Both ecosystems are infrastructure and have multiple stakeholders, in fact many of their categories (law enforcement, suppliers, consumers) are common.
"We have a system of multiple stakeholders that must negotiate according to the interests of each of the parties" can describe just about any public infrastructure, from highways to sewers to shipping. Just because one doesn't know who the stakeholders are in each of these fields does not make them irrelevant or invisible. That's OK, because most of the world doesn't -- and need not -- know all the details of the stakeholders involved in keeping the Internet stable and safe, just as they don't know all the stakeholders involved in getting clean water to their home.
There is nothing special about the Internet that makes it inherently more resistant to the way global society has evolved to govern other forms of cross-national infrastructure. It is more technically complex and poses some unique challenges in carriage, to be sure. But just as the UPU and ITU and ICAO are different in many ways, so is the evolution of a multilateral treaty body that must form some part of what is being called "Internet governance".
Insiders think they're beyond such scrutiny because the Internet is special. It's special in our lifetime, just as the telephone was in lifetimes past etc. What is taken for granted in our time was groundbreaking in another. Such is the Internet too. However, "everyone knows here what the Internet is" does not offer much explanation of why we shouldn't learn from how the world has adapted to other infrastructure challenges of the past.
We're just not that special.
Cheers,
Evan.