The man picked by the John McCain campaign to run the 2008 Republican National Convention resigned Saturday after a report that his lobbying firm used to represent the military regime in Myanmar. [aka Burma]

and

Doug Davenport, the regional campaign manager for the mid-Atlantic states, founded the DCI Group's lobbying practice and oversaw the contract with Myanmar in 2002. "Doug has tendered his resignation and we have accepted it," Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director, wrote in a e-mail. ( Atlantic.com)

The lobby firm behind the person Doug Goodyear, the DCI group is for us, although we reside across the Atlantic, a well-known propaganda firm with strong ties to the right wing of the US-republican party. It participated as an organiser of the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign and is a known astroturfing specialist with slanderous communication tactics. In the selection of its present and past clients it was not very selective. Among them Exxon, Tobacco and Microsoft. All this is generally known including the Washington representation for the rogue regime in Burma.

In Europe DCI runs a network of think tanks and it took responsibility for the weird journo-lobbying website TechCentralStation that spread hate propaganda against the French government, the EU, Muslims and also issued offensive slanderous communication against the FFII, the community that backs <no>OOXML and sided against Microsoft in its EU software patents lobby campaign.

The group is waging an ideological continuation of Karl Marx's crusade against capitalism and private property. … The people who run FFII are enemies of private property, the free-market and capitalism… Why should Europeans let the FFII create a world in which innovators are exploited by pirates and plagiarizers? Rather, we should give Hartmut Pilch, the FFII president, the same advice as George Bush gave to Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11: "Go get a real job!"

Many observers were shocked about the sillyness of the DCI propaganda machine that was totally unable to adapt to European discourse standards.

More on sourcewatch:

Microsoft’s decision to hire DCI came as the company faced an antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department in the 1990s. By 2000, Microsoft was spending millions of dollars on contributions to Republican and Democratic campaign war chest, think tanks, and ostensibly independent trade associations as well as on payments to high-powered lobbyists, public relations, and political operatives. Hoping to sway public opinion and the opinion of state and federal officials, the software giant built up a wide network of supporters, with its sponsorship of those groups mostly invisible to the public.

Also ACT lobbyist Jonathan Zuck was involved with DCI, sourcewatch again:

Americans for Technology Leadership was founded by Jonathan Zuck in 1999 as a "grassroots" organisations for concerned consumers who want less regulation in the technology sector. … ATL's domain name, techleadership.org, is registered to the Association for Competitive Technology. The site is hosted by Thomas E. Stock and Thomas J. Synhorst's LLC, TSE Enterprises. Synhorst is a founding member of the DCI Group, a Washington DC-based strategic consulting and lobbying firm which has counted Microsoft as a prime client for a number of years. … According to the Times, the campaign was discovered when Utah's Attorney General at the time Mark Shurtleff received letters "purportedly written by at least two dead people … imploring him to go easy on Microsoft Corp. for its conduct as a monopoly."

Here for instance an ATL (Jim Prendergast) opinion article:
Foxnews: Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument

The technology trades, blogs and industry are buzzing about a monumental policy shift in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Officials in the state have proposed a new policy that mandates that every state technology system use only applications designed around OpenDocument file formats …, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making.

In DCI's journo-lobbying online-magazine TechCentralStation Jonathan Zuck was interviewed by Craig Winneker of TCS:

CW: [Las time Gates visited Brussels he got a pie in the face]. And this time, it was kind of figurative pie in the face because as soon as he [Bill Gates] left, the European Parliament starts shooting down software patents. I mean, is there any point to this or
JZ: Well, software patents is the really important battle that we've got on the horizon. And I think that Microsoft is right to continue to use all means of negotiation and just presence in these debates. You know, I don't think any one of them is going to be the magic bullet or the ultimate blunder. I think that it's an ongoing and continuous discussion that needs to happen with European governments and I think they're looking to starting to do. So I think that's the right strategy. I just don't think anything is going to happen over night. … I think as it becomes a more global corporation, then there's more of an understanding that what's good for Microsoft is good for Europe.

