Quote:

The Unicode Consortium counts among its members: corporations, governments, research and educational institutions, industry groups and associations, and individuals who seek to extend, maintain and promote The Unicode Standard and other standards related to internationalization technologies.

The Unicode Consortium invites organizations to take a leading role in the Consortium's international standards work, which plays a fundamental role in core modern technology such as XML, Java, and Windows. Membership in the Unicode Consortium offers you and your company or organization the opportunity to join in further development of the Unicode Consortium projects,
[...]
Annual Membership Fees
FULL $12,000
SUPPORTING $6,000
ASSOCIATE $2,000 for-profit $1,200 non-profit
LIAISON By invitation only
INDIVIDUAL $120

Quote:

[...]it is difficult to establish rules for what characters are truly platonic enough ideals to warrant inclusion in Unicode, and which do not. We've seen that Coptic was conflated with Greek, and soon will not be, for example. The more general issue is, what should be counted as a distinct character, and what should be counted only as a variant character, which need be differentiated only through markup. (For instance, the difference between a and a.) This issue is clear in well-established modern scripts, with a history of standardisation and a well-defined repertoire.

In historical scripts, and particularly poorly understood, partly deciphered or undeciphered scripts, this issue is much murkier. It is so murky, in fact, that specialists have concluded it is pointless to even attempt to derive a repertoire of codepoints for inclusion in Unicode:

For poorly understood scripts, we don't know which characters are distinct, and which are merely variants of each other.
Since Unicode is a standard For The Ages, we cannot decide on one repertoire of codepoints today, and shift to a smaller or bigger repertoire when we know more: Unicode needs to get things right from the get-go, or we will be stuck with errors in perpetuity.
Ergo, no Easter Island script for you.
But there's more. When we know enough of a script to publish texts in it, we form a standardised repertoire of graphemes to put such texts in. In doing so, we generalise from whatever variations may have in the script through time and space. Fraktur a and Celtic a are shaped quite differently, as are the a written in Roman in 400 AD and in 900 AD; but we represent all of these as a Latin Small Letter A.

Now, scholars understand enough about Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Sumerian Cuneiform, and Ogham to be able to publish texts in them. A photograph of the stone or tablet obviously does not count as publication: the scholar needs to reduce the glyphs in the original to a standardised set of graphemes, fix any errors, fill in gaps and so forth. So in most instances, you won't care whether the Ogham glyph for "b" was at a 65° or 70° angle; you just want to know that it was an "b". (And if you really wanted to know, you can always refer to the photo.)
[...]

The preceding does not do justice to Carl-Martin Bunz's patient exposition Encoding Scripts from the Past, which constituted Unicode Technical Note #3. Nor does it really convey the tension that must have given rise to Bunz writing his note: reading between the lines (and the standard disclaimers apply), it is apparent that Unicode implementers, who would dearly love to implement hieroglyphics and cuneiform, think of the academics as spoilsports who are getting in the way of their scriptal delights—and have let them know it.

But the bottom line is, standardisation for such scripts is hard, and the people who would do the standardisation don't need it.

For an example of the "don't need it" reaction, see the DIN (German Standards body) response to the proposal on Meroitic [anubis.dkuug.dk]
, and on Egyptian hieroglyphs.[anubis.dkuug.dk]