> These codes are often produced by a single organization, "International Code Council"
Somewhat off-topic, but I've never quite understood the American tendency to call something the "International X" when the US is only the country of any significance involved in it.
(It may be technically true that a handful of small countries have adopted the US building code – such as Bermuda or Western Samoa. But that doesn't change its status as an essentially American code. The US is the only major economy to use it, and non-US entities have very minimal, if any, input on its contents. And a few small countries might have adopted the US building code even if it was called "US" rather than "International".)
I wouldn't call this an American tendency. Generally the word "international" is used for things which are expected or aspire to be truly international.
If anything the American tendency is to restrict interest to the US.
Can you name some examples? In Europe it's so easy and normal to organize a multi-national conference that it'd seem weird to start something that aspired to be international without inviting participation from multiple countries.
I hadn’t heard of the ICC before, but their “About” page claims chapters in 38 countries and their “Find a Chapter” page (https://www.iccsafe.org/membership/chapters/icc-chapters-and...) has links for Canada, Australia, and Mexico. I think it’s probably ok to consider that international in that context.
Australia doesn't use America's building codes. Australia has its own. And their "Australian chapter" is the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (AIBS) – which it is worth noting is not the Australian body which develops Australian building codes – that's the Australian Building Codes' Board (ABCB). The AIBS is the professional body for building surveyors, and as such while its members have some role in enforcing those codes, it doesn't develop them itself–although they are able to provide input to the ABCB's public consultations (same as any other organisation is.)
I don't know what the actual point of having the AIBS as a chapter of the ICC is. Probably an excuse for some overseas business trips.
Good to know, but that’s probably moving the goal posts a bit. This looks like a private industry group set up to proactively influence adopted standards (ie: a lobby) and does so internationally.
At least in the US it’s fairly common for lobbies to offer prewritten codes in the hopes that the adopted codes are (at least pretty close) to the ones they want.
You could argue whether such a practices are how private industry and governmental regulations should interact, but it doesn’t seem like the term “international” is particularly problematic in the name. The “World Series” (of baseball) on the other hand...
> This looks like a private industry group set up to proactively influence adopted standards (ie: a lobby) and does so internationally.
Who are you saying is lobbying who here? Are you saying AIBS is lobbying the ICC? Or that the ICC is lobbying the AIBS?
I don't see why the AIBS would engage in lobbying about the contents of US building codes. What difference does it make to building surveyors in Australia what building codes in the US say?
You seem like you have a more detailed picture of the ground truth here, but that part you’ve basically said yourself (and I agree with, under the disclaimer that I found an “About” page and that’s the end of my knowledge):
AIBS appears to be a member of the ICC. The ICC appears to be an international lobby. In that context, AIBS (probably) lobbies the ABCB with some help from the ICC as do other chapter members their own respective government representatives or regulatory bodies. Or maybe they just enjoy the ICC newsletter emails. I was only pointing out that international here is not an really a presumptuous “the US is the world” misnomer.
We call our baseball thing the “World Series” because sometimes Canada plays.
Realistically it’s more probable that the group started out with a goal of world-wide adoption of the standards they produced and failed to get traction outside the USA sphere of influence.
Somewhat off-topic, but I've never quite understood the American tendency to call something the "International X" when the US is only the country of any significance involved in it.
(It may be technically true that a handful of small countries have adopted the US building code – such as Bermuda or Western Samoa. But that doesn't change its status as an essentially American code. The US is the only major economy to use it, and non-US entities have very minimal, if any, input on its contents. And a few small countries might have adopted the US building code even if it was called "US" rather than "International".)