Note: DCI group's work for the Myramar regime was well known in advance to everyone. Why does it really need a scandal and a political context to cut relations with 'mucky pups' of the lobby scene. DCI group is not only unbearable because it defended the interests of the Burma rogue regime in Washington but also because it did interfere in internal matters of foreign nations, e.g. in the EU on behalf of American clients. European stakeholders were not amused about DCI's covert operations and slander communication.

With respect to Blender, what can you tell me about your community/user feedback that you have heard regarding file formats? Specifically, Microsoft is slowly shifting toward a more open standards based approach to its file formats. The ISO standard Office Open XML is an example of the direction we are moving towards.
A good user experience of Blender on Windows is good for your project/community and good for Microsoft. What we are trying to understand is what file formats, which are not open or not fully open, are impeding the optimal experience with your community. If this is an important issue to your users then it also accrues to the experience in Windows. I would like to know what feedback you might have received regarding the files your users most often import and those they might be having a sub-optimal experience with. Please also include in that list any Microsoft files that you might have trouble with.

• Blender Project

• The Image below was created a few years ago to raise awareness about the EU software patent laws sponsored by Microsoft that threatened open source projects such as Blender. Fortunately the software patent directive was rejected but the Microsoft continues to aggressively lobby governments abroad and apply for software patents in the European Union:

Recently, a few figures about this contract has been published by ComputerWorld. For Romanian readers, the original is here: http://www.computerworld.ro/?page=node&id=13973

Basically, a frame contract has been drafted in 2004 for lending 50,155 Microsoft licenses to Romanian administration, on a value of $54,567,465, payable until 2009. Since Romanian administration aquired new computers, another 39,385 licenses were needed, on a value of $26,172,156. This last amount is due to be paid until 2011.

We still hope in Free Software (free as in speech): GNU/Linux, OpenOffice.org, etc.

Details about how OOXML vote went in Romania are available at http://aranea.zuavra.net/index.php/97/ (English) and http://rsandu.myblog.ro (Romanian).

SC 34 expresses its appreciation to the following organizations for sponsoring this meeting.

* Linpro AS
* Mamut ASA
* Software Innovation ASA
* StatoilHydro ASA
* Questpoint AS
* Microsoft Norge AS

The “South African Bureau of Standards” (SABS) approved the Open Document Format (ODF) on Friday 18 April as an official national standard. This adoption, if implemented, will reduce choice, decrease the benefits of open competition and thwart innovation. …
Governments should not restrict themselves to working with one standard, and should urge legislators to refrain from any kind of mandatory regulation and discriminatory interventions in the market. The global ICT industry recommends Governments to embrace the reality and logic of choice and to devote their energies to ensuring interoperability through this choice.

Isn't it funny that he thinks he could still do it? In his usual lobby schizophrenia Mr. Lueders likes to speak for 'the industry', get his emotional 'we' into a public policy debate and oracles about 'eSkill's. Here he speaks unprecedented for the 'global ICT industry'. Will he be the 'initiative for software choice' or the voice of European smes next time again? How long will his clients let him carry on? Will he get away with it?

Glynn Mody comprehended:

And which bunch of geniuses put this nonsense together? Why, our old friends CompTIA, which has by now given up any pretense of offering objective comment on the computer market, and is simply a vehicle for crude Microsoft propaganda.

Rob Weir even tried to argue with the punchbag:

Consumers don't want a bag of adapters to convert between different formats and protocols. That is giving consumers a choice in a solution to a interoperability problem they didn't ask for and they don't want. Consumers want a choice of goods and services.

You don't have to convince press speakers and hired guns. But can you imagine that Jan 'the answer is always the same, you are well paid, shut up' van den Belt was hired for the comptia lobby after leaving as an ecma international general secretary? What an upgrade for the person to which the ISO jtc1 rewrite was dedicated. Will standards people also let his collegue Mr. Lueders rewrite the essentials of international standardisation? Or could the Dutch nihilist provide some technical assistance? Fast-track Lueders interpretations to the ISO directives?

