Open Malaysia

It looks like Ms Neelie Kroes, the Competition Commissioner for the European Union is in agreement with governments and their agencies for choosing proper open standards, as reported by the New York Times:

“I know a smart business decision when I see one — choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed,” Ms. Kroes told a conference in Brussels. “No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one.”

So its apparent that Malaysian agencies like MAMPU are also doing the right thing in adopting true open standards like ODF as their document file format, despite the fact that Microsoft Malaysia is constantly lobbying and interfering with MAMPU's decisions. The reaction from Microsoft's lobbying is certainly interesting. I think people are getting tired of their underhanded tactics, and false cries of "competition" and "fairness".

Ms Kroes continues to applaud the efforts of governments in making the right choices:

She praised the German city of Munich for using software based on open standards, along with the German Foreign Ministry and the Gendarmerie Nationale, France’s national police force.

Ms. Kroes, who is Dutch, encouraged the Dutch government and Parliament to continue moving toward use of open standards. EU agencies “must not rely on one vendor” and “must refuse to become locked into a particular technology — jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession,” she said.

A policy by the European Commission adopted last year to promote the use of software products that support open standards “needs to be implemented with vigor,” she said.

It would be great if she could look into the running of the Netherlands National Body which is was forced into a "abstention" decision not because of any technical ineptitude to review OOXML, but because Microsoft held the 'veto' to find no full consensus amongst the TC members, as described here:

The result of this intensive process was that during the last meeting on the subject on August 16th 2007 in Delft - where the vote was to be cast - after a majority rejection of a proposal for an "Approval" a final proposal for a so called conditional approval (i.e.: a no vote that would turn into a yes vote if a number of reasonable and already determined conditions were met at the next stage) almost got unanimous support - from all but the local support branch of Microsoft. This isolated position caused the vote to fail and the Netherlands to automatically vote for an "Abstain".

Ms Kroes is of course no stranger to the wrath of the Microsoft machinery, having to battle with them for over 4 years with regards to Microsoft's bundling of their proprietary products, and their indignation in defying her orders. What is interesting is that governments and regulators are getting tired of Microsoft's antics and are starting to bite back.

Ms. Kroes did not name Microsoft in advance copies of her speech, but she made her meaning clear by referring to the only company in the history of EU antitrust enforcement that has been fined for refusing to comply with commission orders — a record held by Microsoft.

“The commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case,” she said.

I wonder when the Ministry of Domestic Trade will wake up and realise that they are practising uncompetitive behaviour by mandating that all PC's should be shipped with operating systems from a single vendor? Surely consumers should have a "choice"? Why isn't the Institute for Software Choice / CompTIA lobbying Dell to have more choice in their OS offerings for their desktops? Ubuntu/Fedora/openSolaris/FreeBSD? Why aren't those being offered?

What is ironic is that we are being told by Microsoft that their rushing of OOXML is due to the EU's request for more open standards in their products. Unfortunately in their haste to push OOXML through the ISO process, they caused such a mess in terms of their relationships with governments, agencies, national bodies and more importantly the media, that Microsoft is now being investigated on their attempts to play the ISO system for OOXML, as reported by The Wall Street Journal in February 2008.

So things aren't looking so swell for Microsoft. Their OOXML is currently in limbo, and will not be published on schedule, because 4 countries (Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa) have appealed against the ISO stamp of "approval". Additionally, the final draft as promised by the BRM is still not available to National Bodies to review, 3 months on (directives clearly state that it should be available within 1 month). Unless of course they don't want to see any changes between the final draft and published text because of the restrictions imposed due to the "Fast Track" process?

Lets see how the Microsoft machinery reacts to this set of interesting news, and see how they spin in.  How much has this fiasco cost them? What did they get out of it? A chance to be more open? Can you see a change yet?

yk.

When Patrick Durusau wrote that Microsoft had no opposition to ODF, he was indefensibly and gloriously wrong. Those of us involved in national standards bodies and on government policy panels have had the dubious honor of having to defend against Microsoft's desperate attempts to kill any possible introduction of ODF as a voluntary standard. Perhaps even worse was having to witness first hand Microsoft making loud complaints against any internal government policies of the usage of ODF and any software which uses ODF (OpenOffice.org being the most prominent). And, of course, many of us have faced the intense lobbying campaign carried out by Microsoft against open source governmental policies.

So when Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, made the famous statement that "It's not about choosing, but about having a choice" with reference to ODF and OOXML, we assumed this was a new chapter in Microsoft history.

Then came along a recent blogpost by Harisfazillah Jamel, "Apabila Membuat Pilihan Dipersoalkan / When Choices are Questioned", on the right of government agencies to make choices. It's written in Malay, but it has been translated by Yoon Kit for the benefit of our international readers. It makes for extremely interesting reading on the pressure Microsoft Malaysia is placing on a government agency because of their choice to use OpenOffice.org/ODF over Microsoft Office:

Apabila Membuat Pilihan Dipersoalkan (When Our Choices Are Questioned)

Ada yang sebuah syarikat ICT yang kononnya mempunyai satu lagi standard bagi satu perkara adalah satu pilihan kepada pengguna. Sedangkan pengguna, mana-mana pengguna juga faham, standard, mempunyai standard bermaksud kita telah membuat pilihan, membuat satu pilihan daripada pelbagai pilihan yang terbaik untuk pengguna.

There is an ICT company which has one more standard for one more application for one more choice for consumers. While consumers, many users understand standards, having standards means we have made a choice, a choice which  is the best for users from many options.

Wakil mereka di Malaysia dalam satu muka surat sebuah akhbar menyatakan, kejayaan mereka mendapatkan iktiraf standard bagi satu format adalah satu pilihan kepada pengguna. Teruskan membaca, apabila membuat pilihan bukan kehendak mereka, adalah bukan pilihan mereka.

Their Malaysian representative, in a page of a newspaper stated that their success of having the standard as a format is yet another choice for users. Read it, if we make a choice not to their liking, it is not their choice.

Lalu sebuah agensi dalam kerajaan Malaysia telah membuat pilihan. Membuat pilihan bukan dalam kehendak syarikat ICT tersebut. Pilihan setelah panjang membuat penilaian. Pilihan atas dasar untuk memberi sokongan dan pilihan kepada agensi-agensi lain. Pilihan yang dibuat atas kehendak sendiri tanpa  tekanan mana-mana pihak. Pilihan yang dipesetujui diperingkat pengurusan tertinggi hinggalah keperingkat bawahan.

