decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Canada Tells Why It Voted No on OOXML & How ISO Must Improve - Updated: Others See Need to Fix ISO
Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:26 PM EDT

Canada has its public statement announcing its OOXML vote and why it voted Disapprove with Comments:
ISO/IEC DIS 29500 standard, Information Technology - Office Open XML file formats, Fast Track approved

Date: 2008-04-02

Following the ballot resolution meeting (BRM) held in Geneva, Switzerland, on 25-29 February 2008, the international standard ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information technology – Office Open XML file formats has achieved the required number of votes for approval as an international standard. As indicated in its final position statement, Canada voted to "Disapprove with Comments". Canada was among 10 countries that expressed concern with the Fast Track of ISO/IEC DIS 29500.

Canada says, in effect, that OOXML didn't belong on the fast track, that the quality of the standard isn't yet what is expected of an ISO/IEC standard, and that there are too many unknowns. It suggests ISO fix its procedures so this never can happen again, because it would "bring disrepute to the whole ISO and IEC International Standards process."

Update: How do you like this headline from IEC? IEC & ISO prove openness and consensus maintained in ballot resolution meeting.

So there.

And I am the Queen of Sheba. I can top that though. Want to laugh? Here. From Redmond News:

Andrew Brust, an RDN contributor, Microsoft regional director and chief of new technology at consultancy twentysix New York, said of the process that Microsoft was forced to counter targeted opposition from competitors and open source advocates.

"I think the worst you can say about that effort was that it was necessary to make the vote fair, and it was unfortunate that the OOXML standard could not be judged exclusively on its technical merits," Brust said. "Were it judged that way, without the politics, I think it would have won approval [in the first round of voting], and done so with much less rancor."

hahahha .... [gasp..... choke.... falls on floor struggling for breath] Stop! Stop! I can't breathe. What a funny dude. And let me assure you that that is not the worst you can say about that effort.

Here's a more realistic headline from ComputerWorld's David DeJean, based on Planet Earth as opposed to Planet Marketroid:

"Microsoft wins this OOXML battle, but loses the war"

It looks like that to me, too. Even many of the countries that voted yes or at least moved to Abstain from No said pointblank that OOXML is technically not ready for prime time. Nor were the reasons given for voting Approve technically-based.

Microsoft employees say things, I think, that they hope will advance their careers in-house. No one out here believes a statement like that. It's inspiring, but mainly for parody. Red Hat and ODF Alliance agree people have eyes and can see what happened, as CRN reports:

"Red Hat's legal team issued a statement expressing "disappointment" but not surprise at the ISO's decision. "[OOXML] made it though an unfortunately flawed fast-track ISO approval process," the release states....[The ODF] will continue to be a force in procurement decisions to be reckoned with," the release said. "Government and Enterprises are tired of the lack of choice, lack of innovation, and premium rents from vendor lock-in. We doubt anyone will be confused by this outcome."

The OpenDocument Format Alliance issued a release predicting governments will take a "buyer beware" point of view regarding OOXML and said ... "The process itself brought to the fore OOXML's deficiencies that will prevent its use by public administrations, chief among them that OOXML remains a "community of one" -- undocumented features, IPR restrictions, and features and functionality linked to other Microsoft products that will prevent OOXML's use in other software products," the statement read.

Here's what Mark Shuttleworth thinks, as reported by Paula Rooney on ZDNet:

The International Standards Organization (ISO) did not carry out its responsibility, he claimed. “It’s sad that the ISO was not willing to admit that its process was failing horribly,” he said, noting that Microsoft intensely lobbied many countries that traditionally have not participated in ISO and stacked technical committees with Microsoft employees, solution providers and resellers sympathetic to OOXML. “When you have a process built on trust and when that trust is abused, [ISO] should halt the process.” Shuttleworth

He says he won't "invest in trying to implement a standard that is poorly defined". Why not?