The “South African Bureau of Standards” (SABS) approved the Open Document Format (ODF) on Friday 18 April as an official national standard. This adoption, if implemented, will reduce choice, decrease the benefits of open competition and thwart innovation. The irony here is that South Africa is moving in a direction which stands in stark relief to the reality of the highly dynamic market, with some 40 different formats available today. …
Governments should not restrict themselves to working with one electrical standard, and should urge legislators to refrain from any kind of mandatory regulation and discriminatory interventions in the market. The global electrical industry recommends Governments to embrace the reality and logic of choice and to devote their energies to ensuring interoperability through this choice.

Isn't it funny that he thinks he can still do it? In his usual lobby schizophrenia Mr. Lueders likes to speak for 'the industry', get his emotional 'we' into a public debate and oracles about 'eSkill's. Here he speaks unprecedented for the 'global electrical industry'. Will he be the 'initiative for software choice' or the voice of European smes next time again? How long will his clients let him carry on?

Glynn Mody comprehended:

And which bunch of geniuses put this nonsense together? Why, our old friends CompTIA, which has by now given up any pretense of offering objective comment on the computer market, and is simply a vehicle for crude Microsoft propaganda.

Rob Weir even tried to argue with the propaganda punchbag:

Consumers don't want a bag of adapters to convert between different formats and protocols. That is giving consumers a choice in a solution to a interoperability problem they didn't ask for and they don't want. Consumers want a choice of goods and services.

But you don't have to convince press speakers and hired guns. But can you imagine that Jan 'the answer is always the same, you are well paid, shut up' van den Belt works for comptia after leaving as an ecma international secretary? What a shame for the person to which the jtc1 rewrite was dedicated. Will people let also his collegue Mr. Lueders rewrite the essence of international standardisation? Or can the Dutch nihilist provide some technical assistance?

"Proprietary protocols are anathema to network computing and a deliberate hindrance to innovation and competition in computing environments. Few of the players, or users, maintain the illusion that a Microsoft-only world is either desirable or attractive - and the accusations of ballot stuffing, bribery, and undue political influence that surrounded the acceptance of OOXML as a standard by the ISO has only served to emphasise this reality."

The Danish Unix User Group DKUUG has made a formal complaint to the EU commission over the Danish state, for breach of the EC Treaty article 81 on unfair competition.

The complaint concerns the internal regulation in the Danish state to prescribe the use of a mandatory standard, namely the specification ECMA-376 or ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML, which describes a format that is used in the Microsoft Office 2007 product.

The stated goal of ECMA 376 is:
"The goal is to enable the implementation of the Office Open XML formats by the widest set of tools and
platforms, fostering interoperability across office productivity applications and line-of-business systems, as well
as to support and strengthen document archival and preservation, all in a way that is fully compatible with the
large existing investments in Microsoft Office documents."
(from ECMA-376 Introduction, page 12).
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm
Thus the ECMA 376 specification favours a specific product of a specific company.
The Danish state represented by ITST has made ECMA 376 mandatory from the 1 of January 2008 for cartain procurements in the Danish state, thus making the procurement unacceptably favouring a specific company and their product, and setting their competitors in the field of office software at a competitive disadvantage.

• Inquirer article
• original complaint and rpress release

Why did I ignore the story? Because it was known to us that ECMA OOXML was not identical with the Microsoft 2007 format which comprises "tags not found in the spec", a viral phrase. Or OOXML burnout? Or because you lose respect for an impartial BRM chairman who consults the British Library and supports OOXML?

To repeat the exercise with ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (ODF 1.0) and a popular implementation of OpenDocument. Will anybody be brave enough to predict what kind of result that exercise will have?

Spooky! It feels like a PR machine would soon spread the message that ODF implementations are equally bad.

Given Microsoft's proven ability to tinker with the Office XML file format between service packs, I am hoping that MS Office will shortly be brought into line with the 29500 specification, and will stay that way.

Other media overtook the news from Brown, including the usual suspects as Slashdot, Groklaw, ZDNET. Journalist are professionals for the transformation of facts into narratives. One narrative was: Alex Brown admits he was fouled. I suggest: "Microsoft's ability to tinker" — OOXML is the next Vista.

Wikipedia OOXML expert HAl commented:

Groklaw is amused. Propably their tiny brains cannot grasp the idea that documents created in the past which were correctly validating against schema's do not nescesairly validate against totally new strict XML schema's that have a lot of transitional items removed from them.

It is his criticism, not 'Baroque Castle' inspections which entertain me. It is advocacy for braindeads featuring John Obeto:

Jason [Matusow] tells about the extreme measures (my kind words, not his) that the anti-OOXML clique are taking to attack the process since the results were not to their liking. In fact, you might, as I was, be surprised to note that IBM alone made up 85% of those very same comments about OOXML that their mouthpiece Tudor, and surrogates, Updegrove, Groklaw, etc., have been touting as evidence of problems with the OOXML specification.

or

What everyone seems to have forgotten, and I shall point out here, is that it was those dolts at the EU that advised Microsoft to submit the OOXML to a standards body in the first place, fearing that Microsoft's rightfully earned dominance in that space might lead into a lock-in. Isn't it now very odd that the same EU would attempt to rain on OOXML's parade, and attempt to taint the process? Actually, it is not odd. The EU has shown itself to be an arrogant and incompetent institution. At least when it comes to Microsoft products and technologies. That, however, is a topic for another day.

Freaky!

This void gave birth to AdvocateKhoj - India's Dedicated Case Post System for Consumers (URL: http://www.advocatekhoj.com) to help people find a well-qualified lawyer for their legal issues. Consumers who are in need of legal assistance can present their case by answering some simple questions about their legal situation, "free of cost" on the AdvocateKhoj website without revealing his or her identity. Lawyers enrolled with AdvocateKhoj would review these cases and send their replies. The consumer can now view the responses from various advocates, check their background information, education and experience, and then make an informed decision on whom to engage for their case.

AdvocateKhoj uses automated online technologies that match specific needs of a consumer with a lawyer by matching geographically, and also based on a lawyer's various salient attributes and legal expertise. The matching is fully automated and is based on client-entered criteria, so there is no preferential treatment of any particular lawyer.

The result: Prior to any money changing hands, and with minimal time spent, consumers can present their cases and in-turn get in touch with lawyers of their choice! According to Anoop Vincent, co-founder, AdvocateKhoj, "It's obvious that consumers would embrace this new and unique service as all of us prefer to make empowered and informed decisions. The search for a well-qualified lawyer or a good client should be no different."

For more information visit www.advocatekhoj.com

The report applies the Brinkburn Analysis™ to evaluate the validity of Ecma's privileged status within ISO, one not enjoyed by any other Consortia, and criticises ECMA for having “virtually no representation for many points of view” and “no outreach and no liasons with other consortia”. Most damning of all is the conclusion in respect of OOXML - “It is a breach, almost, of common sense. Ecma, through its members, has created, with the exploitation of a loophole, a precedent that may well enable the breakdown of the formal standards process”.

We conducted another inspection of the process and share the views. In his note to the European Parliament conference OFE's Graham Taylor reportedly called for a revocation of ECMA International's A relationship at ISO JTC1. Of course this is the most obvious solution. It needs to be investigated how that would be done.

A nasty nightmare: ISO 9000 certified quality management as the placebo solution for the International Standards Institution reform…

Brinkburn report (commercial)

• The Brinkburn Analysis Examines Ecma International

Ecma International has facilitated, via its A-liaison status with JTC1, the fast tracking of Microsoft's OOXML into an ISO-approved standard. What does Ecma do to deserve such a perk, and what does the future hold for standardization now that Ecma has so publicly undermined every procedure that formal standards rest on?"

The process which led to Norway’s Yes vote on OOXML was so surrealistic that it deserves to be recorded for posterity. Here’s my version of the story. It is not impartial. I was the Chairman of the Norwegian mirror committee for SC34 (K185) for 13 years until resigning a couple of weeks ago in protest against Standard Norway’s decision to vote Yes. On the other hand, I was present throughout the whole process and have more first-hand knowledge of what went on than anyone (excepting two employees of Standard Norway). Here I describe the fateful meeting on Friday March 28.

It is so important that we now publish our notes about what really happened. Not only in Norway but in standard committees worldwide. So many untold stories are out there. Stories which explain the outrage. Stories we shared with our peers but not the general public. It is a whole mess made out of international standardisation but that does not mean we should'nt feel entertained.

…at this point, the “rules” were changed. The VP asserted that “Ecma has clearly made steps in the right direction.” The most important thing now was to ensure that OOXML came under ISO’s control so that it could be “further improved”. However, the committee was not allowed to discuss this.
The VP thereupon declared that there was no consensus, so the decision would be taken by Standard Norway.
Halfway through the proceedings, a committee member had asked for (and received) assurance that the Chairman would take part in the final decision, as he had for the DIS vote back in August. It now transpired that the BRM participants had also been invited to stay behind. 23 people were therefore dismissed and we were down to seven. In addition to Standard Norway’s three, there were four “experts”: Microsoft Norway’s chief lobbyist, a guy from StatoilHydro (national oil company; big MS Office user), a K185 old-timer, and me. In one fell swoop the balance of forces had changed from 80/20 to 50/50 and the remaining experts discussed back and forth for 20 minutes or so without reaching any agreement.
The VP thereupon declared that there was still no consensus, so the decision would be taken by Standard Norway.
The experts were dismissed and the VP asked the opinion of the Secretary (who said “Yes”) and the JTC1 rep (who said “No”).
The VP thereupon declared that there was still no consensus, so the decision would be taken by him.
And his decision was to vote Yes.

To overcome a potential bias of that story about what really happened you can find the other side of the story in Stephen McGibbon's Blog: Norway and Germany, There Are No Irregularities. Ironically the Microsoft employee posted it 1st of April.

ISO spokesperson Roger Frost was quoted by the NYTimes:

Mr. Frost …upon investigation considered the Norwegian dispute to be an internal matter. “We have received background information from them and have no reason to question the validity of their vote,” Mr. Frost said.

This weeks conference in the European Parliament featured many speakers who provided first hand insights how to break free from vendor lock-in. The conference was very well attended.

Participatory democracy relies increasingly on the ability of citizens and stakeholders to access public information and to communicate with officials and elected politicians electronically. The conference looks at the situation where public institutions are locked into the ICT products of a single vendor, discusses the implications of this for participative democracy and fair competition, and considered the prospects for the European Parliament to adopt the use of open standards and open source software and to promote interoperability in the European ICT sector.

Prof. Luc Soete from the United Nations University Maastricht explained the economical aspects of vendor lock-ins and the need to apply a strategic approach to overcome dependencies.

Anne-Catherine Lorrain (TACD) explained the full support of consumer organisations on both sides of the Atlantic for an open standards agenda.

Alberto Barrionuevo, the president of the FFII, believes it is a right of citizens to communicate with their government using electronic means, without discrimination regarding their choice of software solutions. He derives it as a democratic right from the constitutional requirements transferred to the digital age. Societal change lead to changes of requirements for public administration. He explicitely conducted his speech in Spanish. In Spain a promising law was adopted for eGovernment that also features a definition of open standards.

MEP Margrete Aucken suggested a more aggressive approach. She feels Microsoft as a "monster" taking control of public software and urged participants to take the steps to break free from this particular vendor. She contrasts the call for open standards in public government with the aim to fence off a vendor that openly combats open standards. However, the whole lock-in of EU institutions extends to more than Microsoft and includes products as Adobe ColdFusion.

Rolf Schuster, as an IT strategist from the German Foreign office, stressed the interests of public administration to reduce costs. The German Foreign office took a strategic approach to both modernise its IT infrastructure and build it on an open standards and open source stack. He presented a IT per seat cost comparison (p.7) with other German federal administrations that demonstrated that the strategic approach of the German Foreign Office really pays off. Participants asked why the success model is not adopted by other administrations in Germany.

Benoit Müller from the Business Software Alliance intervened against Open Standards. The lobbyist claimed there was a German definition that permitted patent licensing conditions under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms.

Martin Mollema explained the Dutch plan Netherlands in Open Connections, the current European poster child of governmental activities in the field.

Graham Taylor from Openforum Europe who co-organised the conference and is the mastermind behind the OpenParliament petition stressed the gain of freedom. In particular he highlighted the 'Freedom to leave' as the essential aspect. Lock-ins restrict that freedom and increase the costs for the tax payers.

