Time to admit that the decisive round (and the lost one, too) was the BRM. The "batch accepting" of changes gave NBs simple and straightforward arguments for switching to "Yes", like "all our changes were accepted" (no matter whether they were discussed, they are _ours_), "the standard became much better" (see, 1000 improvements make any thing better). Having such arguments at hand, NBs could switch to "Yes" without really having to propose technical justifications for such switch.
Positively speaking, I'd suggest the following:
* If an investigation begins in some country regarding "why the NB's vote is Yes without reaching a consensus, or with so many No votes from members", the NB people should be asked first, did they receive a copy of DIS29500 (post-BRM revision) from ISO. If they did not, than any NB member's "Yes" vote based on the "fact" that BRM improved the spec, is not technically sound, and maybe is illegal at all. To approve a spec, one must see it first. Anyone who actually received the spec can say that he looked it through and considered OK (it is a complicated matter whether he was physically able to read at such speed), but if he did NOT receive the spec, than he formally (and provably) could not consider it OK in a correct way.
* If ISO did not send the NB's the post-BRM revision of the spec, was it legal to vote at all? I am not an expert in ISO voting rules, however these rules may contain the requirement to present the text to all NBs before opening the voting period. Maybe here is a possibility to complain. The fact of receiving / not receiving the spec is verifiable. NBs that voted "No" can help to prove that the text was not sent, at least to them.
* Fallback position, in case if all appeals fail and OOXML becomes an acting standard. To ensure its monopoly, MS wants ISO stamp on MSOffice, not on OOXML only. The fact that MSO2007 (and the upcoming version of MSO) is _not_ OOXML compliant should get as much proof from the community as possible, in form of examples of non-compliant MSO-saved documents, in form of simple programs that check docs for known violations (not for compliance, of course, it is too complex). Even if it does not lead to rejecting MSO as non-compliant implementation of the standard (by governments, etc), it could flood MS with bugfix requests. In optimal case, a sensible government will at least suspend accepting MSO as an implementation of the standard until the major incompliances are resolved. Let OOXML run the gauntlet.
