<html><body>
<p>Even more importantly, it shows how wise the IETF is to insist on two independent implementation of a proposed standard.<br>
<br>
The OOXML "standard" is so long, complex, and poorly-written that only Microsoft could implement it.<br>
<br>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>
<br>
Michael R. Nelson<br>
Director, Internet Technology and Strategy<br>
IBM Corporation<br>
1301 K St., N.W., Suite 1200<br>
Washington, DC 20005<br>
202-515-5137 <br>
cell 703-598-5187<br>
mrn@us.ibm.com<br>
<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for Erik Huizer <huizer@cs.uu.nl>">Erik Huizer <huizer@cs.uu.nl><br>
<br>
<br>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr valign="top"><td style="background-image:url(cid:2__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com); background-repeat: no-repeat; " width="40%">
<ul>
<ul>
<ul>
<ul><b><font size="2">Erik Huizer <huizer@cs.uu.nl></font></b><font size="2"> </font><br>
<font size="2">Sent by: chapter-delegates-bounces@elists.isoc.org</font>
<p><font size="2">08/20/2007 03:45 PM</font></ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</td><td width="60%">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr valign="top"><td width="1%"><img width="58" height="1" src="cid:3__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<div align="right"><font size="2">To</font></div></td><td width="100%"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<font size="2">Michiel Leenaars <Michiel@staff.isoc.nl></font></td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td width="1%"><img width="58" height="1" src="cid:3__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<div align="right"><font size="2">cc</font></div></td><td width="100%"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<font size="2">chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</font></td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td width="1%"><img width="58" height="1" src="cid:3__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<div align="right"><font size="2">Subject</font></div></td><td width="100%"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""><br>
<font size="2">Re: [Chapter-delegates] ooXML</font></td></tr>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr valign="top"><td width="58"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""></td><td width="336"><img width="1" height="1" src="cid:3__=0ABBF9AEDFED93AA8f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt=""></td></tr>
</table>
</td></tr>
</table>
<br>
<tt>Michiel,<br>
<br>
Shows you that rough consensus (IETF) has its merits compared to <br>
veto-rights (ISO).<br>
<br>
<br>
Erik<br>
<br>
<br>
Michiel Leenaars wrote:<br>
> Hello Khaled, all, <br>
> <br>
> in the Netherlands ISOC.nl actually founded the committee (which is<br>
> still chaired by myself). I think the outcome of our efforts might be of<br>
> interest to you all, as different to other countries and stories we<br>
> heard we actually got all but one member to agree with a conditional yes<br>
> (i.e. a no with resolvable issues). Microsoft singlehandedly blocked the<br>
> decision and caused the Netherlands to bail out of the process.<br>
> <br>
> Please find the full account below. The online version lives here:<br>
> <br>
> </tt><tt><a href="http://isoc.nl/michiel/nodecisiononOOXML.htm">http://isoc.nl/michiel/nodecisiononOOXML.htm</a></tt><tt><br>
> <br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Michiel Leenaars<br>
> Director ISOC.nl<br>
> --------------<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ISOC.nl regrets absence of Netherlands decision on OOXML<br>
> <br>
> On August 16th 2007 the final meeting of NEN NC 381034 "Behandeling en<br>
> uitwisseling van tekst", the Netherlands' mirror committee of ISO/JTC 1<br>
> SC 34 resulted in an "abstain without comments" which places the<br>
> Netherlands outside of the remainder of the DIS 29500 process.<br>
> <br>
> Since the start of DIS 29500 the Netherlands committee worked very hard<br>
> for several months in a constructive and positive manner on taking away<br>
> the technical and legal concerns that lived among members of the<br>
> committee. The committee can be commended for its professional and<br>
> correct disregard of the international turbulence around this specific<br>
> standard [1], and working towards a joint result worthy of the ISO<br>
> process.<br>
> <br>
> The result of this intensive process was that during the last meeting<br>
> on the subject on August 16th 2007 in Delft - where the vote was to be<br>
> cast - after a majority rejection of a proposal for an "Approval" a<br>
> final proposal for a so called conditional approval (i.e.: a no vote<br>