Erik Josefsson made a point of order and asked particular speakers to disclose their affiliations.

Benjamin Henrion, the founder of the <no>OOXML campaign expressed his concerns regarding the HTML5 process and the inclusion of multimedia standards covered by exclusive rights. The use of patented multimedia formats by EU audiovisual services has been a concern of citizens who use the Linux operating system before.

Many participants and speakers referenced to the OOXML standardisation process, in particular were intrigued by the French AFNOR developments. Generally speakers feel concerned about OOXML to become a standard in governmental procurement. In private a government delegate compared Microsoft's public affairs methods with the scientology cult.

• Video interview conducted by MEP Lichtenberger with Martin Mollema about the Netherlands Action Plan
• Video interview conducted by MEP Lichtenberger with Rolf Schuster about the German Foreign Office approach
• Video interview conducted by MEP Hammerstein with Alberto Barrionuevo from the FFII

Hi,

I’ve translated the petition to Welsh - Cymraeg (cy).

Hope it helps

Cheers

Peter

The <NO>OOXML petition was translated by volunteers in so many languages, with their respective writing systems (Norway has two!). It shows that document formats are a global concern and we gathered a true worldwide community that wants to make a difference.

I find it important to share the effort for the promotion of interoperable digital standards policies globally. Some members of our community refer to it ironically as the "domino project". Policies like the one of the Netherlands are going to inspire other administrations to take similar steps. The call for open standards, that is standards free of vendor capture, which preserve us the "freedom to leave" regarding standard based solutions, would mount. One small step triggers the next.

This programme is planned as a starting point for various events & awareness campaigns on Document freedom.

When: 15 April 2008, 6pm

Where: Near Corporation Circle, In front of the Townhall, Bengaluru, India

See http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Campaign_for_Document_Freedom and Newspaper report http://www.hindu.com/2008/04/15/stories/2008041554380500.htm

Pictures

SC34 recognizes that Ecma TC45 members have in-depth knowledge, technical expertise on ISO/IEC 29500 and will seek to preserve and allow for inclusion of this existing body of technical expertise in SC34. SC34 therefore invite Ecma TC45 members to attend and fully participate in ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 34 Ad Hoc Group 1 as well as in any future working group that will be dedicated to the maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500. SC34 intends to organize an efficient and timely process for maintaining and handling new work items to insure the evolution of the standard in following the JTC 1 Directives.

From my perspective it demonstrates how much ISO lost control over the standardization process. It is incomprehensible that SC34 grants candy to the offender for what it did to the ISO process. The appropriate reform step to heal the wounds ECMA International has provided to the International Standards System would be to revoke their liaision status. Reforms to the ISO procedures are required but another perspective on these reforms on behalf of SC34 is given by Alex Brown. These SC34 procedural moves worsen the fact that ISO has little control over the maintenance regime and thus gets rendered irrelevant:

The ad hoc group should consider the following factors in making its recommendations to the convenor:
a) A new working group should be created in SC 34 for the purpose of maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500 pursuant to Section 15 of the JTC 1 Directives for standards maintenance.
b) Editors and editing teams should be nominated as well as mechanisms for the nomination of editors and editing teams for ISO/IEC 29500.
c) Transparency of process, consistent with JTC 1 Directives, is a goal of the recommended process.
d) Consideration should be given to how Ecma and ISO/IEC versions of ISO/IEC 29500 may be best kept synchronized.
e) The proposal should recommend ways in which onward work on ISO/IEC 29500 may be carried out in as timely a way as possible, without recourse to the accelerated mechanisms of PAS or Fast Track procedures.

In my French, ISO is to become the next ECMA International. Indeed, SC34 expects more controversy to come: The participants in SC 34 propose to shield themselves from public criticism.

We call on all organisations and individuals involved in SC 34 standardisation to … refrain from initiating or engaging in any such personal attacks.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

He also advised governments against mandating just one electronic document standard as it may run foul of World Trade Organization policies and open themselves to possible legal challenges. "One of the big concerns of WTO is that you should not use standards as a barrier to trade," he said.

