The value of standardization bodies

“All things of value are defenseless”


2008-04-01. Driving into Rotterdam, many have seen this line on the building of an insurance company on Blaak. It has been up on this building since 1987, and probably because of that has become part of the collective memory of The Netherlands. It is a line from the CoBrA movement poet Lucebert and kind of says it all. It can be interpreted in several ways – you don’t need to defend items of obvious value as they are universally understood, or just because you defend something doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. Both interpretations apply in the standards world, and specifically in the latest discussions regarding ISO/IEC ratification of Open XML.

International standardization and standards, including ICT standards, are an integral part of our world and daily life, and are widely appreciated for the value they bring to our lives and the inclusive nature of the process. To date, no one has had to defend international standardization or the process. But this has recently changed with submission of Ecma’s Open XML standard to ISO/IEC for ratification.

The current global standardization system.
We have one global infrastructure which has been an effective system to deal with ICT standardization. It consists of three international standardization bodies: ISO, IEC and ITU-T (ITU-T was not involved in ODF and Open XML process).ISO and IEC share one joint technical committee, JTC 1, for Information and Communications Technology standardization. ISO has 157 Member Bodies (MBs), IEC has 69 National Committees (NCs), and altogether they have 226 so-called National Bodies (NBs) in virtually all of the countries in the world. All NBs have the right to participate in JTC 1 processes such as Fast-Track (FT) and Publicly Available Specifications (PAS) because FT and PAS submissions are voted upon in the whole of ISO/IEC as well as in JTC 1, under the so-called Combined Voting Procedure. The only voting restriction is that only one vote can be cast per country, although some countries may have more than one NB, such as Germany with DIN for ISO and DKE for IEC.

Each NB has its own autonomy and jurisdiction to determine its own national procedures and to execute its national standardization process. The NBs take their role seriously and work hard to find a proper balance between national interests and the broader goals of the standards organization they serve. On an international level, JTC 1 has its own procedures as specified in the JTC 1 Directives and the infrastructure of the ISO/IEC is similar to that of the United Nations. 41 of the NBs are Permanent Members (P) of JTC 1, and there are three A-liaisons, one of which is Ecma International.

P-members and A-liaisons can use the FT process while the right to use the PAS process can be obtained by other organizations, such as OASIS. In this case, Ecma used the FT process to bring Open XML to JTC 1 just as OASIS used the PAS process to bring ODF to JTC 1. Currently, 87 NBs have used their right to express their national position on Open XML. And many NBs have approved both ODF and Open XML for publication as international ISO/IEC standards.


Why are a vocal few being so negative and vitriolic about the current ICT standardization system?
The current system is unique, is the only global structure and system in the world, and has been very functional. This system gave us ODF, it was there to create Open XML, it has published around 2,150 other international standards--many of them used daily by millions of users of ICT software and hardware. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say it works and call it a valuable and effective system.
So, is Lucebert right? I’m afraid he is. Many valuable things in the world can be used in a positive and constructive way, but also the other way round. There are plenty of examples: nuclear energy, political power, rules for road traffic, biophysics, you name it. If NBs are infiltrated by lobbyists or subjected to strict oversight from governments, if individuals are blogging with biased, even apocalyptic views, if companies bring commercial and business fights into the standardization arena, if a new model for business and software engineering is presented as the only good way forward for humanity, if people are intolerant and fundamental like religious zealots, etc., then it becomes very likely that the system itself will suffer and will cease functioning as well as it has for so many years. There has been too much abuse of the system in the last year instead of focusing on constructive actions to improve the process. During the whole of 2006, virtually nobody outside Ecma paid any attention to Open XML but in 2007/2008 the world all of a sudden seemed to go on high alert about this technology. Was that because some parochial interests thought it would be easier to stop Open XML in JTC 1 than in Ecma?

Was there a strategy behind all this? I believe that to be the case.

One reason can be found in the relation between JTC 1 and the commercial opponents of Open XML. In the context of this short article, this may provide some insight. It also helps in the understanding of the size of the fight around Open XML , and the intensity of it. A couple of these opponents are large multi-national companies. These companies understand the structure and procedures of ISO/IEC, a multi-national standards body. Such large and powerful organizations can easily interfere with many NBs. These organizations have had long-term relationships with JTC 1 that has evolved over the years.
- In the eighties, these relationships were marked by strong support, participation and management of JTC 1 , which was a huge committee in those days.
- Subsequently, as the overall size of JTC 1decreased, consortia and other fora sprang up by the hundreds. Many subjects were covered by specifications made by these consortia, and no longer by standards made by JTC 1. In tandem, the withdrawal of some of these key commercial entities happened rather silently although very visibly to those familiar with the standards system.
- The last phase is what we see today with international standards bodies. As long as an organization such as JTC 1does not ‘hurt’ your agenda, you leave it alone and only keep an eye on it from a distance. But that attitude requires a change when that’s no longer the case, or when it is at least perceived as no longer being the case. For those opposing OXML for business reasons, alarm bells rang in early 2007 when Open XML popped up. It should not have come as a surprise, of course, because these opponents were informed in detail about what happened in Ecma in 2006 when that body was reviewing the Open XML technology. This allowed for plenty of time for those opposed to Open XML to develop a strategy and execute on that strategy beginning in early 2007. The commercial opponents of Open XML could no longer leave JTC 1 alone and they took aggressive action, called ‘Butt and Bray’ by Patrick Durusau/ODF Editor. This active campaign has been destructive because these companies are not trying to start the development of a new global ICT standardization structure and they do not seek to improve the current structure, only to sabotage a competing technology.

As a former standards body official, I cannot leave this observation out of this short article. I have observed the actions of these companies since 1983 in the international ICT standardization process. They have been an influential and effective force in forging many successful standards over the years. That is why I find this latest development almost unbelievable, and far below the normal stature of what one would expect from these corporations. Sometimes I think that only a few executives within these commercial opponents are actually driving the “butt and bray” charge . Soon, however, we will know how far they are willing to go with the scorched earth campaign if, after the final ballot results, you see calls for appeals in JTC 1, from these companies or their allies.

This would follow on the heels of the false claims by the opponents of Open XML adoption of irregularities in the NB process essentially anywhere the NBs voted against their interests. For example, we have seen them attack reputable organizations like the DIN of Germany who took the unusual action of putting out a press release to respond to the manufactured “controversy” with a statement that says reports currently circulating on the web about the voting procedures conducted in connection with the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Office Open XML are “wrong and misleading.”
http://www.din.de/cmd?level=tplrtikel&menuid=49589&cmsareaid=49589&cmsrubid=56731&menurubricid=56731&cmstextid=75959&bcrumblevel=1&languageid=en


How far will they go?
Criticizing the current system for ‘allowing’ Fast-Tracking of Open XML and for allowing so many serious(?) errors in the first Edition of an international standard is like shooting the messenger. It is not a very strong strategy, certainly not in an environment like JTC 1. Is it really true that prominent ICT multi-national corporations could not assess the technical content of DIS 29500 - the normative and only important part of which is about one third of the standard - in the available time frame, i.e. more than two years?
All the bickering does not bring anybody further. So, what to do? Again, Patrick Durusau has already given the answer about how to write standards, moving beyond sarcastic or destructive behavior.
Both parties, ODF and Open XML, have to move as soon as possible to the right place in JTC 1, i.e. SC34. That’s where constructive further standardization has a real chance when experts from both sides stop pawing over old hurts.

Our collective time is better spent not defending the defenseless, but moving forward together to improve interoperability and open standards such as Open XML.