“If we get close to implementing it, Microsoft would move the goal post,” he projects. “Microsoft doesn’t think it’s bound by the standard.”

Compare his clear and forthrightly honest statement with the Microsoft guy. See the difference between Microsoft and FOSS?

************************

ISO/IEC 29500 OOXML
Fast Track
Canadian Final Position Statement

Canada has carefully reviewed the results of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML. Fast Track Ballot Resolution Meeting and determined after detailed analysis that Canada will maintain its Disapprove vote.

Canada notes that major enhancements had been made to ISO/IEC 29500 during the Ballot Resolution Meeting, but the general quality of the standard was not yet what was expected of an ISO/IEC Standard, and that there were still too many unknowns.

Canada states that the inappropriate use of the fast track process for this DIS has rendered it impossible to ascertain whether in fact 29500 meets the standard of quality and correctness required in an International Standard.

Canada further recommends that the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Fast Track procedures and processes be reviewed and enhanced to ensure that this situation does not arise again in the future, and bring disrepute to the whole ISO and IEC International Standards process.

Finally, Canada recommends that the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML Fast Track documents and materials, plus the enhancements made at the Ballot Resolution Meeting be submitted to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 as a New Work item for processing via the normal standards development processes.


  


Canada Tells Why It Voted No on OOXML & How ISO Must Improve - Updated: Others See Need to Fix ISO | 123 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
too late she cried!
Authored by: gfim on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:36 PM EDT
ensure that this situation does not arise again in the future, and bring disrepute to the whole ISO and IEC International Standards process
See that open barn door... see that horse over there!!!

---
Graham

[ Reply to This | # ]

*would* bring disrepute???!???!
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:37 PM EDT
>>It suggests ISO fix its procedures so this never can happen
>>again, because it would "bring disrepute to the whole ISO
>>and IEC International Standards process."

We're way to late here to prevent this whole OOXML fast track garbage from
harming ISO's image as a house of reputable standards. After this, many of us
see ISO as being a house of ill-reputable standards/behavior/take_your_pick.
Allowing the blatant manipulation to proceed for so long now destroys any
impression that ISO might have any diligence in regards to maintaining its image
as a disciplined guardian of meaningful standards.

After this, I will put them into the same class as ECMA or ANSI.

mcinsand

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Thalaska on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:45 PM EDT
Corrections to help PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Thalaska on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:47 PM EDT
Off Topic, Not Off color go here

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: Thalaska on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:49 PM EDT
Please put the Title in the box....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Compare and contrast Canada & US
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 09:49 PM EDT
As an American, I'd be interested in seeing how the process was different in SCC
versus ANSI, and how well SCC normally works compared to ANSI. I'm not
interested in the super-obvious (yes, I know INCITS V1 was stacked), but more
about the hows and whys. If anyone has insight into that, please post.

E-man

[ Reply to This | # ]

Candidate for appeal?
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 10:03 PM EDT
With a public position like this, it is like one might not need push very hard
to convince Canada to lodge an appeal.

It is pretty tough to appeal because other national bodies have done a poor job.
This is so undiplomatic. They will need arguments that don't require to blame
their colleagues. Anyone has an idea?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canada Tells Why It Voted No on OOXML & How ISO Must Improve
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 10:35 PM EDT
I read this :

"Finally, Canada recommends that the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML Fast Track
documents and materials, plus the enhancements made at the Ballot Resolution
Meeting be submitted to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 as a New Work item for processing
via the normal standards development processes."

As meaning that Canada is recommending that DIS 29500 OOXML be taken off the
fast track, and all work to date be taken into the normal process for further
review and development before becoming a standard.

Does anyone else see it this way?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canada, Please file a protest,...
Authored by: tce on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 10:39 PM EDT

Thank you,
...your beholding debtor / corporate controlled neighbor to the immediate
south.


