Oliver Bell’s weblog

The criticism received after announcing that we changed our vote from “ No with comments” on the proposal of OOXML ( Office Open XML) to “yes” after our meeting with the national special committee on IT, SN/K 185 Friday March 28, was not unexpected. We had also expected criticism if we had chosen to maintain our no-statement.

Important factors for us in this matter have been:

1. The proposal of sending the ECMA standard Office Open XML to ISO/IEC in order to appoint this as the ISO/IEC standard has been handled through the use of a so called “fast-track”-proceedure. This kind of rapid handling is used by ISO to appoint standards that are developed by standardisation organisations that have established cooperation agreements with ISO, for ISO standards. These are often industry standards that already holds a certain degree of accept in the market. By turning such standards into ISO standards they become open standards that can be maintained and further developed in the ISO system.
   OOXML is an extensive standard (with more than 6000 pages) and using a fast track procedure on this document is very demanding. There have been heavy discussions in many countries as to whether this is an appropriate procedure for these kind of matters. Never the less was this procedure accepted as the appropriate method for handling the OOXML standard by ISO and IEC centrally in January 2008.
2. Prior to the OOXML being distributed for voting, the document standard ODF had, after a proposal from the standardisation organisation OASIS, been through an equivalent procedure without any comments on this being problematic. ODF and OOXML are by many considered to be equal document standards, and due to the fact that ODF already has become an ISO standard , the questions has been raised as to whether ISO/IEC can have two competing standards. This question was settled early in 2007 by ISO and IEC centrally stating that there was no clash of interest between the two standards.
3. During 2007 there was a lot of attention in the Norwegian IT sector regarding the process around OOXML. The discussion rapidly turned into a debate pro and contra OOXML. The two questions regarding the use of “fast-track” and parallel standards have consequently been discussed in Standard Norges committee SN/K 185 ( even though the questions had been settled for ISO earlier that same year). The great public interests in the matter lead to an enhancement of the committee from 6-7 member to 30 members.
4. The public inquiry on the procedure for an ISO standard proposal is of high importance. This is an opportunity for all involved parties to state their opportunity and to make proposal for improvements. When Standard Norge sent the proposal out for public inquiry there were 47 comments, where 38 said yes to the proposal and 9 said no. As already known, many of the yes-responses were identical and phrased in a way leaving no doubt that they were the results of a campaign from Microsoft Norway. All the answers came signed and from known senders. Standard Norge cannot take other opinions into consideration than what have been expressed in writing. We would like to add that there is nothing unusual about receiving identical answers in controversial matters where involved parties are discussing the matter and supporting one another’s statements.
   Norway’s statement in this matter was scheduled to be ready for voting in ISO in August 2007. At this point however, there were controversies in the committee regarding Norway’s position, but with a clear majority wanting Norway to vote no. The ISO regulations state that in order for a member to get its no-vote approved it has to be complemented with comments that explains the reason for voting no.
   On the meeting of March 28 the committee thus focused on handling the received comments. According to the ISO regulations all comments that lead to a rejected proposal must be handled in a way that will incorporate them into the standard proposal. As a consequence the members can then chose to change their no to a yes, which was what happened during the OOXML process. 
5. An approved standard requires a qualified majority among the ISO members. A minimum of 2/3 of the members of the committee that has developed the standard shall vote yes, at the same time as no more than ¼ shall vote against the proposal.
   Standard Norge had earlier decided to vote “no with comments” even though the national hearing resulted in a clear yes. The conclusion was thus considered to be a conditional yes, which we also stated in press release August 31. 2007. Standard Norge emphasised the need for an improvement of the standard proposal, in accordance with the comments from the mirror committee and the mechanism of voting “no with comments”.
6. According to ISO and IECs own rules and regulations the national comments shall be handled in a meeting referred to as “ Ballot resolution meeting” (BRM) The number of comments ( close to 3500) that should be handled during a short period of time was significant event though many of the countries had equal comments. The BRM meeting took place in an effective and proper way according to the Norwegian delegation, in accordance with the rules of ISO/IEC BRM –meetings.