An agency in the government of Malaysia had already made a choice. The choice was not the choice of the said ICT company. The choice was made after a long study. The choice was based on principles to bring support and choice to other agencies The choice was made on its own needs without any pressures from any party. The choice was agreed by the highest level of management to the lowest level.

Sekarang timbul isu, syarikat ICT itu tidak senang dengan pilihan yang dibuat oleh agensi itu. Mereka merasakan agensi ini mahu menentukan dasar yang keras terhadap pilihan yang telah dibuat. Oh ya betul, mereka tidak senang dengan pilihan yang dibuat oleh sebuah agensi kerajaan Malaysia dan mula menjalankan kerja-kerja melobi untuk memaksa agensi ini, menurunkan maksud polisi penggunaan standard yang telah dibuat oleh agensi ini.

Now this issue has surfaced. The ICT company is not happy with the choice that was made by the agency. They felt that the agency wants to set a policy which is incompatible with the choice that they prefer. Oh that is true, they are not happy with the choice that was made by an agency of the Malaysian Government and have started work lobbying to force this agency to dampen the meaning of the policy of using standards that was announced by this agency.

Polisi yang telah disusun, dibincang dengan panjang lebar dan diluluskan dalam pengurusan tertinggi agensi ini mahu diubah oleh syarikat ICT tersebut kerana ia tidak menepati pilihan yang kehendak mereka. Bahawa diingatkan polisi ini adalah khusus hanya untuk agensi ini supaya memudahkan pelaksanaan atas satu standard. Itu maksud tujuan standard, memudahkan pelaksanaan kepada satu pilihan.

The policy that was prepared, was discussed widely and in detail, was approved by the highest level management of this agency, is to be modified by the said ICT company because it is not inline with their needs. Whereas it is reminded that this policy is specifically for this agency such that it  can easily implement one standard. That is the meaning and purpose of a standard, the ease of implementing one choice.

Yang buat saya marah, adalah teknik yang saya panggil, kilas tangan dengan kasar memaksa agensi ini tukarkan polisi agensi ini. Ya memaksa, walau apa pun cara yang digunakan, bagi saya ia masih panggil ia memaksa, agensi ini tukarkan polisi dari segi pelaksanaan.

What makes me angry is  what I call their heavy handed technique of forcing the said agency to change its policies. Yes force, by any means possible. I still call it force, to get the agency to change its policies on implementation.

Bagi saya, campur tangan dalam urusan sebuah agensi kerajaan Malaysia terutama melibatkan polisi, dan nyata sekali polisi ini adalah untuk penggunaan agensi tersebut oleh sebuah syarikat luar negara merupa satu campur tangan asing... Sebuah bentuk penjajahan ...

For me, their intervention in the business of an agency of the Government of Malaysia especially when it involves policies, and especially when this policy is stated for the use of this agency, by a foreign company represents ... a form of colonisation ...

Siapa mereka untuk tentukan dasar dan pentadbiran sebuah negara.  Saya sebagai rakyat Malaysia cukup marah dengan campur tangan sebegini. Perkara ini telah lama diperhatikan sejak daripada melobi penerimaan standard yang kononnya adalah satu pilihan.

Who are they to define the policies and the running of a sovereign country. I, as a Malaysian citizen, have enough with their interference of this nature. This behaviour has long been witnessed ever since the lobbying efforts of the standards which is claimed to be yet another "choice".

Saya tidak akan duduk diam dengan bentuk penjajahan cara baru ini. Saya tidak akan berhenti menulis dan berkempen untuk mendedahkan apa jua yang dilakukan oleh syarikat ICT ini untuk terus memaksa penggunaan produk mereka.

I am not going to sit quiet with this new form of colonisation tactic. I am not going to stop writing and campaigning and resist any action by this ICT company which forces the use of their products.

Banyak sudah duit rakyat, duit rakyat mengalir keluar daripada Malaysia, hanya untuk pembayaran lesen. Pembayaran hanya atas kertas, tiada hasil kepada kita rakyat Malaysia, hanya menjadikan syarikat luar negara atau individu luar negara lagi kaya.

Too much of our citizens money, money of the people has flowed out from Malaysia, only to purchase licenses. The payment is only for paper, without any value to us Malaysian citizens, only to make a foreign company or individual foreigners rich.

Sedangkan duit yang berjuta-juta itu boleh dialirkan kepada industri ICT negara kita dalam bentuk pelaksanaan sistem sokongan, penyelidikan dan pelaksanaan kepada aplikasi sumber terbuka atau Open Source Software.

If only the multi-millions of riggit could flow to our ICT industry in the form of system support, research and implementations in Open Source Software.

Mengapa perlu kayakan orang lain sedangkan rakyat ini yang membayar cukai tersebut perlu lihat sahaja duit itu keluarkan. Sedang sudah ada pilihan, pilihan yang setelah dikaji, boleh mendatangkan faedah yang banyak kepada rakyat Malaysia.

Why must we make other people wealthy while citizens have to pay the tax. Just see the expenditure. While there is already a choice, a choice that has been evaluated which can bring much benefits to the citizens of Malaysia.

Polisi dan dasar sudah ada. Mengapa tidak sokong? Soalan yang hendak tanya kepada ahli-ahli politik negara kita ...

The Policies are already defined. Why is there no support? These are the questions which need only be asked to the politicians of our country ...

Apa yang saya tulis ini adalah pendapat peribadi, akan tetapi saya mahu ia dipandang  serius oleh banyak pihak. Lama mana kita mahu dijajah ... ???

What I have written is just my personal opinion, but I want this viewed seriously by many. How long do we ever want to be colonised ... ???

I really must commend Patrick Durusau's innate capability of writing the most inflammatory and outrageous publications, publications that are so divorced from reality that one cannot help but think that the dude must be hoarding some seriously good weed to be able to live so completely within his own defined existence. His latest publication, "Not With a Bang, but With a Whimper", has been receiving flak from the collective open standards community for exactly that reason and rightly so.

Patrick writes that:

Signs the document standards war was entirely fictitious have been around for quite some time. Where was the Microsoft opposition to OpenDocument in standards bodies such as OASIS and ISO? Perhaps they forgot? Didn't get the memo?

Given that we at OpenMalaysiaBlog, as open standards supporters, have been at the forefront of receiving the brunt of their vicious (and often personal) attacks on ODF, I find Patrick's assertions as ridiculous and cockeyed at best, and deliberately offensive at worst.

Microsoft has been running an anti-ODF campaign in favour of OOXML for a long long time now. In Malaysia, their campaign started with opposition to Malaysia's proposed adoption of ODF ISO26300:2006 as a voluntary standard by invoking Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt on the ODF standard. The campaign continued on by personally attacking members of the technical committee who were in favour of ODF, by casting undue aspersions on their characters, in particular, insinuating that we were subversive agents of IBM intent on the destruction of Microsoft (apparently, anybody who supports truly open standards is a biased IBM agent).

In fact, during a technical standards meeting on ODF, senior management of Microsoft Malaysia printed out an unrelated and personal blog post from Yoon Kit (in which he was slightly critical of a Malaysian government agency whose representative was also present during the meeting), passed it around to all members present in the meeting and demanded for proper ethical conduct from members. That's right, folks - he printed out a non-technical blog post and attempted to cast a false and misleading charge on the character of a member of the technical meeting.

To the credit of the representative of the government agency in question and the chairman of the meeting, the meeting was quickly brought to order. The representative of the government agency did not have a problem with Yoon Kit's blog post but Microsoft Malaysia did. Note that this is not hearsay, I witnessed this first hand and was thoroughly shocked at the extent Microsoft would go to destroy any perceived threat to their Microsoft Office cash cow. The Microsoft Malaysia representative in question also distributed printed blog posts from OpenMalaysia and circled the name of a member of this blog who also happens to be an IBM employee, insinuating to all that members of OpenMalaysia are influenced by IBM in pushing for a pro-ODF stand. This happened during a meeting to discuss the technical aspects on ODF!

That particular meeting was followed by an anonymous smear campaign against one of the TC members. A letter was faxed to the organization of the TC member in question, accusing the TC member in question of helping politicize the issue (which is, of course, untrue). I too had the dubious pleasure of hearing first hand how Microsoft attempted to remove me from the TC (they did not succeed, thanks to integrity and cojones of the organization I am affiliated with).

If this unethical behaviour by Microsoft was not sufficiently despicable, they did the unthinkable by involving politics in what should have been a technical evaluation of the standard by writing to the head of the Malaysian standards organization and getting its business partners to engage in a negative letter writing campaign to indicate lack of support of ODF in the Malaysian market. Every single negative letter on ODF received by the Malaysian standards organization was written either by Microsoft, or a Microsoft business partner or a Microsoft affiliated organization (Initiative for Software Choice and IASA).

That's right, Patrick, every single negative letter on ODF can be traced back to Microsoft. And you ask where was Microsoft's opposition to ODF? Here is a letter by Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director to the head of the Malaysian standards organization, opposing ODF as a voluntary standard (note that I have digital copies of all the letters in questions, if you wish to read them):

Patrick, you write that:

Need more? Watch the reaction to this announcement by Microsoft. Remember the cry has been that Microsoft should adopt OpenDocument. Microsoft has now adopted OpenDocument and it will be devoting resources to its development. For those unfamiliar with the concept, that means Microsoft will be making a positive contribution to the ODF development effort.

My recommendation is that everyone put up their noise makers and welcome Microsoft to the OpenDocument community and prepare to work with them to advance its development

Patrick, you make the assumption that those who are opposing OOXML are doing it solely because we oppose Microsoft. You couldn't be more wrong and I think it's high time you recognize the most excellent effort by many parties in helping improve the OOXML specification.

Yoon Kit and myself have spent countless weekends and many, many, many man hours finding ways of improving the proposed standard. My report to the TC, based on the reading made of the proposed standard, have always been on a solely technical basis, and Patrick, you of all people, should accede to the fact that there are/were severe technical deficiencies in the proposed standard and that input from members of National Bodies helped improve the specification.

The campaign against Open XML was at its start, in the middle and at the end an anti-Microsoft campaign. The merits or demerits of Open XML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft.

Making the dangerous argument that "the merits or demerits of OOXML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft" works to undermine the important constructive value of  criticism, which is to improve the proposed standard in question. The logic you have employed, that any attempt to criticize the technical deficiencies in OOXML is equated to criticism of Microsoft, is superfluous. By any measure, our criticism and feedback has helped improve the proposed standard immeasurably and you simply must recognize that, if intellectual honesty carries still carries weight with you.

Patrick, to further claim that we are solely "noise makers" does irreparable damage to value of the work we have put into improving the proposed standard. In fact, some of the decent folk at Microsoft (yes, they actually exist) helped arrange a conference call to Brian Jones, whose input helped clarify some the issues I was attempting to understand. I subsequently revised my technical contribution to the TC based on the clarification by Brian Jones. Your assertion that we are doing this so as to criticize Microsoft is an unfair charge and only serves to undermine your already dwindling reputation among the open standards community.

Now, when I was first told about Microsoft Office support for ODF by a Microsoft employee, my reaction was: "Awesome!". Then I puzzled for a minute over why they didn't do this two years ago and avoid opposing the passage of ODF as a Malaysian standard. In any case, the following day, I relayed this message to Yasmin Mahmood, the Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, with an invitation for OpenMalaysia Blog to interview her on this positive and constructive development. I've not heard back from Yasmin on my invitation, but let me publicly assure the lady that the invitation is still open and we are committed to publishing the interview verbatim (word for word). Yoon Kit and I also offered to publicize the good work Microsoft is doing on ODF by running an interview with them. Brian and Doug, that invitation is still open if you choose to accept it by answering the questions we sent to you 11 days ago.

So all in all, Patrick, you owe us an apology for your thoughtless remarks, your unfair insinuations and biased connotations on our character.

Its official.

At least one National Body has submitted a formal complaint to ISO and IEC. South Africa was rather vocal about the Fast Tracking process of OOXML from day one.

It also has recently made ODF as its National Standard, and has a firm plan on how to standardise on one document format in their  Minimum Interoperability Standards for Information Systems in government (MIOS).

This is what was submitted to ISO and IEC in separate appeals:

Download DIS_29500_appeal_letter_ISO.pdf

Download DIS_29500_appeal_letter_IEC.pdf

yk.

[Update: 7:35pm Letter transcribed <read more>]

[Update: 7:46pm Steven Pepper, ex-Chair of the Norwegian TC has also blogged this new development and has more information on Norway's position]

May 17, 2008 is Open Malaysia blog's 2nd. birthday!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

The first post 2 years ago declared, "This is a blog
about openness, saying that the changing times call for innovation through open collaboration." Open innovation, ODF, open standards and open source were what we championed then and what we still champion today.

Malaysia had voted Approval of ODF as an ISO standard just before this blog started 2 years ago. OOXML came into the picture since then, but in the last one year, Malaysia cannot be considered to have officially accepted OOXML -- the Malaysian National Body committees  (TC4, then ISC G) voted Disapproval of OOXML, and the Malaysia final vote of Abstention decided by the Minister is at best non-committal to OOXML.

On the blog's 1st. birthday on May 17, 2007, there were 194 posts and 163 comments. In the one year after that, we added 111 posts but the number of comments tripled to 512 comments within the same one year! The worldwide dialog created by this blog was awesome.

In the 1st. year, we had 32,000 visits (by Sitemeter). In the 2nd. year, the month of March 2008 alone had 32,000 visits, with a total of 100,000 visits in the whole of this 2nd. year. The most popular post was definitely The Last Lap on the OOXML results which attracted thousands of visits every day.

Yes, the times they are a-changing. I leave it to you to recount the changes you have seen in "openness" in Malaysia and elsewhere over the last year -- do write your comments below.

What?

Yes. Try to understand that fantastic quote from Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia's (current) Managing Director. This was reported by Tech&U, which is currently leading the pack as the most reliable source of Microsoft propaganda. What's wonderful is that they quote Yasmin word for word without questioning what she really means. It makes hilarious reading.

I have transcribed the article below, as it is not available online yet.

What's interesting is that finally, we have documented proof that Microsoft is not interested in real choice for customers, but merely an illusion of choice. This is straight from the horse's mouth, as they say:

"The industry just wants to have the best innovation; they want to have the freedom of choice. The whole idea is not about choosing, it's about having a choice ... and that is what customers and partners want," she said.

It's about having the freedom of choice. Not really about making a firm choice, but at least we have some choice. I could go on about how fallacious this argument is but I think you readers are intelligent enough to know how this is so wrong.

But if Microsoft really has the interests of "choice" for their customers, why then don't they really, walk the talk, and provide choice of ODF in their products? Why are they restricting my choice as an end user who prefers the better ISO standard? Do they really practice what they preach? Why is there less choice in their products?

Why do they complain so loudly when their 'formats' are not considered and yet are so blatant about leaving out competing formats in their products? Why is Novell so much more capable in building OOXML support in OpenOffice.org and Microsoft, a vastly larger company with teams of developers having such difficulty writing ODF support in their products?

What really is rich about her comment about the astroturfing Microsoft Malaysia had seeded to create the illusion of OOXML adoption in Malaysia:

... some strategic projects in Malaysia have successfully leveraged on the format. Among them are the Malaysian Halal Hub Open XML System, RosettaNet Automated Enablement, Tradenex.com and World Congress on Information Technology 2008's Registration System.

I have already elaborated on how Microsoft funded the development of OOXML integration on "strategic projects" above (Halal Hub and RosettaNet). What is new however is the WCIT'08 Registration System. Who needs OOXML to register for a seminar? Don't we just need HTML/HTTP to do online registrations?

It's laughable that Microsoft Malaysia is trying to tag on OOXML to everything they sponsor.

Speaking of which, if you visit the WCIT website, at the bottom, you can see these logos:

It does not take a statistician to find a correlation between voting patterns on OOXML in Malaysia and "smart partnerships" with this WCIT circus. MDeC and PIKOM voted "Approve". MoSTI (Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation) voted "Abstain" and its Minister ultimately overrulled the overwhelming 81% Disapproval position by TC4 and ISC-G, the technical committees overseeing the OOXML draft standard.

What has to be said is that the Microsoft Malaysia propaganda machine has to go into overdrive now because at the end of the day, while Malaysia voted "Approve" to ODF, in all intents and purposes, Malaysia strongly rejected OOXML in all sectors of the ICT ecosystem. At best, if spun properly, Microsoft can say that Malaysia is non-committal to OOXML as it merely "Abstained".

I wonder what other strategic projects Microsoft Malaysia can sponsor next? To them, the money train just left the first station and must keep going! We just have to sit back, and enjoy the spin. Eventually they will find that they cannot fund everything and buy support all the time.

yk

I think Canada's Final Position Statement states very clearly what was wrong with this entire OOXML circus. Instead of being overly critical, they too and provide sound advise on how ISO can fix it:

I hope they appeal.

yk

The ODF Alliance released the following statement at their ODF Alliance blog:

ODF Alliance Statement on the ISO Vote on OOXML

Washington, DC, April 2, 2008—ODF Alliance managing director Marino Marcich issued the following statement regarding the ISO vote on Microsoft’s Office Open XML.

“The ISO vote on OOXML has raised awareness at the highest levels of government of the importance of preserving access to public information and records. For too long, this information has been locked into the closed, proprietary format controlled by a single vendor. This is increasingly unacceptable. For this reason, governments around the world have been adopting the already-ISO approved OpenDocument Format (ODF).

ODF will continue to be the document format of choice that best meets the needs of governments interested in ensuring access to their own information, now and in the future. The process itself brought to the fore OOXML’s deficiencies that will prevent its use by public administrations, chief among them that OOXML remains a “community of one”—undocumented features, IPR restrictions, and features and functionality linked to other Microsoft products that will prevent OOXML’s use in other software products. Governments will naturally take a “buyer beware” attitude toward OOXML and its lone implementation, Microsoft Office 2007. Nothing about the process will provide governments with any more confidence in OOXML’s openness and interoperability than they had before the vote.

The vote shined a spotlight on OOXML that will not dim. Only in response to growing public pressure has Microsoft promised to make changes to OOXML, and, to be sure, similar promises have been made on numerous occasions. To avoid any questions concerning the legitimacy of the vote, which included many documented irregularities, Microsoft needs to ensure that these promises made to national standards bodies are actually delivered. 

If anything, this vote has galvanized the ODF community, making us more confident than ever of ODF’s emergence as the document format of the future.”

Finally, some press is picking up on Malaysia's strange voting decision. ZDNet Asia has been on the ball lately with OOXML news, and Lee Min Keong has picked up on information from OpenMalaysiaBlog to feature as an article (unfortunately) entitled "Malaysia unmoved in OOXML vote":

Some Quotes:

Minister ignored objections
According to Open Malaysia, the Malaysian Industrial Standards Committee for IT (ISC-G) took a vote on Mar. 27 to decide the country's stance on the OOXML-ISO vote, with 13 disapprovals, five abstentions and only three approvals.

By eventually taking the decision to abstain in the OOXML ISO ballot, Maximus Ongkili, who is two weeks into the job as Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation--following the country's Mar. 8 general elections--appeared to have ignored the ISC-G's majority "disapprove" vote.

In the article, the journalist tried to contact Microsoft Malaysia, but they said they wouldn't comment on the news, as the official result was not out yet. This was ironically "out of respect for ISO/IEC". They have a sense of humour, I suppose ...

It gets funnier. In response to some of my comments in by blog post on the ISC-G 81% vote, a "pro-OOXML industry source--who declined to be named" tried to justify PIKOM, MDeC and MIMOS's relevance as the 3 stalwarts of Malaysia's ICT's vision. The justification is laughable.

If the "pro-OOXML" source is so reputable, why decline to be named? Either the source is not reputable (e.g. Junk'em Conslutancy), or it's from Microsoft Malaysia themselves.

C'mon, don't be an anonymous coward. State your name and valid arguments please.

Anyway, I posted a "Talkback" stating that not all PIKOM's members are happy with their position. If at all, PIKOM should "Abstain" from this decision if they really listened to their members.

Please do read this article, and I look forward to more news like this in the future!

yk.

The Manila Bulletin and ZDNet Asia have the details of how close the voting was in the Philippines. The Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) decision in September 2007 was a "Disapproval" but on March 28th 2008, they reconsidered, and was deadlocked at 4 votes to 4. The Chair intervened, and tilted the decision to make it a "Approval" vote from Philippines.

Approve:

1. Peter Que of the Philippine Computer Society
2. George Kintanar of the CIO Forum
3. Juan Chua of the Computer Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Association of the Philippines.
4. Julie Sudario of the CICT's National Computer Center[3]

Beng Coronel of the   Philippine Software Industry Association [1] [2]

Disapprove:

1. Peter Banzon of the Advanced Science and Technology Institute of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST)
2. Prospero Naval of the computer science department of the state-owned University of the Philippines
3. Darwin Santos of the DOST's Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology Research and Development.
4. Beng Coronel of the Philippine Software Industry Association [1][2][3]

Julie Sudario of the CICT's National Computer Center

The article explained the result:

"The voting process was as tight as it can get, with most representatives from the government sector electing to reject the document format. However, the chair of the committee, Philip Barilla of the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT), tilted the balance of power to the "yes" side."

The general pattern, like Malaysia, is the same: Government agencies and Academia reject OOXML as an ISO standard. These represent the vast majority of its citizens' interests. Just what percentage of the population do the "pro-OOXML" Associations represent?

So we see, yet another decision based on simple majority. I wonder why consensus was not sought? I'm sure both sides could find resolutions to any perceived sustained opposition to find a consensus position?

yk.

[1] - [Update: 2nd April 2008.
According to some commentators on "The Last Lap", Philippines' decision may not be as straightforward. PSIA or Philippine Software Industry Association had a decision made which clearly stated in this document that:

"After considering all available information and the different perspectives of its board members, PSIA recommends that DTI maintain its "No" vote to accept OOXML as an ISO standard due to the following concerns:

[lists concerns]

"In addition, there are numerous technical concerns expressed by the DOST-ASTI. The PSIA representative to the DTI-NS concurs with ASTI's technical concerns as described in the attached position paper.

"The PSIA encourages competition and market forces to drive open standards. In this matter, the PSIA believes that an ISO certification requires a substantial 'readiness' for a standard to be adopted. At the moment, the PSIA believes that OOXML has not met that requirement."

Was PSIA [represented by PSIA president, Beng Coronel of Pointwest Technologies] convinced in the final meeting on the 28th of March which overturned this decision?]

[2] - [Update: 2am 3rd April 2008
I emailed a PSIA representative, and they have confirmed that they maintained a DISAPPROVE vote.]

[3] - [Update: 1pm 3rd April 2008
I received confirmation from Mr Jose Carlos Reyes from BPS that the article was erroneous in its reporting. PSIA did indeed vote "Disapprove", while NCC (National Computer Center) voted "Approve". So the voting numbers stand.

What is interesting are the reasons for their decisions. Take for instance, the justification from NCC CICT:

They suggested a "Yes with comments" vote in the last ballot, on conditional that Ecma fixes the ISO date issue at the BRM. We all know that the date issue is still not fixed. OOXML instead of cutting back on the number of type of date encodings, now allows 5 different type of normative dates.

This was recognised by the only party in Philippines who actually did some technical review, the Department of Science, Advanced Science and Technology Institute (DOST-ASTI):

How Philippines came to their vote and result is up to their own National Body to decide, and up to their citizens to question. What is certain however, it was not because of technical merits nor concerns with the DIS. It was more of a general policy issue and intervention from Ministries, which allowed OOXML through.

This it seems, to be a worldwide trend, and is a strange way of building and approving quality standards. What can I say?]

The final votes for DIS29500 is now done. Apparently, results will only come out tomorrow. So, it's all over for now, bar the screaming and shouting. For many observers, it's absolutely clear that the voting process in various National Bodies have been less than ... logical. However, because there's not actually been anything illegal, in so far as anyone can tell, the hanky-panky have been described as "irregular".

There's been accusations of corruption, but none that anyone could really make stick. In Malaysia, there's been cajoling, lobbying, pleading, cabinet paper attempt-ing, lunches, dinners, following of officials like a puppy, arse licking, ego stroking, economic doom-spelling and other methods to convince the vote caster to approve the draft standard, OOXML, or failing that, to abstain. However, there haven't been any reports of outright vote-buying or any other forms of money exchange, nor do we expect any to come in the future.

So, on the surface, in Malaysia at least and in many other countries (except, allegedly, Sweden), the efforts of Microsoft to convince the NBs to approve OOXML as an ISO standard has been legal.

That it stinks to high heaven is beside the point.

What is the point is that we have collectively, globally, bore witness to an awesome display of power by a single corporation. Awesome. Ruthless, even. That Microsoft would fight in every nook and cranny, every possible avenue, every committee, sub-committee, sub-sub-committee, upwards, downwards and sideways to the committees, is simply astounding.

That Microsoft can and did encourage the final decision makers to ignore the wishes of their own standards bodies, majorities be damned, is further affirmation of this awesome display.

Some are saying that this is a Pyrrhic victory for Microsoft, that the battle is not yet over. They refer to Norway kicking back as the first return salvo. We await other nations (and personally, especially my own, Malaysia) to join Norway.

But let's make it clear here that protesting the approval of DIS 29500 OOXML is not a protest against Microsoft per se, but more against the besmirching of the process, the subversion and brushing aside the collective technical expertise of countless of interested/non-interested parties and experts, and sheer ignorance of any due respect to other people's opinions.

However, it was awesome. One company, Microsoft, against all comers, all over the world.

Simply, awfully, awesome.

I received a text message from the Director General of Standards Malaysia stating:

"FYI, M'sia maintained its abstention vote on the OOXML. TQ"

That's all the explanation I got.

I was expecting to understand the Minister's justification for overturning the 81% "Disapprove" position by ISC-G and TC4.

I guess I will have to wait for MoSTI to make a Press Release.

BTW, the previous justification by the ex-Minister back in September 2007 was:

"By abstaining, it does not mean that Malaysia agrees or disagrees with the new proposed standard, but that at the moment it is too premature to make a concrete decision based on vague and unclear information."

"Jamaludin said abstaining from voting meant that the Open XML would need to go through a more rigorous standardisation process."

Let's hope our new (2 weeks on the job) Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation can come up with better reasons than this.

yk.

Side Note: The Last Lap post containing OOXML results can be viewed here.

The ISO standards development process insist on the principle of consensus, industry satisfaction and voluntary adoption. Consensus is defined as:

"The views of all interests are taken into account: manufacturers, vendors and users, consumer groups, testing laboratories, governments, engineering professions and research organizations."

Microsoft has been strongly lobbying members of National Bodies to vote "Approve" on OOXML (DIS 29500) without due recognition and consideration of the technical issues that needed to be discussed and fixed in OOXML. Never mind that there is a substantial oppostion to the introduction of this draft standard (as it stands today), Microsoft has been spending countless millions of dollars and the time of many of its employees to lobby and get OOXML through the venerable gates of ISO by hook or crook.

Microsoft Singapore (led by Mr. Barney Lau) has been running an intensive lobbying campaign to the members of the Information Technology Standards Committee (ITSC) to vote "Approve" on OOXML and disregard the "Disapprove" recommendation of Singapore's Information Exchange Technical Committee. Sure enough, in September 2007, ITSC voted "Approve" despite its technical committee voting a strong "Disapprove". The members of ITSC include members of the academia and industry as follows:

1. Chairman, Mr Robert Chew representing the Standards Council
2. Mr V S Kumar representing the Association of the Small and Medium Enterprises
3. Mr Raymond Lee representing the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
4. Mr Alvin Ong representing the Information Technology Management Association
5. Dr Susanto Rahardja representing the Institute for Infocomm Research
6. Dr Derek Kiong representing the Institute of Systems Science
7. Mr Tam Kok Yan representing the Ministry of Defence
8. Mr Daniel Wee representing Nanyang Polytechnic
9. Assoc Prof Chia Liang-Tien, Clement representing Nanyang Technological University
10. Assoc Prof Pung Hung Keng representing National University of Singapore
11. Mr Lim Sah Soon representing the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry
12. Mr Alphonsus Pang, Singapore Computer Society
13. Mr Foo Jong Tong representing Singapore infocomm Technology Federation
14. Ms Susan Chong representing SPRING Singapore
15. Mr Harish Pillay individual capacity
16. Mr Wilson Tan, individual capacity

Apparently, Microsoft Singapore allegedly promised funding and discounts to the academia. There is no documentation to back this up, so I cannot substantiate this rumour (and neither should you consider it to be true). However, it is true that Microsoft Singapore got all its business partners to write in standard template letters of support to ITSC to get ITSC vote "Approve".

In particular, the Information Technology Management Association (ITMA) and the Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation (SITF) (highlighted in red above), specifically wrote in to ITSC supporting OOXML as an ISO standard. Amazingly, both letters were CC-ed to Mr. Barney Lau (Microsoft Singapore Managing Director). I honestly did not know that ITMA and SITF were answerable to Mr. Barney Lau of Microsoft Singapore. Oh wait, he is a member of the SITF council.

That may be the most cogent explanation yet of Singapore's "Approve" vote I've seen to date.

Here are the letters sent by ITMA and SITF (as provided by a source in Microsoft who was not happy with the approach the regional Microsoft office took to railroad OOXML through Singapore's standards body).

On March 27th 2008, the Malaysian Industrial Standards Committee for IT (ISC-G) convened, and one of its many points of discussion was the OOXML issue. This committee is set up to have a higher level overview of the political, economic and technical impact of standards ready for its approval.

Like for the case of TC4, there was no consensus building in the meeting, as the chair said all that was required is to receive the various positions of the committee. So the voting happened by paper, and the submission was for 10am the next day. Many members, who were already represented in TC4, submitted their decisions immediately.

Here are results of ISC-G on the position for Malaysia should take on the Approval of ISO/IEC 29500 as an international standard through the fast track process:

Approval:

1. PIKOM - Association of the Computer and Multimedia Industry of Malaysia
2. MIMOS Berhad
3. MDeC - Multimedia Development Corporation

Disapproval:

1. ACEM - Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia
2. FMM - Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers
3. KPDNHEP - Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs
4. MAMPU - Malaysian  Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit
   
5. MCMC - Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission
   
6. MNCC - Malaysian National Computer Confederation
7. MTSFB - Malaysian Technical Standards Forum Berhad
8. MINDEF - Ministry of Defence
9. KTAK - Ministry of Energy, Water & Communications
10. MMU - Multimedia University
11. Telekom Malaysia Berhad
12. IEM - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia
13. UTM - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Abstain:

1. DSM - Department of Standards Malaysia
2. MITI - Ministry of International Trade and Industry
3. INTAN - National Institute of Public Administration
4. MICCI - Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry
5. MoSTI - Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

The final results were therefore: 3 Approvals, 13 Disapprovals and 5 Abstentions.

It must be noted that the committee members also provided technical concerns and advisory comments like:

"TC4 deliberation on this matter during the meeting highlighted clear recommendation for this [Disapproval]"

"Looks like it's [DIS 29500] is a product specification and needs to go through normal process for approval"

"Draft is not mature for approval with 6000 pages. It must be thoroughly reviewed technically and not go through a fast track process"

"No final draft prepared"

Although it is a resounding "Disapprove" from ISC-G, with a super majority of 81% (13/16), this is NOT the final position of Malaysia on this issue, as the decision ultimately resides on the shoulders of the Minister of Science Technology and Innovation.

It also must be noted that DSM and MoSTI have consistently "Abstained" on this matter. I have had interaction with responsible civil servants within these agencies who have indicated their personal positions, which is to Disagree with the approval of OOXML, as all the other Ministries have.

So, by 28th March 2008, we have super majorities in both TC4 and ISC-G to Disapprove OOXML, and the good Minister would have ample information and advice on what to decide on. There is good consensus amongst Industry, End Users and Government Agencies that OOXML is not ready for standardisation.

Malaysia's decision is still not public yet, and I will await that news before I pass my personal opinion on this matter.

yk

Now that the voting period for DIS 29500 (OOXML) has gone and past, I can now safely blog about the past weeks events in Malaysia.

On Friday 21st, the Malaysian Technical Committee responsible for evaluating OOXML were given ballot papers to be returned to SIRIM on Monday (24th) 5pm. This procedure differed from the normal voting methods employed by SIRIM.

Normally, TCs are given the responsibility to provide a position on certain matters, and to achieve that position was to gain consensus from all the parties involved. Consensus building means that we should find a position where there should be no sustained opposition.

However because it was a delayed ballot to be submitted later, this process could not happen.

Nevertheless, here are the results from the Technical Committee on

Malaysia’s vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 - Information Technology - Office Open XML File Formats 

Approve:

1. PIKOM - Association of the Computer and Multimedia Industry of Malaysia [debate]
2. IASA - Brought in the VP from Microsoft US
3. DagangNet - Local company which brought in an expert with RosettaNet
4. MDeC - Multimedia Development Corporation

Disapprove:

1. FMM - Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers
2. MNCC - Malaysian National Computer Confederation
3. MAMPU - Malaysian  Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning
4. ARKIB Negara - Malaysian National Archives
5. KPDNHEP - Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs
6. KTAK - Ministry of Energy, Water & Communications
7. UTM - University Technologi Malaysia
8. Malaysian Association of Standards Users

Did not respond / Abstained / Holds no position:

1. ACEM - Association of Consulting Engineers of Malaysia
2. KASTAM - Royal Malaysian Customs
3. MOSTI - Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation
4. MMU - Multimedia University
5. Bank Negara

The final vote for TC4 was: 4 Approvals, 8 Disapprovals and 5 Abstentions.

What is interesting is that the Approvals, like in the case of India are associations which have strong ties with Microsoft, of whom provides support, funding and are sponsors to their events.

For the Disapprovals are Malaysian End-User Associations, Governmental Agencies and Academia. The bodies who represent the huge majority of Malaysian citizens' interests.

This however should be no indication of Malaysia's final vote, as this will have to go through TC4's next level, which is ISC-G. They held their meeting on the 27th, and a similar delayed vote, without consensus was also held.

Additionally, ISC-G's vote will not be the final position either.

The final position will be solely decided by the new Minister of Science Technology and Innovation, who had up till today 7am to cast Malaysia's final position.

yk

I don't know what the attraction is, but somehow we all love the morbid fascination of Zombies in action. First, Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H CompTIA hires Mr. Jan van der Beld, Ex-Ecma Secretary General, to fly all the way here to KL, for an event supposedly about "good multiple standards".  There he challenges us to find a better way to Fast Track large, immature vendor dependent specifications. The answer is of course: "Don't do it." Later on that same day, like a man possessed, he turns up at a PIKOM meeting only to rant and thump tables.

Then yesterday, our fantastic broadsheet turned tabloid "The New Straits Times" featured a "Comment" by our so called "cooler head" Datuk Dr Mohd Ariffin Aton entitled "Walking the Talk on neutrality policy". If you've forgotten about him, you may be forgiven, but he is or rather WAS the CEO if SIRIM Bhd. Yes, another Ex-Somebody. He was the one with the inane explanations on why TC4 was shut down last year:

"There has been unprofessional conduct and a lack of ethical standards among some members of the technical committee," Ariffin said. "This is the first time in my 11 years at Sirim where ethics have not been followed." He, however, declined to name the individual members involved, citing his own ethical reasons. Ariffin said some TC/G/4 members had taken to belittling other members who did not share their pro-ODF views, both during committee meetings and in personal blogs.

First he said that he did not want to name 'em, because of his ethics, then immediately indicates who they are. Isn't it bizarre that a CEO would shut down his own TC without telling the TC what was wrong in the first place, and then going to the press to talk about it? How shameful is it that you can't keep your own house in order?

So yesterday, on Page 25 in the Malaysian Daily, he writes some amazing comments, which would make any Microsoft shill orgasm with delight. For you 'cold-heads' who are actually using your brain, please wear some protective gear around your gray matter, to prevent your head from from exploding!

Here goes:

Ditesh's little project, "The Last Lap", where he is compiling detailed stats of National Bodies results is featured in ZDNet. I guess his careful research has paid off! Reporters are basing his stats for their stories.

"Final Deadline Looms for OOXML" by Peter Judge, ZDNet UK.

However there is a slight mistake; Peter considers 56% (at the time of reporting) as approve, even though it clearly hasn't breached the super majority of 67%. Ah well, hopefully he corrects that.

Well done Ditesh! Your mama would be proud! And so would Thomas, the CIO.

yk.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Just like a big bully Microsoft is, they start to complain and throw a tantrum when things don't go their way. [ See pointers #3 and #6 in my "How to Royally Annoy National Bodies" ]

Read this post for the full story from India, entitled: "Microsoft files complaint on OOXML vote to apex office and Ministry of Consumer Affairs"

"I love Microsoft for their sheer willingness to piss off every human being on this planet in their quest for approval of OOXML. At the meeting held on 20th March 2008, we were informed that Microsoft has complained to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and to the apex office of the country about the constitution of the committee and also cast aspersions on the impartiality of the chairperson of LITD15, Mrs. Neeta Verma."

Hmm.. attacking the Chair. Does that sound familiar?

I am just amazed and shocked by the depths to which Microsoft is willing to descend.

Hey! Now why does that sound so familiar too? It's the second time Ive heard this phrase this week. I think I may hear it a few more times before the week is up

"I would also like to point out that the academia and government bodies have comprehensively voted against OOXML after spending more than a year reviewing it"

This is a certain trend in NB's. The moment you have groups of no vested commercial interests, they will find issues with OOXML. However:

"The only group to vote in favor of OOXML was the software exports group and that too on the basis of “support for multiple standards,” an argument which had no relevance because the committee was asked to review OOXML on technical merits and national interest."

This is exactly the same case here! These software exports groups just turn up and say the silliest reasons and expect to get away with it. Sorry guys. Technical Committees means Technical issues.

It's so sad to see such a wealthy and powerful company do things like this. Don't they have Corporate Governance rules against doing stupid things like this? Where is their conscience? Who do they think they can fool? Those Microsoft guys should be fired.

Well done to the Bureau of Indian Standards for standing firm against this raging bully. Hopefully one day the bully will learn how to play fair and contribute positively to the standards process, and not try to manipulate its way in.

Truly despicable behaviour. Shame on you, Microsoft, yet again. How will we ever trust you?

yk.

Updated: 1st April 2008, 06:13 PM Malaysian Time (GMT 8)

 The Final Results are IN! Here are the final results of the countries voting for DIS 29500 (more popularly known as Microsoft OOXML). Countries without links are verified from the ISO results.

Participating Countries:

Observing and Other Countries:

Final Vote:

• Criteria 1: 24/32 = 75.00% (PASS)
• Criteria 2: 10/71 = 14.08% (PASS)
• Overall Result: PASS 

Legend:

• Countries in BLACK are listed as per their September 2007 vote.
• Countries in BLUE have decided their final vote and their final vote does not represent a change in voting from September 2007 (click the links, where available, for the press release).
• Countries in RED have decided their final vote and their final vote represents a change in voting from September 2007 (click the links, where available, for the press release).
• Countries in BROWN are close to deciding their final votes but thanks to intense lobbying, things may change. Note that countries listed in BROWN are SPECULATIVE!
• Countries in stricken-out BROWN have changed their vote from their original September 2007 vote (as noted for each country) and are listed for reference purposes only. Note that this change may not be their final vote.
• Countries in stricken-out GREY have changed their final vote from their original September 2007 vote (as noted for each country) and are listed for reference purposes only.
• Changes list only enumerates countries which change their vote.
• Count is the number of countries in the list.
• Changes = "Number of countries added to a column" "Number of countries subtracted from a column"
• Net Change = "Number of countries added to a column" - "Number of countries subtracted from a column"

Voting Criteria (JTC1 Directives, page 49):

• At least two-thirds of the P-members voting shall have approved;
• Not more than one-quarter of the total number of votes cast are negative.
• A P-member which has given appropriate notification that it will abstain from participation in specific work items (see 3.1.2) shall not be counted as a P-member when counting votes for drafts relating to such items.

ChangeLog:

Ditesh, 1st April 2008:

• Updated the final results (from ISO)
• Updated France's status (thanks Luc Bollen, Jean-Marie Gouarné)

Ditesh, 31st March 2008:

• Updated Australia's status (thanks Rob Brown)
• Updated Malaysia's status (thanks Yoon Kit)

Ditesh, 30th March 2008:

• Updated United Kingdom's status (thanks Andy Updegrove)
• Updated Ireland's status (thanks Andy Updegrove)
• Updated New Zealand's status (thanks Dio Gratio, orlando)
• Updated South Africa's status (thanks anon, Bob Joliffe)

Ditesh, 29th March 2008:

• Added another link for Kenya (thanks Luc Bollen)
• Updated Norway's status (thanks Chris Auld, Andreas Wagner, Mikael Nillson)
• Updated Venezuela's status (thanks Avi Alkalay, orlando, Dio Gratia, Matt)
• Updated France's status (thanks orlando)
• Updated Chile's status (thanks Carlos)
• Updated Denmark's status (thanks Jeffrey)
• Updated South Korea's status (thanks Frank, The Open Sourcerer)
• Updated Argentina's status (thanks Carlos)

Ditesh, 28th March 2008:

• Changes list made more comprehensible
• Updated Kenya's status (thanks Luc Bollen)
• Updated Finland's status (thanks Luc Bollen)

Ditesh, 27th March 2008:

• Updated Romania's status (thanks Apolodor for the vote link and the translation, much appreciated)
• Updated Cuba's status (thanks Dio Gratia)
• Removed Australia from "Approve" column and revert it back to "Abstain" column; resetted China's, South Africa's, New Zealand's colors.
• Added SPECULATIVE warnings. Countries listed in BROWN are NOT FINAL!

Ditesh, 26th March 2008:

• Changed definition of "Changes" statistic, added "Net Change" statistic
• Added link for Canada (thanks Anonymous)
• Added another link for Brazil (thanks Yoon Kit)
• Updated Brazil's status (thanks Anonymous)
• Updated Belgium's status (thanks Luc Bollen for the vote link and the translation, much appreciated)
• Updated Germany's status (thanks Luc Bollen)
• Updated Czech Republic's status (thanks Luc Bollen, orlando)
• Updated Criteria 1&2 after Czech Republic's flip from "Disapprove" to "Approve"
• Fixed Slovenia typo (thanks John Drinkwater)

Ditesh, 25th March 2008:

• Updated Criteria 2 calculations (removal of abstention votes from the denominator, thanks to commentators on this post)
• Updated Netherlands status (thanks Peter)
• Have not updated the status of Cuba due to possible confusion on whether the email sent by the NB is valid (thanks Anonymous)

Guide to future monopolists on how to alienate yourself from National Bodies:

1. Waste NBs time in reviewing monstrous draft specifications
2. Claim that these specs can do everything for anyone by standardising marketing material
3. If you don't get your way at a certain level, lobby the superior above. Dont stop! Go all the way to the head of the nation if you think you can!
4. Leak press stories to journalists to pressure Ministries to make a decision. Quick!
5. Try to shut down TCs if actual technical work is done revealing issues with your plan
6. Question Question Question everything (process, fairness, the system, members) when things dont go your way
7. Otherwise create another TC with friendly experts
8. If the NB allows new members just by paying membership fees, encourage your business partners to join with marketing funds. Stack-stack-stack it high!
9. Stalk decision makers, even if it means traveling around the globe with them
10. Refuse changes in the spec especially if it breaks your product which you released prior
11. Have private interviews with TC members in the guise of funding for their new projects/research grants/interoperability initiatives and conveniently talk about their position on your spec.
12. Get your Business Partners to write in form letters. Some don't even bother to change the templates
13. Attend TC meetings uninvited by fabricating business cards
14. Send Lawyers in to Technical Committee meetings who prefer not to engage in "high-school" debates
15. Make rude and inaccurate statements against TC members in public

I'm sure there are more tactics which monopolists could use, but these are just a few which Ive heard about or witnessed over the past year. Other National Bodies would have more colourful stories to tell, and I guess the truth will come out eventually.