[Chapter-delegates] ooXML

[Geir Isene]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:14:38PM +0100, Christian de Larrinaga scribed wisely:

[...]

> 
> What are the views of those here who have been involved in this ISO  
> and ECMA ooXML process? Are there some high level points that we  
> would like to raise at the EU ICT Standards Board concerning the way  
> ooXML proceeded?  Michiel I know you took on the liaison role for  
> some time but I don't know what has happened since. What are your  
> thoughts?


AN OPEN LETTER TO ISO

Is it time to standardize ISO?

In light of the recent events relating to the standardization process of
EOOXML, it seems appropriate to look into possible standardization of the
process itself.

The DIS 29500 (EOOXML) process has revealed several shortcomings, both on
the national level and on the level of ISO.

The organisations representing each country have very different procedures
for determining the nations vote in ISO. Some countries will vote only if
their technical committee is unanimous on the issue. Others will reach
consensus defined by a 3/4 majority vote or even 2/3 majority. In some
countries there is no vote and the technical committee is only advisory to
the national standards organisation. Others yet have a two-stage process
where the nations vote is determined through two committees. In short
there is no standard for accepting a standard.

It seems ISO is not prepared for a politicized process where a big and
influential commercial enterprise will use any means possible to push its
own standard through to certification. 

Committees are flooded by the vendor in support of the standard. Votes are
bought and results are hijacked. Several national bodies have flawed and
skewed procedures open for corruption.

The list is much longer, but a few examples should suffice:

Norway -	originally a process decided by unanimity but altered on the fly
Sweden -	voting seats bought and the result thus hijacked
Switzerland -	process rigged in favor of the vendor, the chairman
		excluded the option of voting "reject" or "reject, with comments"
Portugal -	process skewed by blaming on lack of available chairs
Malaysia -	two committees voted unanimously "rejection with comments" and
		mysteriously overturned by the government to "abstain"

Even if this is the tip of an ice berg, the examples should warrant a
thorough examination of the national processes.

The fact that ISO enforces no standard for national bodies opens the
standardization process for manipulation or corruption. I strongly urge
ISO to adopt a strict policy for its members detailing the rules for how a
national body shall determine its vote in ISO and that it enforces such
policy vigorously.

On the level of ISO, criticism has been raised against the fast track
process. An investigation should be called to see if EOOXML was unduly put
on the ISO Fast Track.

During the Fast Track, many new countries have joined as P-Members
(Participating members) in the technical committee, the JTC1/SC34. Several
of the countries have no credible track on standardization work, have
joined very late in the process only to vote an unconditional "Yes" to a
standard that has obvious room for improvement. It may be purely
coincidental that prior to the introduction of EOOXML the P-members had an
average CPI of 6.6 (Corruption Perception Index by Transparency
International, scale from 1-10, 10 being the least corrupt). The average
CPI of the new members is 3.2. It is at least possible to corrupt the ISO
voting system if any country is allowed as P-member late in the process. I
urge ISO to adopt a policy that P-members may not be accepted later than 3
months before the committee is to vote.

It may be time also to reevaluate the one country one vote principle. In
ISO, the Chinese vote carries the same weight as that of Cyprus. In the
JTC1/SC34 the late-comers includes Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia,
Côte-d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Lebanon and Malta. 

As for approving standards within the field of IT, ISO would greatly
benefit from adopting the IETF recuirment of two independent reference
implementations for passing a standard. This should increase the quality
of ISO's IT standards.

The intent of this letter is to safeguard future standardization and to
ensure that the processes scale in the face of increased pressure from
large commercial interests.

The strength, integrity and scalability of ISO have been tested. The
organizations agility and adaptability will now be measured. May ISO move
quickly to fix its own PR and more importantly its own standardization
process.


Geir Isene
CEO FreeCode International

-- 
Daglig leder / CEO FreeCode AS
Cell: +47 - 473 44 000
Phone: +47 - 21 53 69 00  Fax: +47 - 21 53 69 09
Addr: Slemdalsveien 70, PB 1 Vinderen, 0370 OSLO
http://www.freecode.no/

r=2Gm/c²    Question: How do you escape?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20070905/52486c62/attachment.asc>