   Prior to the BRM meeting the comments from Norway was handled in the same way as the rest of the comments. The editor of the document presented the proposals that became the basis for the BRM meeting. The rest was accepted or accepted with modifications. Naturally the individual country’s comments also seen in context. Discussions at the BRM meeting led also that our comments had to include decisions that had been taken there.
7. In all standardization work in which Standard Norge participate it is Standard Norge that formally votes. The usual rule for international work is that we follow the advice that our mirror committees provide when there is general agreement in the committee. We have on occasion gone against the majority, and there have been instances when the committees feedback has been such that it has not been possible to respond with a yes or a no. In the case of the latter we can with the usual standardization procedure choose to abstain. With the ‘fast-track’ procedure we must provide notice of we want to alter our original vote or not, once the result from the BRM meeting becomes available.
8. The main issue in the Norwegian committee meeting on March 28 was to clarify whether if our comments were given due consideration to the degree that we could change Norway’s vote from No to Yes…. Prior to the meeting 21 committee members had signe an open letter to Standard Norge which argued why Standard Norge should vot no to OOXML. Thus they had taken a position before the committee had discussed how our comments had been considered. In addition the letter also contained other and previously known arguments against the standardization proposal.
   During the meeting it became clear that it was not possible to reach and agreement in the committee about how good or bad our comments had been treated in ISO.
   Following consideration in the committee, at a meeting between delegates from the BRM-meeting and representatives from Standard Norge, there was a further effort made to create a degree of agreement which did not succeed.
   The leader of the committee has an important role succeed in creating agreement, but the leader of the committee had already in 2007 flagged his position which meant that he could no longer meet the criteria for neutrality. He had therefore renounced his task to lead the committees consideration of OOXML and Standad Norges deputy managing director therefore led meetings for consideration of this matter in the committee.
9. Its is correct that a majority of members in the committee believed that comments were not given sufficient consideration However, and in line with what the meeting leader stressed, Standard Norges comments were not formulated as absolutes. The phrasing provided, according to Standard Norge, some leeway which was important to find acceptable solutions through at an international level. During the commentary rounds in the committee meetings there were many that made absolute demands to fulfillment of comments which confirmed that the rigid positions were well established. Standard Norge thus considered any further discussion as futile with regards to achieving agreement in the committee.
10. In Standard Norges summary of the status of the case following the committee meeting we emphasized the following ;
    • In the committee there is a clear majority that is opposed to making OOXML into a ISO/IEC standard. Standard Norge must however in its overall assessment also consider the result of the formal hearing, and thus there is a majority of yes votes. There was greater number of end-users of document standard formats among those in favor, than those who were opposed to the standard.
    • There is agreement about the need for improving the standardization proposal and Standard Norge believes this can best take place if OOXML becomes an ISO standard now. Work on revising can start immediately in the ISO committee which is responsible for this standard, and Norway should be in the best possible position to initiate and participate in this work. ( the ODF standard has has undergone several changes since it become an ISO standard)
    • Standard Norge believes that ISO should critically evaluate the ‘Fast-track’ procedure. We believe that work with OOXML would have been better served if it had been initiated as a new ISO project. The problem , however, was that the proposer ECMA justifiably launched the project as ‘Fast-track’. Standard Norge is also in 2008 one of the 12 members that comprise ISO ‘Technical Management Board’ (TMB) which is responsible for standardization work and the rules and procedures this should follow. We, at TMB, have already decided to discuss experiences with the use of the ‘fast-track’ procedure with the ISO/IEC 29500 procedure as a point of departure. The issue will likely be raised at TMB’s meeting june 3-4 this year.
    • As a member of ISO we are as members in our sister organization IEC required to do our best to ensure that the standarization proposals we are working on can be approved as ISO and IEC standards.

On this basis Standard Norge believes the standardization proposal ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Office Open XML with the comments which are now worked in to the document can be approved.

This matter has been very difficult and there is no easy decision that Standard Norway has had to make. We have provided our account of the case above, and the issues behind Standard Norges vote.