---
What Checks & Balances? When the same Party controls, its just a party.
Vote of No Confidence, anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"How ISO must improve"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 11:42 PM EDT

How do you improve a dead carcass?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The committee did its' job
Authored by: sdm on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 11:42 PM EDT
I am so proud as a Canadian that our delegation did its' job. They tried in
good faith to execute their responsibilities to provide the people of Canada
(and the world) with a standard that will promote the sharing of information
on a level playing field.

They found themselves in a disfunctional situation and recognized it for what
it was. To me this is not 'rocket science' but merely acknowledging what is
before your eyes. It is unfortunate that politics was brought into this
standards process. The committee acted on our behalf which is exactly what
they are supposed to do.

They read the studied the proposed standard, applied the rules and didn't try
to game the system. What a concept...


Thanks to all.

Steve











[ Reply to This | # ]

Too Late
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 11:59 PM EDT
It suggests ISO fix its procedures so this never can happen again, because it would "bring disrepute to the whole ISO and IEC International Standards process."

Too late.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who your Enemies are says more about you...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 04 2008 @ 12:21 AM EDT
than who your friends are.

I'm pleased that so far the 'arched eyebrow' and wry comment are public. Now all
we need is an appeal to be lodged because of what they said - That wasn't the
proper track, so have it start over properly. Otherwise you tarnish the value of
ISO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canada Tells Why It Voted No on OOXML & How ISO Must Improve
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 04 2008 @ 12:28 AM EDT
My understanding would be that the most that an organization that allows the
behavior that has been allowed is going to do is pay lip service.
Microsoft need do nothing as all they have done has resulted in victory.
While I think anyone that protests is right, the approval will stand.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canada Tells Why It Voted No on OOXML & How ISO Must Improve - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 04 2008 @ 01:36 AM EDT
I saw this on a blog: http://openoffice.exblog.jp/6972122/

Wait at least two months.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/microsoft_loses_on_ooxml

"There is a two-month period for appeals before the ISO pronounces OOXML a
standard"

ODF is ISO/IEC 26300:2006, Status: Published, Stage: 60.60 (2006-11-30).

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=
43485

OOXML is ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Status: Under development, Stage: 40.99
(2008-04-02).

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=45515

What is "Stage: 40.99"?

It's "Full report circulated: DIS approved for registration as FDIS."

What is "FDIS"? I don't know. Please tell me :)

http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/stages_des
cription/stages_table.htm#s40

As you see, to reach "60.60 International Standard published," there
will be:
50 Approval stage
50.00 FDIS registered for formal approval
50.20 FDIS ballot initiated: 2 months. Proof sent to secretariat
50.60 Close of voting. Proof returned by secretariat
50.92 FDIS referred back to TC or SC
50.98 Project deleted
50.99 FDIS approved for publication
60 Publication stage
60.00 International Standard under publication
60.60 International Standard published

And after publication, we still have:
90 Review stage, and
95 Withdrawal stage.
:)
Not yet, not yet.

--------------------

Does anybody knows more about this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canada Tells Why It Voted No on OOXML & How ISO Must Improve - Updated: Others See Need to Fix
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 04 2008 @ 08:20 AM EDT
You put to much faith in mr. shuttlesworth. He is a business man... Maybe not
today,,, but eventually you will all turn on him... I guarantee it will happen.
Deny it all you want... It will happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Silverlight - Canada Tells Why It Voted No on OOXML & How ISO Must Improve - Updated: Others
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 04 2008 @ 01:10 PM EDT
A lot of attention has been spent on OOXML because it is an attempt to get a
"de-facto" standard accepted by the ISO.

I guess I am more worried about new attempts Microsoft is making to generate new
"standards" with projects like Silverlight, and the processes they are
using to lockout anything but Silverlight, ie locking in Major League Baseball
and trying to lock in the Library of Congress. They are getting away with stuff
as if they were never convicted monopolists!

They continue to work so that all contents flow through their code. They
continue to expand their stranglehold ever further and this must not be
permitted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )