Do we need two ISO standards for document format? - Part 5

Image above: Cover of Ecma's response to National Bodies' comments (click the above image to view the entire Ecma response document)

Continuing from my Part 4 and Yoon Kit's post highlighting the concerns raised by countries against the Microsoft-Ecma Office OpenXML (OOXML) standard, like Yoon Kit said, "...blog posts will review their [Ecma/Microsft] justifications and their explanations [in the Ecma response document]," so below are links to 2 reviews already:

• Walt Hucks (Opportunity Knocks): Ecma Responds
  
  Excerpt:
  
  Has anyone else noticed that they are recycling the same tired old argument that Microsoft’s blogging team has been using for months? Wouldn’t you think that they could come up with something new? I’m sure that they had their best minds working on this with Ecma International, trying to come up with a rebuttal and perhaps even a proposal for modification to smooth over some of the rough spots.

• Edward Macnaghten (Free Software Magazine): When is a standard not a standard?
  
  Excerpt:
  
  I do not believe Microsoft are really interested in open standards, but just paying lip service to them. The history of the OOXML and ODF "discussions" supports this theory. OOXML is not as open as it's name applies: it ignores existing standards and it only fully caters for Microsoft Office programs making it near impossible for a competing product to use. By Microsoft's own admission it is simply an "XMLization" of existing closed .doc, .xls and .ppt formats. It should not be adopted by ISO, and certainly not "fast tracked".