"If a government enforces [use of just one standard], that would mean the whole country is not allowed to use OpenXML. Then, they could get into a very difficult legal situation as they can be challenged legally," opinioned van den Beld.

Beware governments, you can be sued for not using OOXML.

People were demonstrating today in Oslo in front of the ISO SC34 meeting against the adoption of Microsoft OOXML as an ISO standard, and especially against the behaviour of Standards Norway, who voted Yes to the specification, despite a lack of support by a majority of the technical committee. Geir Isene is reporting about the demonstration:

Friends, Bloggers, Free Coders, Supporters of Open Standards!

We are not here today in order to bash Microsoft.

We are here because we believe in open standards.

We are not even here today because we are opposed to OOXML.

We are here because we are opposed to OOXML as an ISO standard.

We are not here because we want to discredit the ISO.
We are here because we want to defend ISO's integrity.

We are here because we want to draw attention to the scandalous behaviour of the people in Standard Norway whose job it is to represent Norwegian users and software vendors.

And we are here because we want to prevent the adoption of a damaging IT standard in Norway.

I will get back to this shortly. First I want to spend a few minutes explaining some background for the benefit of people who don't understand what this issue is all about. Please bear with me.

This issue is all about documents - digital documents.

It's about how we store documents and how we interchange documents with one another. I'm talking about the kind of documents many of you create every day: reports, letters, articles, school essays, books, theses, spreadsheets, and the like, using programs like Microsoft Word and Excel.

But let us forget documents for a moment and talk instead about hair dryers.

Let me show you an ordinary hair dryer, bought in a shop here in Norway. It has a plug. The plug has two pins. I can plug this hair dryer into any electricity socket anywhere in Norway.

The reason I can do this is because all sockets are the same. There is a standard for sockets in Norway.

The same standard is used in large parts of Europe and elsewhere: If I go to Denmark, I can take this hair dryer, plug it in, and it just works.

I can do the same in Finland, Sweden, Germany and many other countries. I just plug it in and it works.

But if I go to England, I can't just plug it in, because the sockets there are different. They have 3 square pins instead of 2 rounds ones.

If I go to the US or Japan, I can't just plug it in, because their sockets are different again. They have 2 flat pins instead of 2 round ones.

Documents are like hair dryers. We want to be able to plug them in to any piece of software and be able to work with them. But that's not how it is today. If you create a document in Microsoft Word and send it to someone else, that person cannot use it unless they also have Microsoft Word.

I believe that is wrong.

People should not have to pay money to Microsoft in order to read my documents. The way things are at the moment, Microsoft effectively has control of the documents you and I create.

That’s not how it should be.

Open standards can solve this problem, and that is why I believe in them. That is why I have spent the last 13 years representing Norway as a volunteer in a committee for international standards. I have worked with many standards, including SGML, XML and Topic Maps, and I have been Chairman of the Norwegian ISO committee since 1995.

Two years ago, my committee approved an open standard for office documents called ODF. ODF was developed through an open and democratic process in an organization called OASIS.

The purpose of ODF was to provide an alternative to what we call "proprietary" formats. Instead of document formats that are owned and controlled by a single vendor and that force you to use a particular piece of software, the ODF people wanted to define an open format that would make it possible to plug your documents into any piece of software.

ODF was developed, as I said, through an open and democratic process. But one important player was absent from that process. The vendor who dominates this market, Microsoft, refused to participate, and they have refused to support ODF since it became a standard.

Instead they decided to create a competing standard called OOXML and to use Ecma as a back door into ISO.

That is why we are here today.

We are not against OOXML itself. In fact, we thank Microsoft for finally after twenty years of market dominance documenting its format in an open specification.

However, we are against ISO's approval of OOXML. The reason for this is simple: It is not in the interests of users like you and me to have two standards for the same purpose. It would be as if Microsoft were to come here and start installing sockets with 3 pins rather than 2, and then force us to buy their hair dryers.

We are not against ISO either. What we are against is the way in which what has always been an open and democratic organization, where each country has one vote, has been subverted by a large multinational corporation.

