1. JTC1 is governed by its Directives (ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0) - about 180 pages. Fast-track processing is governed by Section 13. Section 13.4 provides that
Upon receipt of notification … that a document has been registered for fasttrack processing, the JTC 1 Secretariat shall [send it to the appropriate subcommittee and start the 30-day review period] …
During the 30-day review period, a NB [=National Body, such as BSI] may identify to the JTC 1 Secretariat any perceived contradiction with other standards or approved projects of JTC 1, ISO or IEC.
If such a contradiction is alleged, the matter shall be addressed by the ITTF and JTC 1 Secretariat … before ballot voting can commence. If no contradiction is alleged, the 5 month fast-track ballot voting commences immediately following the 30-day period.
If a contradiction is alleged, the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF shall make a best effort to resolve the matter in no more than a three month period, consulting with the proposer of the fast-track document, the NB(s) raising the claim of contradiction and others, as they deem necessary. A meeting of these parties, open to all NBs, may be convened by the JTC 1 Secretariat, if required.
If the resolution requires a change to the document submitted for fast-track processing, the initial document submitted will be considered withdrawn. The proposer may submit a revised document, to be processed as a new proposal.
If the resolution results in no change to the document or if a resolution cannot be reached, the five month fast-track ballot commences immediately after such a determination is made.
2. Section 3.4.3 gives the procedure for the “Resolution of Difficulties”:
3.4.3.2 In all cases of unsatisfactory coordination, contradictions or discrepancies, the Secretariats concerned shall, in consultation as appropriate with the committee Chairmen and the ITTF [= ISO/IEC Information Technology Task Force], make every attempt to resolve the difficulty. The secretaries-General may, if necessary, call an ad hoc meeting of the interests directly involved.
3.4.3.3 In cases where the procedures indicated above fail to resolve the difficulties, the Secretaries-General may refer the matter to the TMB/SMB [ = ISO Technical Management Board/IEC Standards Management Board] for decision after obtaining, if required, the opinion of an advisory body. If necessary the TMB/SMB may make recommendations on the subject to Councils.
3. Section 11 sets out the Appeals process:
11.1.1 NBs have the right of appeal
• To JTC 1 on a decision of an SC;
• To TMB/SMB on a decision of JTC 1;
• To the Councils on a decision of the TMB/SMB.
Appeals shall be made within two months after receipt by the P-members of the report of JTC 1 or SC on the relevant meeting or vote by correspondence. The decision of the Councils on any case of appeal is final.
11.1.2 A P-member of JTC 1 or an SC may appeal against any action, or inaction, on the part of JTC 1 or an SC when the P-member considers that such action or inaction is:
• Not in accordance with these directives; or
• Not in the best interests of international trade and commerce, or such public factors as safety, health or environment.
11.1.3 Matters under appeal may be either technical or administrative in nature. Appeals on decisions concerning … and DISs [= Draft International Standards (fast-track)] are only eligible for consideration if:
• Questions of principle are involved;
• The contents of a draft may be detrimental to the reputation of IEC or ISO; or
• The point giving rise to objection was not known to JTC 1 or SC during earlier discussions.
…
4. BSI duly gave timely notification to the Secretariat that there was a contradiction with other standards, specifically ISO/IEC JTC1 26300 (= ODF). The Secretariat, asked Ecma for comment and Ecma, unsurprisingly disagreed. It is not clear whether the “Resolution of Difficulties” procedure was followed. The Secretariat then went ahead with the ballot, which is due to close on 2 September 2007.
5. There is a dispute about the meaning of the Directives above. One view, favoured by Microsoft and its allies, is that the Secretariat has complete discretion to decide whether there is a contradiction. They also take the view that the discretion was in any case wisely exercised since there is no contradiction.
6. The other view is that there is plainly a Contradiction, that the Secretariat has an obligation under general principles of administrative and international law to deal with it fairly and properly, and that it should in any case have consulted with TMB/SMB under Section 3.
7. It is also clear that the BSI can appeal under Section 11. There are unconfirmed reports that Kenya appealed under Section 11 and was ignored. Given that, it would almost certainly be wise to involve the UK government and to make further representations through diplomatic channels to ensure that they are taken seriously.