I have just read the official approval of the MSOOXML (Microsoft Office Open XML) as a standard (http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1123). This approval, in the face of all the controversy surrounding it, is a travesty. The fact that ISO approved it calls into question ALL standards that they have approved and, to my mind, necessitates the need to re-evaluate all of them.

I therefore lodge this formal complaint and object to ISO, its processes and procedures, and its ethics:

1. MSOOXML is not an open standard. It was written BY one company FOR one company to exclude any competition from other word processor applications.

2. MSOOXML was not rigorously evaluated, due to time constraints between the time it was proposed and the time it was voted on (otherwise known as “fast-track”).

3. During the BRM (Ballot Resolution Meeting) process the comments offered at the first vote concerning MSOOXML were not adequately addressed due to the extremely short period of time available.

4. There were significant irregularities concerning the voting during the BRM.

5. No known revised copy of the MSOOXML proposal was delivered to the National Bodies for them to evaluate after the BRM, prior to the final voting.

6. No known group of vendors, including Microsoft, have adopted MSOOXML as a file format in it’s complete form.

7. A Microsoft representative has stated that it is doubtful that Microsoft will implement MSOOXML in its future products.

It is for these reasons that I cannot accept MSOOXML as a standard. I therefore call upon ISO to re-evaluate their processes and procedures in accepting standards. A failure, on the part of ISO, in so re-evaluating this situation during the next 2 months will result in my calling into question anything considered a standard by ISO. Any government, organization, agency or other that uses ISO as the authority for anything being a standard will be asked to prove that it actually is a standard: ISO authority will not be an acceptable response. It is my opinion that by this action of approving MSOOXML as a standard, ISO has demonstrated that it lacks the qualifications to adequately evaluate technical material and has further shown that its ethical behavior is subject to the highest bidder.

UPDATE: The contents of this post sent to ISO/IEC (http://www.standardsinfo.net/info/livelink/fetch/2000/148478/6301438/enqsvc_ISO_IEC/enqsvc_IEC/enqsvc_IEC_general/enqsvc_IEC_general_contact_form.html) April 2, 2008 at 7:48 Arizona Time (Mountain Standard Time)