Adam Farquhar (Ecma)
Alex Brown (UK)
Benjamin Henrion (BE)
Brett Roberts (NZ)
Dave Welsh (US)
Doug Mahugh (Ecma)
Francis Cave (GB)
Isabelle Valet-Harper (Ecma)
Istvan Sebestyen (Ecma)
Jasper Hedegaard Bojsen (DK)
Jean Paoli (Ecma)
Jean Stride (GB)
Jesper Lund Stocholm (DK)
Jirka Kosek (CZ)
Keld Simonsen (NO)
Ken Holman (CA)
Kimmo Bergius (FI)
Manu Setälä (FI)
Michiel Leenaars (NL)
Murata Makoto (JP)
Patrick Durusau (US)
Pia Elleby Lange (DK)
Rex Jaeschke (Ecma)
Shahzad Rana (NO)
Wemba Opota (CI)

As Rob Weir mentions:

So a quick tally shows that there will be 25 participants, of which 12 are Ecma TC45 members (as listed) or Microsoft employees (Brett Roberts, Dave Welsh, Jasper Bojsen, Kimmo Bergius, Shahzad Rana and Wemba Opota).

The number of Microsoft employees seems to be pretty high. Yet another stuffed committee?

“I haven’t tried this, and I don’t know if it will work. I’m not sure how hard it would be to make it work."

But that's the whole crux of the matter. It might be that his machine was compromised via a DOCX but it's unfortunately just speculation without an example. Someone should ask Rex Ballard for more info.

Are OLE files available via OPC reference conventions? If not then this post http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/ooxml-macros-and-security.html might have some implications for OLE too. That would be more fundamental.

Here is the original post on the newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy:

Message-ID: <moc.spuorgelgoog.xsh0002g52|9a63dbe8843e-e9e9-5174-7e9d-96166a13#moc.spuorgelgoog.xsh0002g52|9a63dbe8843e-e9e9-5174-7e9d-96166a13>
From: Rex Ballard <moc.liamg|drallab.xer#moc.liamg|drallab.xer>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Leaked ISO Document Reveals Crooked ISO Amid MS OOXML Corruptions
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT)

[…]

ODF is a comprehensive document that provides detailed specifications
from the high level document content down to the smallest elements of
scalable vector graphics. There are some “standard” mime object types
that are supported, such as PNG and JPEG, but other embedded formats
must be installed using plug-ins which have to be authenticated by the
user and by the system at installation time, and cannot be installed
by the content. Furthermore, the installed content can easily be
identified as trustworthy or not, and can be restricted in it’s
capabilities.

OpenXML on the other hand, is a high-level specification which
describes the high level envelopes used to embed binary objects which
are included in the content. The content itself contains the binary
code which can call any function in any Microsoft library and has all
permissions of the person opening the document. If a user account is
set up as “Administrator”, then the application can mess with the
registry, create, download, and hide files, can execute applications
in those files, can install any number of new viruses, and generally
wreak havoc on the system.

I’ll leave it to others to document the exact details (as I said, I’m
busy these days), but I’m sure anyone who tries to publish these
vulnerabilites will probably find themselves getting the same
treatment that Tracy Reed of Ultraviolet.org got when he tried to
publish his warnings about ActiveX controls back in 1997. Microsoft
got a court injunction against him, and forced him to take down the
content, claiming that it was being used to encourage hacking, and was
damaging the Microsoft brand.

“I got a couple of docx documents and had trouble getting them to open, even with the plug-in for Office XP. Next thing I know, I get a notice from my registry auditor that I have 1300 new registry errors.”Over the last 10 years,
we’ve seen these very same techniques, documented back in 1997,used widely to spread viruses including
Melissa, Nimda, Sky, BugBear, and about
250,000 other viruses, worms,
and malware, not including spy-ware and
other “Microsoft Authorized”
invasions of our privacy.

I got a couple of docx documents and had trouble getting them to open,
even with the plug-in for Office XP. Next thing I know, I get a
notice from my registry auditor that I have 1300 new registry errors.
And suddenly, my PC is churning the disk-drive and the network
connection at 3:00 AM (I’m getting old and have to get up), and the
network shows that I’m uploading something at full speed, even though
my computer is supposedly sleeping.

It isn’t a back-up program that I’m running.

I would encourage COLA readers and OSS advocates to explore this in
more detail.

get someone with Office 2007 to send you a docx file.
unzip it using pkzip or winzip or unzip.

look at the binary files.

replace one binary object with another.

zip up the document,

see if your office-2007 user can read the “enhanced” document.

For those of you with OLE programming skills, create an OLE object
that creates a file, and e-mails that file to you using smtp.

Send a document with this new ole object embedded (along with the
others) and see if you get an e-mail.

I haven’t tried this, and I don’t know if it will work. I’m not sure
how hard it would be to make it work. I just think it might be an
interesting project worth investigating, especially if you are
considering the migration of a few thousand users to Vista and Office
2007.

I’d love to see what the results turn out to be. After all, if it’s
that easy to take control of a recipient’s machine just by sending
them a “trusted” Word, Excel, or PowerPoint attachment, just think how
much chaos a really aggressive malicious hacker, with a goal of
obtaining marketable information about your business, could do.

I really doubt the judges who will decide about the rules are really neutral either.

Of course they are not, but let's hope they feel the public eye gazing on their decision-making process here, and that they are a little more perceptive than Mr. Bryden concerning what would be the right and honorable thing to do under these circumstances. I really think the honor and reputation of ISO is damaged more by their sticking to the single-minded "everything is normal" attitude rather than admitting their obvious failure to honor the intent of their own directives, and the resultant mockery of the very purpose of standardization. Current events are certainly not a proud moment for ISO.

Interesting is this one:

"13. Brazil is not a P-member of ISO/IEC JTC 1 and technically does not have a right to appeal a JTC 1 decision."

As we know the ISO directives speaks of JTC1 and SC.

or:

8. Document does not follow ISO guidelines for presentation of standards

8e. Correct but irrelevant. Fast-track submissions need not follow ISO or IEC guidelines for presentation of standards. The corresponding standard must be made to follow the guidelines from its next revision onwards (see JTC 1 Directives, 13).

Am I the only person who finds the arguments of Alan Bryden funny?

The appeal from Brazil proposes a remedial action of cancelling the voting result and putting the project back to the new work item proposal stage, not on the fast track. That from South Africa proposes rediscussing and revoting on “794” edits, all of which were voted on by NBs at the BRM, according to a procedure also approved by NBs at the BRM. That from Venezuela proposes cancelling the voting result and putting the project back to the CD stage (not fast track). These actions, reversing decisions reached in accordance with due process by the members of ISO and IEC, would require demonstration of serious procedural problems in the voting.

Why would anyone want to appeal if there were no procedural problems?

According to the Bryden test a TMB has two options:
1. There is no procedural flaw —> reject appeal!
2. They cannot admit the appeal because it would demonstrate the appeals to have any grounds. —> reject appeal!

What comes to my mind is the ordalium, a nice tool of mediaval jurisdiction:

In medieval Europe, like trial by combat, it was considered a judicium Dei: a procedure based on the premise that God would help the innocent by performing a miracle on their behalf.

But if they survived it must have been devil's work…

6. “Final” text of ISO/IEC 29500 or ISO/IEC DIS 29500, or “revised FDIS text”, not released

6e. Correct but irrelevant. The decision being appealed is the JTC 1 decision to approve the draft. The text mentioned in the Directives and by the appellants is not germane to that decision, which must be taken on the basis of the original DIS text and the actions taken by the BRM on the comments. The provision of any revised text is not for purposes of further decision by NBs.

Article 13.2 of the JTC1 directives says that the final has to be distributed to the members one month after the BRM, which was not the case here:

In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance.

As you can see, Mr Bryden says it is irrelevant, trying to argue that the appeal is about something else. It looks like Mr Bryden don't want to read the JTC1 directives. Mr Bryden is just lobbying for the honor of its institution, and I really doubt the judges who will decide about the rules are really neutral either.

No country can go to court if they do not agree with what ISO is doing?

