4 ms·

Perhaps, but it does bring into question whether the fees paid are actually benefiting the standards whatsoever.

throw0101a 5y ago
I have no knowledge of the internal workings of ISO, and whether the current arrangement is absolutely necessary or just legacy/habit from the past. Perhaps a different funding model for the organization could be done. I'm not against the standards being freely available if it can be arranged, I just find it slightly annoying that many people seem to be acting like ISO is some moustache-twirling, evil mega-corp that is exploiting the workers because it charges a fee currently.
- convolvatron 5y ago
  this discussion has been going on for decades. I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'. I'm sure the few people that work directly for ISO aren't feeling particularly exploited. neither are the standards authors - at least when I was doing it everyone was a well-paid engineer who enjoyed the travel and the work. the issue is that the role of standards is best fulfilled by making them as widely available as possible. and its really not clear from an economic perspective what value ISO as an organization independent of its contributors is providing. the IETF has a pretty reasonable track record technically, and there was never any notion about charging for standards access. I think the burden of proof here is on ISO to show that the negative impacts of restricting distribution have any positive aspects at all. edit: you know what, forget that. I'm pretty sure their primary cost is billing and IP enforcement. since they owe their privileged position to international treaty..its very difficult to perceive ISO as anything other than parasitic.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > * I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'.* 2020 annual report, finances: * https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances * https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html Expenditures were 35M CHF, income was 40M CHF, for a net result of 5M CHF. "Royalties received from members selling ISO standards" was 12M CHF. If they can make up that money elsewhere then they could stop charging.
- remram 5y ago
  If you have no knowledge why are you voicing such strong opinions? You could have learned a lot about the inner workings from reading this very thread.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    I don't feel my opinions are strong. More statements of fact: * the ISO needs to pay the bills * part of their income is charging for standards * the folks that work to together to write the standards agree not to ask for a cut of the proceeds of the sale * some folks want ISO standards to be free 2020 annual report, finances: * https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances * https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html Expenditures were 35M CHF, income was 40M CHF, for a net result of 5M CHF. "Royalties received from members selling ISO standards" was 12M CHF. If the ISO can make up that money elsewhere then they could stop charging.

I have no knowledge of the internal workings of ISO, and whether the current arrangement is absolutely necessary or just legacy/habit from the past. Perhaps a different funding model for the organization could be done. I'm not against the standards being freely available if it can be arranged, I just find it slightly annoying that many people seem to be acting like ISO is some moustache-twirling, evil mega-corp that is exploiting the workers because it charges a fee currently.

convolvatron 5y ago
this discussion has been going on for decades. I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'. I'm sure the few people that work directly for ISO aren't feeling particularly exploited. neither are the standards authors - at least when I was doing it everyone was a well-paid engineer who enjoyed the travel and the work. the issue is that the role of standards is best fulfilled by making them as widely available as possible. and its really not clear from an economic perspective what value ISO as an organization independent of its contributors is providing. the IETF has a pretty reasonable track record technically, and there was never any notion about charging for standards access. I think the burden of proof here is on ISO to show that the negative impacts of restricting distribution have any positive aspects at all. edit: you know what, forget that. I'm pretty sure their primary cost is billing and IP enforcement. since they owe their privileged position to international treaty..its very difficult to perceive ISO as anything other than parasitic.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > * I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'.* 2020 annual report, finances: * https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances * https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html Expenditures were 35M CHF, income was 40M CHF, for a net result of 5M CHF. "Royalties received from members selling ISO standards" was 12M CHF. If they can make up that money elsewhere then they could stop charging.
remram 5y ago
If you have no knowledge why are you voicing such strong opinions? You could have learned a lot about the inner workings from reading this very thread.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  I don't feel my opinions are strong. More statements of fact: * the ISO needs to pay the bills * part of their income is charging for standards * the folks that work to together to write the standards agree not to ask for a cut of the proceeds of the sale * some folks want ISO standards to be free 2020 annual report, finances: * https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances * https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html Expenditures were 35M CHF, income was 40M CHF, for a net result of 5M CHF. "Royalties received from members selling ISO standards" was 12M CHF. If the ISO can make up that money elsewhere then they could stop charging.