I do not hate Microsoft. I would like to welcome Microsoft into the standards community, but only if Microsoft abides by the rules and in particular the spirit of the standardization process.

Microsoft has a bad reputation in the standards community. They are the Big Bad Wolf of standards, just like IBM was 20 years ago. But IBM has shown that it is possible to change.

I hope that Microsoft too will change. I think it is possible. But it will only happen if we, the users, force them to change.

Microsoft needs our help. We have to tell them to stop behaving like a bull in a china shop. They have to help them understand that standards work is about co-operation, not about conflict. Standards should not be created through warfare. They should be created through collaboration.

Microsoft has a lot to learn, and it will take time. It will also take time for Microsoft to earn the trust of all those whose work they have sabotaged during the last twenty years.

Microsoft now says that it now believes in open standards. They need to understand that it will take time before everyone really trusts them. They have to start showing less arrogance and more humility, and they have to prove in practice that they mean what they say.

They can take the first step by admitting that they were wrong not to support ODF.

I call on Microsoft to admit its mistake in trying to force OOXML through ISO's fast track procedure, and I call on them to support ODF.

I call on Ecma to withdraw OOXML from ISO and keep control of it themselves. We need it for legacy documents.

I call on Standard Norway to admit that it was wrong to overrule its own committee of experts and on them to change Norway's vote from Yes to No.

I call on the Norwegian Government to stand firm against Microsoft and not to approve OOXML as a Norwegian standard.

Finally I call on users all around the world to look to Norway and follow the example we have set. Raise a storm of protest! Uncover the irregularities that have taken place in your country! Insist that your Governments change their vote to reflect the interests of ordinary people and not the interests of monopolists and bureaucrats.

Kjære nordmenn, vi er ikke alene. Dear Norwegians, we are not alone.

Countries representing the majority of the world's population voted No to OOXML and for good reason.

Let me quote just one example. This is from a speech given by the South African Minister for Public Service and Administration, Ms. Geraldine J Fraser-Moleketi. She was speaking at a Conference on the Digital Commons and Open Source Software in Dakar, Senegal just three weeks ago. Here is what she said:

"The adoption of open standards by governments is a critical factor in building interoperable information systems which are open, accessible, fair, and which reinforce democratic culture and good governance practices"

ODF is an open standard developed by a technical committee within the OASIS consortium South Africa is amongst a growing number of National Governments who have adopted ODF over the past year.

It is unfortunate that the leading vendor of office software, which enjoys considerable dominance in the market, chose not to participate and support ODF in its products, but rather to develop its own competing document standard…

If it is successful, it is difficult to see how consumers will benefit from these two overlapping ISO standards. I would like to appeal to vendors to listen to the demands of consumers as well as Free Software developers. Please work together to produce interoperable document standards. The proliferation of multiple standards in this space is confusing and costly.

Ms. Fraser-Moleketi: The people of Norway are with you, and we beg your forgiveness for the unacceptable behaviour of our standards bureaucracy.

We were robbed of victory in ISO by a mere 3 votes.

Without the irregularities in Norway, that would have been just 2 votes. Reports are coming in of similar irregularities in other countries, including France and Denmark. Let's get those non-representative votes changed. Let's throw OOXML out of ISO.

Microsoft thinks it has won this battle, but I say it's not over yet.

It’s never over until the fat lady sings, and this fat lady only just got started.

Flickr has also some pictures of the event:

Steve Pepper, the former Chairman of the Norwegian committee responsible for deciding the Norwegian vote on OOXML, is calling for a demonstration to take place outside the building where SC34, the ISO committee that has been landed with OOXML, is holding its spring plenary.

The demonstration will take place outside Håndverkeren, Rosenkrantzgate 7, Oslo, Norway, on Wednesday April 9 at 12.00.

Among the slogans are

• Ecma: Withdraw OOXML!

I wonder if a wiser call would be the demand to remove the A-liaision status of ECMA International. Looks like some persons will take their lunch break on the streets.

Update: This group has also posted a complaint to the Norwegian Minister of Science regarding the way Standard Norway has been handling the OOXML case. Only ODF is accepted as a document standard in Norway.