NoOOXML

The french proposal is non-relevant in the fasttrack situation.
If Microsoft loses they will try to bury ODF.
A good way would be to start using ODF and combine it with binary data for compatibitly which ODF allows and to make extremly slow ODF implementations by dumbing tons of extra data in ODF files and not support some critical features that OOXML uses in ODF or use them in a different way.

In the mean time they can go for a second try on their own format.

Implementing ODF badly on purpose might not actually be a very good option. For ODF support, there are other implementations to compare MS Office to. If MS Office performed very much worse than OpenOffice.org when saving and opening basic ODF documents with no special frills, word would spread quickly among ODF document users that there is a better, free software alternative to handle their files. I really think that if ODF support is implemented at all in MS Office, it needs to be reasonably good. If it isn't, they will get further negative publicity, which is not what they need right now.

I could translate for you the Bundestag plenary protocols

Or you could just link to them, for those of us who can read German but don't know where to look.

http://dip.bundestag.de/btp/16/16108.pdf

In the political sphere open standards is framed as a Microsoft debate. The reason for my own participation was just a correct definition of open standards in line with the EIF (which is important for SMEs) but politicians talked of it as an anti-Microsoft case and sure their Bundestag resolution was. But as of the plenary debate, just a few quotes which mention products from the company.

This is from one of the government party:

"Weiterhin behindert die heute weit verbreitete Nutzung von aktiven Inhalten in Dokumenten die Interoperabilität. Diese Probleme entstehen bereits, wenn man Texte zwischen verschiedenen Office Versionen von Microsoft austauscht. Es besteht nahezu keine Möglichkeit, auf alternative Produkte auszuweichen. Faktisch besteht eine Softwaremonokultur. Softwaremonokulturen sind missbrauchsgefährdet und ganze Volkswirtschaften können durch gezielte Angriffe erheblich geschädigt werden. Diese Gefahr hat auch die Bundesregierung erkannt."
Additionally the use of active content in documents which so common today hinders interoperability. These problem arise between different version of Microsoft Office. There is almot no possibility to switch to alternative products. Factually a software monoculture is existing. Software monocultures bear misuse risks and whole economies could be damaged by targeted attacks. This danger was also identified by the Federal Government of Germany."

"Die Bundesverwaltung verwendet fast ausschließlich – derzeit circa zu 95 Prozent – die Microsoft Office Software-Suite. Die zugehörigen Dokumentenformate sind „geschlossen“, das heißt, nicht vollständig oder nicht regelmäßig veröffentlicht und ausschließlich durch den Softwarehersteller kontrolliert. Hieraus resultiert die ungewollte Abhängigkeit. Die Entwicklung unabhängiger…"
The Federal government uses almost exclusively - at present about 95% . Microsoft Office Software Suite. The document formats are "closed", that means, not fully or not regularly published and only controlled by the software manufacturer. The result is an unwanted dependency. The development of independent…"

and so forth. Guess how the opposition sounds.

Ich habe kürzlich folgende Bemerkung gehört: „Warum brauchen wir überhaupt einen offenen Standard, wir haben doch sowieso alle Word?“ Eine solche Bemerkung macht zunächst einmal sprachlos, beschreibt aber genau den Kern unseres Problems. Die Monopolstellung ist schon so in den Köpfen manifestiert und akzeptiert, dass das Monopol mit einem offenen Standard gleichgestellt wird. Tatsächlich ist das Word-Format weit von einem offenen Standard entfernt: Es ist alles andere als ein offener Standard! Darum fordern wir die Regierung…
A while ago I listened to the following remark: "Why do we need an open standard as we all have Word?" It is such a remark which makes you speechless first but decriebes the core of the problem. The monopoly position is as manifest and accepted on our heads, that the monopoly is put on the same level as an open standard. In fact the Word-format is distant from an open standard. It is no open standard at all. This is why we ask the government…"

I don't know if they were lobbied this time by the company but it seems to me when they do they fail. The resolution had some relations to OOXML debate e.g. they faced strong lobbying behind the scene to get a definition of open document standards which supports RAND terms.