Ray Saintonge wonders:
To what extent do international standards have the force of law?
I can't even pretend to understand the legal ramifications, but the participation of the U.S. State Department in the UTC discussions suggests that this particular standard is being treated as some sort of treaty obligation. One suspects that the "force of law" question varies from standard to standard. For instance, standards tied into interstate commerce such as labeling requirements on food packaging are likely very closely aligned with federal codes.
On the other hand, issues of timekeeping can vary from state to state, i.e., Arizona does not observe daylight saving time. Or even vary within a state or province, since the Navajo nation NE of Phoenix does observe DST, while the Hopi nation (completely embedded within the Navajo boundaries) does not. Many countries don't even reference such standards directly, but only rely on indirect effects. In this case, a number of countries legally recognize the older Greenwich Mean Time standard. Opening up the standards documents - if not the standards process - would benefit the powerful as much as the powerless.
The question is: What does $100M buy you? This vanishes next to an international media market of many billions of dollars. That's gigabucks per year, of course. Even such a generous offering isn't going to carry the open source revolution into the streets.
The proper model must surely be similar to the Nature Conservancy, accomplished by: aiming to free the most strategic of information assets first, directly purchasing only what you must, protecting other at-risk data via information easements, spending smarter not outspending, building local cyber-coalitions, connecting open content green-way corridors, cooperating with unlikely allies such as "information ranchers", and ultimately funding it all with creative methods such as tax-friendly knowledge-capitalist estate planning or boutique info-tourist destinations.
Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory