

In other words, the ITU is run by people whose job is to run things. The IETF and W3C are run by people whose job it is to do things. Groups of the former category tend to want to control those of the latter.

Edit to add: the different outcomes of the ITU vs. IETF/W3C can also be attributed to the purpose of existence of their members. People who run things (e.g. governments) want to keep running things. Thus, their work tends to result in new laws and treaties. People who do things (e.g. engineers) want to keep doing things. Thus, their work tends to result in voluntary, consensus-based agreements.

[hardik988]

Thanks. That clarifies it up a bit. So could this summit result in a real threat to net neutrality?

[wyck]

The summit can result in more then net neutrality threats, it includes censorship, monitoring, archiving and usage regulations. The ITU comprises of 193 countries and over 700 private-sector entities. It has become more transparent due to public outcry, but who knows what is discussed over dinner ( aka there is a lot of money and control being looked over as though it's a map to the new world).