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 p

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.