ConsortiumInfo: ISO TMB Recommends Rejection of OOXML Appeals

And Groklaw: ISO to TMB: Here Are the Appeals Against OOXML; They Should Be Denied

Alan Bryden, Secretary-General of ISO and ex-President of the French Standards Body AFNOR, has sent a recommendation (PDF, 37 pages) to all countries members of the TMB (Technical Management Board) asking them to throw away the 4 appeals tabled by South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela and India, and to give their views before the 4th of August. He does not however justify its position in regard of the JTC1 directives. Mr Bryden said recently to the press that the criticisms of the Fast Track process were unfounded. Here is what he is writing to the countries members of the TMB (Brazil, Spain, France, USA, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa, China, Canada, Norway):

ACTION

The members of the Technical Management Board are invited to indicate, by replying yes, no or abstention on EITHER a) OR b) for each of the four appeals (see item 14 in annex A):

a) not to process the appeal any further:
Item 1 ABNT
Item 2 BIS
Item 3 FONDONORMA
Item 4 SABS

OR

b) to process one or more of the appeals, which would require setting up of a conciliation panel
Item 5 ABNT
Item 6 BIS
Item 7 FONDONORMA
Item 8 SABS

by no later than 4 August 2008

Here is what the Chief of ISO is recommending, putting the responsability of interpreting the rules on the members of ISO themselves (???):

Recommendation
20. The processing of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 project has been conducted in conformity with the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, with decisions determined by the votes expressed by the relevant ISO and IEC national bodies under their own responsibility, and consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, the appeals should not be processed further.

He is not mentioning any justification using the JTC1 directives.

Here is the full version in text mode:

TMB Secretariat
Vote/Information-Form
Number: 078/2008
Date: 2008-07-04

ISO TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT BOARD

SUBJECT: Appeals on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Open Office XML

BACKGROUND

ISO/IEC DIS 29500, OOXML, was circulated for voting under JTC 1's Fast Track Procedure (note that this differs from that used in the rest of ISO and IEC) in April 2007 following a one month internal review within ISO/IEC JTC 1. Following that vote, which resulted in insufficient votes for approval, a Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) was held in February 2008. After the BRM, the JTC 1 national bodies had 30 days in which to confirm or change their votes and at the end of this period, sufficient votes to approve the document were obtained.
JTC 1's appeals procedure resulted in 4 appeals being received. These appeals have been reviewed by the ISO Secretary-General and IEC General Secretary and are being submitted, in accordance with the JTC 1 procedures, to the ISO/TMB and IEC/SMB.

Full information is given in:
Annex A: CEOs' comments
Annex B: Appeals from ABNT (Brazil), BIS (India), FONDONORMA (Venezuela) and SABS (South Africa) (together with further correspondence on requested remedial actions)

ACTION

The members of the Technical Management Board are invited to indicate, by replying yes, no or abstention on EITHER a) OR b) for each of the four appeals (see item 14 in annex A):

a) not to process the appeal any further:
Item 1 ABNT
Item 2 BIS
Item 3 FONDONORMA
Item 4 SABS

OR

b) to process one or more of the appeals, which would require setting up of a conciliation panel
Item 5 ABNT
Item 6 BIS
Item 7 FONDONORMA
Item 8 SABS

by no later than 4 August 2008.

ANNEX A
From: Alan Bryden, Secretary-General and CEO, ISO
Aharon Amit, General Secretary and CEO, IEC
To: Technical Management Board (TMB), ISO
Standardization Management Board (SMB), IEC

Subject: Appeals received concerning approval for publication by ISO/IEC JTC 1 of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Office Open XML)

