http://www.cyberlawcentre.org/2007/ooxml/
On Friday 14 December 2007 the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre hosts a symposium to explore issues raised by the proposed OO XML ([Microsoft] Office Open XML) document format standard, to assist consideration of the Australian response to the proposal through Standards Australia. Expert commentators from a range of perspectives will present written and oral summaries of the issues, and there will be detailed discussion of the most significant of these. There is proposed informal participation from Standards Australia and experts associated with them in the discussion.
I believe it is a very good approach to start open discussions outside the standard organizations and work on resolutions for the comments. Most of us really feel bad about the lack of transparency and the opacity of the ISO process. No one can rely on ECMA to provide proper resolutions of the NB comments for the BRM.
Former ECMA president Jan van den Beld highlights that the non-disclosure is intentional:
Consequently, Ecma is not constrained in posting its interim responses on a publicly available page as long as they are not tied to specific NB comments. In other words, Ecma would have to do some work to separate the proposed responses from the specific NB comments, but then Ecma may make its work publicly visible. If there is so much interest outside the NB circuit, then Ecma will surely do something here.
The Australia event will also address the patent concerns underlying the standard and — ??? — discuss copyright concerns instead. However Ron Yu would also speak about other issues such as patents:
The Legal Session will be focused on the proponent's 'covenant not to sue' (later recast in the form of a promise) in relation to a range of potential litigation topics, particularly intellectual property such as copyrights entitlements; its practical effectiveness as a protection removing the need for a range of implementers to seek further expensive legal risk management advice; and other issues such as patents.
Any idea why I tend to hate lawyers?
Outcomes of the day may include:
- a better appreciation of arguments and explanations surrounding the more significant issues, for those seeking to make further submissions to assist formulation of an Australian response in February 2008; and
- a paper that covers points raised from all sides.
