There is a problem: traditionally standardizing bodies finance themselves by selling copies of the standard. I can see why someone might liberate the standards, but they should at least offer up alternative models for financing. The financing model may be obsolete, but the body that issues the standards is not.
The body that creates the standards is typically a creation of the industry that implements the standards. It is a cost of doing business. Compare them to RFCs which are quite similar in that they are generally created by authors who work for the companies implementing the RFCs.
If your point is that these standards are in fact de-facto laws and should be treated accordingly (free access and all), then make that point directly. It is unclear to me how copyright violation helps here, apart from publicity.
If the law requires implementation of {STANDARD} then {STANDARD} is part of the law, and should not be subject to copyright... the end.. no copyright violation for standards that are part of the law.
I realize this... the core principles of liberty are, however, universal. Even if a specific local government doesn't believe in it. Even in the U.S. it appears to be less and less supported by law each year.
Which is totally not the case here. The law mandates certain actions. If you're certified to comply with the standard, then you're in compliance with the law, however you can be in compliance with the law without implementing the standard - you just carry the burden of proof.