Date: 2008-06-30

Background

1. In 2006 Microsoft proposed an XML version of the formats of its Microsoft Office documents (used in the products Word, Excel and PowerPoint) to Ecma International (“Ecma”) for standardization.
2. After work by Ecma Technical Committee 45 with members from Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the US Library of Congress, ECMA 376 was published in December 2006.
3. On 2006-12-20 Ecma—as an A-liaison—submitted ECMA 376 for fast-track standardization in ISO/IEC JTC 1. Note that the Directives governing fast-track standardization in ISO/IEC JTC 11 are different from those in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1.
4. On 2007-01-05 ECMA 376 was submitted to National Bodies (NBs) for the 30-day “review” period mandated by the rules, asking them to notify any “contradictions”2. 20 NB replies were received, and Ecma provided a response to each of them. The replies and Ecma responses were distributed to all NBs on 2007-03-01, and were also enclosed with the DIS sent for NB voting (see 5. below).
5. As specified in the rules, the perceived contradictions were “addressed by the ITTF 3 and JTC 1 Secretariat”, which came to the conclusion that the issues raised could only be settled by the NBs, and that therefore the planned five-month DIS vote should proceed. The vote took place from 2007-04-03 to 2007-09-02 according to the “combined voting procedure” which involves all ISO and IEC national bodies (not just ISO/IEC JTC 1 P- or O-members). 87 NBs voted, and the acceptance criteria were not met: only 53 % of P-members (min. 66.66 %) and 74 % of all NBs (min. 75 %) voted to approve.
6. In accordance with the JTC 1 Directives, a “ballot resolution meeting” (BRM) was arranged by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34, the subcommittee to which the standard (once approved) would be allocated for maintenance. The JTC 1 rules specify that such a BRM should normally be held, and that at its conclusion—if the acceptance criteria (66.66 % and 75 %) are met—the standard should be published,. The BRM took place on 2008-02-25..29 in Geneva; a full list of answers to “frequently asked questions” (FAQ) concerning the Directives, their interpretation and the procedures governing the BRM had previously been made available to all NBs in November 2007 (JTC 1/SC 34 N 932). The full results of the BRM, consisting of Resolutions (editing instructions) and notes, were published on 2008-03-06 and served to allow the national bodies to determine whether they wished to maintain or change their original votes.

[1] The ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, replacing Part 1 of the ISO/IEC Directives, may be found in their entirety at http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink.exe/3959538/Jtc1_Directives.pdf?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3959538.
[2] The rules mention “perceived contradiction with other standards or approved projects of JTC 1, ISO or IEC”.
[3] ITTF = Information Technology Task Force, ISO C.S. and IEC C.O. function supporting ISO/IEC JTC 1.

7. The rules include a provision that “after the deliberations” of the BRM, NBs have an opportunity to decide whether they wish to change their votes on the basis of the actions taken on their comments. There is no provision that a final text be provided at that stage. Because of the controversy surrounding the project and the consequent need to guarantee each NB a fair chance to express its decision, NBs could notify a change in their vote by midnight on 2008-03-29.
8. On 2008-04-02 IEC and ISO announced that the acceptance criteria had now been met (75 % and 86 % respectively).

Appeals received

9. By the two-month deadline for appeals (2008-06-02) four appeals had been received:
• Brazil • India • South Africa • Venezuela.
10. The South African appeal (submitted on 2008-05-23) and comments from ITTF were included for information in the SMB and TMB agendas (meetings 2008-06-02..03), but the appeal was not formally submitted to the TMB and SMB at that time.
11. The CEOs determined that none of the four appeals satisfied the condition laid down in 11.1.4 that “the specific remedial action(s) that would satisfy the appellant’s concerns” shall be stated. They therefore wrote to the appellants on 2008-06-12 requesting this information by 2008-06-25. By this date India, Brazil, South Africa and Venezuela had responded and the responses are included in annex B following the appeals.

Formal situation

12. The present document constitutes the formal submission of the four appeals by the CEOs to the TMB and the SMB.
13. Brazil is not a P-member of ISO/IEC JTC 1 and technically does not have a right to appeal a JTC 1 decision.
14. The TMB and the SMB may choose one of two options for each appeal:
14.1 Not to process the appeal any further. This is the equivalent of denying the appeal. If all four are denied, publication of ISO/IEC 29500 may proceed. The NB concerned may appeal this decision to the Councils.
14.2 Process the appeal further. This has the consequence that a conciliation panel must be organized. In this event it seems indicated to organize a single conciliation panel for all the appeals being processed.

Evaluation of the appeals

15. The appeal from India identifies a “remedial action”, extending the time for appealing to allow reading the “final text”, which is irrelevant to the decision being appealed and therefore to the appeal (see item 6. in Attachment 1). Therefore the Indian appeal identifies no remedial action and is not receivable.
16. The appeal from Brazil proposes a remedial action of cancelling the voting result and putting the project back to the new work item proposal stage, not on the fast track. That from South Africa proposes rediscussing and revoting on “794” edits, all of which were voted on by NBs at the BRM, according to a procedure also approved by NBs at the BRM. That from Venezuela proposes cancelling the voting result and putting the project back to the CD stage (not fast track). These actions, reversing decisions reached in accordance with due process by the members of ISO and IEC, would require demonstration of serious procedural problems in the voting.
17. Several further remedial actions are identified by South Africa and Venezuela; of these, changing the title may be relevant if it is technically justified and if the appeal is upheld. Proposed “remedial actions” which are not pertinent to the appeal include instructions to SC34, provision of the text resulting from the BRM, and several suggested modifications to the Directives.
18. The replies from Brazil, Venezuela and South Africa contain much material which is not relevant to completing their existing appeals with the addition of remedial action(s). That from South Africa in particular is a wide-ranging discussion of standardizing such a specification, makes many valid points and recommendations for the future while also containing errors of fact, and in these respects does not concern the appeal sent in May.
19. Attachment 1 contains a summary of the distinct grounds for appeal claimed in the four appeals, together with an explanation from the ISO and IEC CEOs for each one.

Recommendation

20. The processing of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 project has been conducted in conformity with the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, with decisions determined by the votes expressed by the relevant ISO and IEC national bodies under their own responsibility, and consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, the appeals should not be processed further.

Attachment 1 to annex A
Claimed grounds for appeal and corresponding evaluations by the ISO & IEC CEOs

The following distinct claimed grounds for appeal may be identified in the four appeals. For each a brief explanation and evaluation is given.

1. Incorrect application of ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives 13.4 to address claimed "contradictions" identified during the 30-day review period before the DIS ballot, including not informing NBs of the claimed contradictions
1e. Not correct. The Directives give the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF latitude to use judgement as to whether a meeting should be organized to address alleged contradictions. Considering that other issues could potentially be identified during the DIS ballot, the JTC 1 secretariat and ITTF concluded that it was preferable to initiate the ballot and to allow all issues to be addressed by the BRM. The NBs were fully informed of all the claimed contradictions and Ecma's responses to them.
2. BRM not conducted in accordance with ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives 9.1.4, but with 9.5 instead, in spite of the fact that it was not a “letter ballot”
2e. Correct but inapplicable. The BRM was neither a meeting of JTC 1 nor of SC 34 but was open to all 87 national bodies which submitted a vote (including abstentions) on the DIS. Applying 9.1.4 would have disenfranchised the voting NBs present at the BRM which were not P-members. The fact that any votes in the BRM would be open to all national delegations present was communicated over three months prior to the BRM.
3. BRM did not take into account NBs’ efforts during the meeting to reach consensus on modifications to the proposed responses from the Project Editor
3e. Not correct. The resolutions of the BRM document decisions taken where consensus was reached.
4. BRM “inconclusive”, too short, arbitrarily short, or otherwise incorrectly conducted
4e. Not correct. Decisions on the comments not discussed during the BRM and proposed dispositions were taken by a process agreed by the BRM itself (29 votes in favour, none against and 2 abstentions).
5. Final report of the BRM not issued
5e. Not correct. The final report of the BRM was issued on 2008-03-06.
6. “Final” text of ISO/IEC 29500 or ISO/IEC DIS 29500, or “revised FDIS text”, not released
6e. Correct but irrelevant. The decision being appealed is the JTC 1 decision to approve the draft. The text mentioned in the Directives and by the appellants is not germane to that decision, which must be taken on the basis of the original DIS text and the actions taken by the BRM on the comments. The provision of any revised text is not for purposes of further decision by NBs.
7. Document “as submitted by Ecma and as modified by the BRM is not ready for fast track processing”
7e. A matter for NBs’ judgement, which they expressed through their positive or negative vote on the draft.
8. Document does not follow ISO guidelines for presentation of standards
8e. Correct but irrelevant. Fast-track submissions need not follow ISO or IEC guidelines for presentation of standards. The corresponding standard must be made to follow the guidelines from its next revision onwards (see JTC 1 Directives, 13).
9. NBs were required to analyze far too much information in far too little time
9e. A matter for NBs’ judgement, which they expressed through their positive or negative vote on the draft.
10. Process followed was incompatible with the principles of consensus, technically-oriented discussions and “redundancy of standards”, was dominated by large multinational organization(s), and has harmed the reputations of both ISO and the IEC
10e. Insofar as observation of Statutes, Rules of Procedure, Directives and other rules is concerned, this is not correct. Otherwise it is a matter for NBs’ judgement, which they expressed through their positive or negative vote on the draft.

Attachment 2 to annex A
Additional grounds submitted in BR, VE (2008-06-24) & ZA (2008-06-25) letters:

11. Fast-track process was handled by ISO/IEC JTC 1 instead of SC 34
11e. Not correct. No actions identified in the Directives as SC actions were carried out by JTC 1 instead of SC 34 in this case.
12. “Contradictions” (cf. point 1. above) were not adequately handled by ITTF and JTC 1 Secretariat according to Directives 13.2, second bullet
12e. Not correct. See 1e.
13. Voting should have been conducted electronically rather than at a meeting
13e. Not correct. The Directives require a physical meeting, and say nothing about a voting process distinct from the meeting.
14. Discussing “only 67 out of the 1027” proposed resolutions ”does not constitute a successful conclusion of the BRM”
14e. Not correct. All the proposed resolutions were decided according to well-defined voting procedures accepted by the NBs; all NBs had the opportunity to raise priority items; all those raised by NBs as priority items were discussed. Whether the conclusion of the BRM was successful is for NBs to decide; by their votes, they have done so.
15. Important topics were postponed and finally not discussed in the BRM
15e. Not correct. See 14e.
16. Title of standard doesn’t reflect contents
16e. Not correct technically; otherwise a matter for NBs’ judgement, which they have expressed in their vote.
17. Proposal of US & BR on legacy mapping and division into parts not considered, in spite of “a chorus of objections”
17e. Not correct. See also 3e and 14e.
18. It is wrong to delay SC 34 ad hoc groups’ work until standard is published
18e. Irrelevant. (Additionally, if not delayed, SC 34’s activity may interfere with the process of dealing with the present appeals.)
19. Except for political pressure, it would be best to publish only after these groups have completed their work
19e. Irrelevant. (It is also not correct: it would be a violation of the Directives.)
20. Ecma should have had no role in making the judgement referred to in 1 and 1e
20e. Correct. Ecma did in fact have no role in this judgement.

You idiot! You don't get it do you? I don't think anyone from Microsoft can.

Its a CO-OPERATIVE environment, its not a competition, its about working together and the best solution being put forward, not some smoke and mirrors show.

<shakes his head>

4 parts:
part1: 5570 pages
part2: 137 pages
part3: 46 pages
part4: 1475 pages

SUM: 7228 pages

Guess how many pages the other format ODF 1.2 would comprise. It is estimated to become even shorter than the ODF 1.1 spec. Although they are adding material, they are also rewriting it to be much more concise and precise. So, probably around 700 pages in the end.

Not that I would expect you lot to let the truth get in the way of a good smear!

Please count me out of that "you lot", Alex. I am very careful with the truth,
and I strongly advise everybody to be polite and truthful when posting here.
Smear campaigns are not what we should do, let's leave that to Microsoft.

/Stefan

Standards bodies do important work in difficult circumstances. But like all of us their rules need to keep pace with the changing commercial environment. If they need help in tightening up their rules to avoid being manipulated by narrow commercial interests, or to design the right ex ante rules, then they have my support. My door is always open.

Let's hope the message is reaching the ears of some ISO bureaucrats:

Bryden said criticisms that a fast-track process was abused to rush through the Microsoft standard were unfounded, and said the process was not new but had been used for 267 standards over the last 20 years, 212 of which were still current.

Still, he said there were lessons to learn. "The experience with ISO/IEC 29500, along with the results of other standards development activities, will indeed assist in determining whether further continued improvements should be made."

Let's hope other ISO members responsible for the appeal made by 4 countries are more clever then Mr Bryden when it comes to strengthen the ISO rules, and especially rewriting the Fast-Track rules that were changed probably on purpose for the OOXML process by ECMA ex-secretary general, Mr Van Den Beld.

I have corrected the 'client' by 'advised by'.