Office Open XML Intermediate 5 Month Ballot Results

During the standardization of Office Open XML, Ecma International submitted its Office Open XML File Formats standard (ECMA-376) to the ISO Fast Track process. After a comment period, the ISO held a ballot that closed September 2007. This has been observed to be perhaps the most controversial and unusual ISO ballot ever convened, both in the number of comments in opposition, and in unusual actions during the voting process. Various factions have strongly supported and opposed this fast track process. On the supporting side were primarily Microsoft affiliated companies; on the opposing side were free- or open-source software organizations, IBM and affiliates, Sun Microsystems, and Google.

There have been reports of attempted vote buying,^[1][2][3][4] heated verbal confrontations, refusal to come to consensus and other very unusual behavior in national standards bodies.^[5][6][7][8] This is said to be unprecedented for standards bodies, which usually act together and have generally worked to resolve concerns amicably.

87 ISO member countries responded to the five-month ballot. There were 51 votes of "approval", 18 votes of "disapproval" and 18 abstentions.^[9] For the measure to pass, ²⁄₃ of "P" members (participating, as opposed to "O" members: observing) must approve and less than ¹⁄₄ of all voting national members (excluding members that abstain from voting) must disapprove. The ballot shows 53% approval by "P" members and 26% disapproval from the total votes.

Results

The following table shows the results by member of the balloting that ended 2 September 2007:^[10]

Reconsideration of votes

On 25–29 February 2008, a Ballot Resolution Meeting was held in Geneva, Switzerland, to consider revisions to the OOXML proposal. Under ISO rules, national standards bodies have thirty days following the Ballot Resolution Meeting to reconsider and possibly change their votes.

Belgium

The Belgian Bureau de Normalisation considered the revisions, but failed to reach a consensus on the proposal. Belgium's initial abstention therefore stood.^[11]

Czech Republic

The Český Normalizační Institut considered the revisions and changed its initial vote against the proposal to a vote in favour.^[12]

Germany

The Normenausschusses Informationstechnik und Anwendungen considered the revisions and reaffirmed Germany's initial vote for the proposal.^[13]

India

The Bureau of Indian Standards considered the revisions and reaffirmed India's initial vote against the proposal.^[14]

Netherlands

The Netherlands Standardization Institute (NEN) considered the revisions and reaffirmed the Netherlands' initial abstention.^[15]

Trinidad and Tobago

The Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards announced that it will change its initial abstention to a vote for the revised proposal.^[16]

United States

The International Committee on Information Technology Standards (INCITS) considered the revisions and reaffirmed the U.S.'s initial vote for the proposal.^[17]

References