[Chapter-delegates] ooXML

[James Butler]

Thank you for the link to your page, Mr. Leenaars. The information provided is very illuminating, and it leads to some very informative documents, such as the highly reccommended

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/ooxml-fails-to-gain-approval-in-us.html

from INCITS, which also contains links to more technical documents regarding this issue. Reading the comments section on that page is very interesting.

James Butler
Internet Society - Los Angeles Chapter
Chairman of the Board
jbutler at isoc-la.org

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 8/17/07 at 10:18 AM Michiel Leenaars wrote:

>Hello Khaled, all, 
>
>in the Netherlands ISOC.nl actually founded the committee (which is
>still chaired by myself). I think the outcome of our efforts might be of
>interest to you all, as different to other countries and stories we
>heard we actually got all but one member to agree with a conditional yes
>(i.e. a no with resolvable issues). Microsoft singlehandedly blocked the
>decision and caused the Netherlands to bail out of the process.
>
>Please find the full account below. The online version lives here:
>
>http://isoc.nl/michiel/nodecisiononOOXML.htm
>
>Best regards,
>Michiel Leenaars
>Director ISOC.nl
>--------------
>
> 	
>ISOC.nl regrets absence of Netherlands decision on OOXML
>
>On August 16th 2007 the final meeting of NEN NC 381034 "Behandeling en
>uitwisseling van tekst", the Netherlands' mirror committee of ISO/JTC 1
>SC 34 resulted in an "abstain without comments" which places the
>Netherlands outside of the remainder of the DIS 29500 process.
>
>Since the start of DIS 29500 the Netherlands committee worked very hard
>for several months in a constructive and positive manner on taking away
>the technical and legal concerns that lived among members of the
>committee. The committee can be commended for its professional and
>correct disregard of the international turbulence around this specific
>standard [1], and working towards a joint result worthy of the ISO
>process.
>
>The result of this intensive process was that during the last meeting
>on the subject on August 16th 2007 in Delft - where the vote was to be
>cast - after a majority rejection of a proposal for an "Approval" a
>final proposal for a so called conditional approval (i.e.: a no vote
>that would turn into a yes vote if a number of reasonable and already
>determined conditions were met at the next stage) almost got unanimous
>support - from all but the local support branch of Microsoft. This
>isolated position caused the vote to fail and the Netherlands to
>automatically vote for an "Abstain".
>
>>From the view of the international standardisation process Internet
>Society feels that a submitting organisation of a standard should not
>actively seek to influence the local decision process in such a way.
>There were no technical reasons and therefore the vote by
>Microsoft should be considered a tactical and predetermined vote, best
>characterised by the fact that Microsoft staff had told journalists
>already some hours before the meeting that the Netherlands were going
>to vote abstain. A prewritten press release by Microsoft sent out
>immediately after the meeting mentions also an "Abstain", but was not
>updated to the surprising factual outcome of the meeting - which was
>that the technical comments and problems that were unilaterally agreed
>upon by the committee will not be submitted to ISO.
>
>This surprising result was the outcome of a lenghty discussion on
>whether or not it was fair to those members that had submitted several
>more controversial comments earlier that - without consensus on the
>compromise that had been worked on for months - these comments would
>not be included. This included some fundamental comments such as the
>mandatory use of ISO date codes, exclusive usage of the Gregorian
>calender (according to ISO 681), problems with intellectual property
>rights, etc). In addition some felt that during the process they had
>agreed on many comments to be ameliorated in order to come to that same
>compromise. Without that compromise they would stick to the original
>version. The committee subsequently failed to get consensus on sending
>all comments and therefore it will now not share any of its findings
>with ISO.
>
>The result of both decisions (no vote, no comments) is that the
>Netherlands places itself out fo the rest of the decision process and
>will no longer play any role in the further process of ISO/JTC1 DIS
>29500. Internet Society share the view of many that Microsoft Open XML
>DIS 29500 was not mature for the ISO process yet. Work within the
>Netherlands committee was very focussed on contributing to technically
>improving Office Open XML to make it ready for standardisation.
>Internet Society Netherlands as the longest sitting member on the
>Netherlands standardisation committee NEN NC 381034 "Behandeling en
>uitwisseling van tekst", regrets this outcome as there were some unique
>and techically relevant comments and technical solutions for the future
>of OOXML as a potential international standard that will not be used as
>such.
>
>ISOC.nl recommends that the ISO procedures - and more specific the Fast
>Track procedure - be adapted significantly to better deal with
>processes like this standard in order to maintain relevant. This
>includes demanding two interoperable and independent full
>implementations prior to accepting a submission for a Fast Track
>procedure.
>
>The Hague, August 17th 2007
>Michiel Leenaars, NEN NC 381034 committee member
>Director ISOC.nl
>
>------------
>[1] In a number of countries like the USA, Italy, Switzerland and
>    Portugal much heated controversy arose around committeedressing and
>    outside manipulation of votes within the process. There was also
>    controversy around a money prize announced by a private foundation
>    for the person or organisation to find the best arguments for
>    national bodies to influence the standards process. The Netherlands
>    committee distanced itself univocally from such activities and took
>    proper precautions to block any such behaviour during this
>    procedure.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Chapter-delegates mailing list
>Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates