[Chapter-delegates] ooXML
Michael R Nelson
mrn at us.ibm.com
Mon Aug 20 15:58:27 PDT 2007
Even more importantly, it shows how wise the IETF is to insist on two
independent implementation of a proposed standard.
The OOXML "standard" is so long, complex, and poorly-written that only
Microsoft could implement it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael R. Nelson
Director, Internet Technology and Strategy
IBM Corporation
1301 K St., N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
202-515-5137
cell 703-598-5187
mrn at us.ibm.com
Erik Huizer
<huizer at cs.uu.nl>
Sent by: To
chapter-delegates Michiel Leenaars
-bounces at elists.i <Michiel at staff.isoc.nl>
soc.org cc
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject
08/20/2007 03:45 Re: [Chapter-delegates] ooXML
PM
Michiel,
Shows you that rough consensus (IETF) has its merits compared to
veto-rights (ISO).
Erik
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
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20070820/892c87db/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20070820/892c87db/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic05387.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20070820/892c87db/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20070820/892c87db/attachment-0002.gif>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list