I’m a democrat (not in the US capital D sense): I think regulations should be made transparently and fairly by wise heads with elected oversight, administrative checks and balances, and judicial appeal. So I am horrified by the idea that standards bodies should see themselves as lawmakers. Standards bodies make standards that fit technical, editorial and administrative criteria, under the particular articles of association of their group, different in each nation and body. When some part of some community would benefit from an agreed, formalized, vetted and published agreement about some technology, it becomes a standard.
To shift the job of standards-makers to being regulators seems terribly anti-democratic to me: standards bodies simply are not constituted in any way to be democratic. Standards bodies are technocratic, and rightly so, and making them regulatory agencies too could only replace the technocracy (of harmless drudges) with a plutocracy.
It is the job of regulators to decide which standards to adopt or not, and why and where and when and for which uses. They have (notionally) the mechanisms for accountability (at least in democratic nations) and for preventing petty tyranny, whether of a minority against the majority or of the majority against a minority.
Now where a standard has been adopted by regulation, the situation is a little different. In that case, standards makers indeed become regulators in effect. But ones entirely outside any democratic process. Process improvement at ISO=good. Sour grapes=bad. Anti-democratic encroachments=ugly.