> that would turn into a yes vote if a number of reasonable and already<br>
> determined conditions were met at the next stage) almost got unanimous<br>
> support - from all but the local support branch of Microsoft. This<br>
> isolated position caused the vote to fail and the Netherlands to<br>
> automatically vote for an "Abstain".<br>
> <br>
>>From the view of the international standardisation process Internet<br>
> Society feels that a submitting organisation of a standard should not<br>
> actively seek to influence the local decision process in such a way.<br>
> There were no technical reasons and therefore the vote by<br>
> Microsoft should be considered a tactical and predetermined vote, best<br>
> characterised by the fact that Microsoft staff had told journalists<br>
> already some hours before the meeting that the Netherlands were going<br>
> to vote abstain. A prewritten press release by Microsoft sent out<br>
> immediately after the meeting mentions also an "Abstain", but was not<br>
> updated to the surprising factual outcome of the meeting - which was<br>
> that the technical comments and problems that were unilaterally agreed<br>
> upon by the committee will not be submitted to ISO.<br>
> <br>
> This surprising result was the outcome of a lenghty discussion on<br>
> whether or not it was fair to those members that had submitted several<br>
> more controversial comments earlier that - without consensus on the<br>
> compromise that had been worked on for months - these comments would<br>
> not be included. This included some fundamental comments such as the<br>
> mandatory use of ISO date codes, exclusive usage of the Gregorian<br>
> calender (according to ISO 681), problems with intellectual property<br>
> rights, etc). In addition some felt that during the process they had<br>
> agreed on many comments to be ameliorated in order to come to that same<br>
> compromise. Without that compromise they would stick to the original<br>
> version. The committee subsequently failed to get consensus on sending<br>
> all comments and therefore it will now not share any of its findings<br>
> with ISO.<br>
> <br>
> The result of both decisions (no vote, no comments) is that the<br>
> Netherlands places itself out fo the rest of the decision process and<br>
> will no longer play any role in the further process of ISO/JTC1 DIS<br>
> 29500. Internet Society share the view of many that Microsoft Open XML<br>
> DIS 29500 was not mature for the ISO process yet. Work within the<br>
> Netherlands committee was very focussed on contributing to technically<br>
> improving Office Open XML to make it ready for standardisation.<br>
> Internet Society Netherlands as the longest sitting member on the<br>
> Netherlands standardisation committee NEN NC 381034 "Behandeling en<br>
> uitwisseling van tekst", regrets this outcome as there were some unique<br>
> and techically relevant comments and technical solutions for the future<br>
> of OOXML as a potential international standard that will not be used as<br>
> such.<br>
> <br>
> ISOC.nl recommends that the ISO procedures - and more specific the Fast<br>
> Track procedure - be adapted significantly to better deal with<br>
> processes like this standard in order to maintain relevant. This<br>
> includes demanding two interoperable and independent full<br>
> implementations prior to accepting a submission for a Fast Track<br>
> procedure.<br>
> <br>
> The Hague, August 17th 2007<br>
> Michiel Leenaars, NEN NC 381034 committee member<br>
> Director ISOC.nl<br>
> <br>
> ------------<br>
> [1] In a number of countries like the USA, Italy, Switzerland and<br>
> Portugal much heated controversy arose around committeedressing and<br>
> outside manipulation of votes within the process. There was also<br>
> controversy around a money prize announced by a private foundation<br>
> for the person or organisation to find the best arguments for<br>
> national bodies to influence the standards process. The Netherlands<br>
> committee distanced itself univocally from such activities and took<br>
> proper precautions to block any such behaviour during this<br>
> procedure.<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Chapter-delegates mailing list<br>
> Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org<br>
> </tt><tt><a href="http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates">http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a></tt><tt><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Chapter-delegates mailing list<br>
Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org<br>
</tt><tt><a href="http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates">http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a></tt><tt><br>
</tt><br>
</body></html>