I don't want to go along with Philippe entirely on this, but surely he must be right on this last point. Formally, Unicode is effectively the agent of just one national body in this decision-making process.
To be honest, Peter, I never said that Unicode was a national body, because I know that there are several non-US governments that are full members of Unicode and voting at the UTC, and because I know that the official representation of US in ISO is ANSI, not the Unicode Consortium.
But it's true that the United States have delegated several times their official international representation to the Unicode Concertium, acting on behalf of the US government for some decisions or some limited domains (this is valid because Unicode is incorporated in US, a necessary condition to represent the US government in international organizations); this is a private contractual arrangement between Unicode and the official US representant, but this does not change the rights of Unicode at ISO.
So the true representant of US in ISO (and also ITU) is certainly not Unicode, but ANSI, or any other US-incorporated organization that the US government chooses to represent it (other US private organizations are given a US mandate for the management of some public resources or standards, like IANA, ARIN, ICANN, and IEEE, despite these organizations have also integrated some international voting members)
