[necovek]

> some of its work

I guess what we perceive differently is how much work is "donated": I'd say most of it is (which does not make your statement untrue, but "some" implies a lesser part of it).

Nobody is doubting the need for common standards and the need to pay for them: this is why there are membership fees, and ISO has collected half of its revenue on those — https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances. IMHO, it should optimize in a way to make its entire operations possible on that revenue (if that involves increasing fees or becoming more frugal is up to them).

[throw0101a]

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.

[necovek]

People are bringing up facts that ISO is heavily funded by member countries (from taxes collected from their citizens), ISO standards are written by others at no cost to ISO, and yet ISO charges not-just-nominal fee for their distribution — exactly for people who "have no knowledge of the internal workings of ISO".

Nobody is acting as if they are exploiting anyone, but many are unaware of the situation above. Whether one finds that fair is up to everyone individually, but perhaps you can allow that finding it unfair is a reasonable viewpoint as well?