This 'consortium' is comprised primarily of manufacturers, and founded by 3 of the largest of these.
Let me restate, independence from any particular manufacturer.
Take for instance the TIA:
The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to develop voluntary, consensus-based industry standards for a wide variety of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) products, and currently represents nearly 400 companies. TIA's Standards and Technology Department operates twelve engineering committees, which develop guidelines for private radio equipment, cellular towers, data terminals, satellites, telephone terminal equipment, accessibility, VoIP devices, structured cabling, data centers, mobile device communications, multimedia multicast, vehicular telematics, healthcare ICT, machine-to-machine communications, and smart utility networks.
Overall, more than 500 active participants, communications equipment manufacturers, service providers, government agencies, academic institutions, and end-users are engaged in TIA’s standards setting process. To ensure that these standards become incorporated globally, TIA is also engaged in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
If I were to tell you that Cisco had veto rights (they don't) to any standards specification, would that change your view of them as an independent body?
Why would the other members of ONVIF wish to vote Axis out?
This is a good question.
Here's one reason: Bias
Let's say that the founders have designed in a dejure or defacto method of eternally controlling decisions of the committees. (Note: I am only assuming this is true for the sake or argument; actually this is THE question).
What method? Right off the bat I can see that the founders are entitled to 1 seat each on every committee, 3 in total. I see that at least some of the committees are limited to 7 voting members. I also see that 2/3 majority is necessary. Therefore it would appear that the founders could veto any measure raised in these committees.
For what purpose?
Let's say a founder had a compression technology, say Z-stream, whose value would remain high to the degree that competing alternatives, say h.265, were not in wide deployment.
Such committees could effectively stifle innovation.
What is your point?
My point is shown by your questions. You don't know. I don't know either.
We should know, I think.
Otherwise, I am wondering why there are new Access Control Profile standards with little demand for them, and yet there is no profile for h.265.
I search and found 0 references to h.265 on ONVIF's site.
Yet, in a year's time, when h.265 starts to kick in, ONVIF compatibility will still most likely be only h.264.
And to who's advantage is that? Not mine.