Standards Australia has defended it's decision to abstain from the ISO (International Organisation for Standardization) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) ballot to approve Microsoft's Office Open XML format as an international standard, saying Australia still has a chance to approve or disapprove the vote.

As I reported on July 23, INCITS, the US balloting body on the OOXML vote, put out a ballot to see whether the US should vote to approve OOXML, with the ballot to close on August 9.

Standards Australia has cast a vote to abstain from the ISO/IEC JTC1 ballot to adopt the DIS 29500 Office Open XML format draft standard as an International Standard. The decision to cast an abstain vote from the current ballot follows months of consultation and a clear lack of consensus in Australia on this issue by stakeholders.

"France has voted against adoption of Microsoft Corp.'s document format Office Open XML as an international standard, while Australia has decided to abstain..."

Australia may have missed an opportunity to promote open technology by abstaining from the recent OOXML vote, according to Linux distribution vendor Red Hat.

Isn't it the job of those proposing a standard to make their case? If consensus cannot be reached, surely the only responsible decision to to vote against the proposal.

"Brazil, India, and China, which together count for more than a third of the world's population, all voted against Office Open XML in voting last week before the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Russia was the only member of the so-called BRIC nations to vote in favor of ISO ratification for OOXML."

Next month, national standards bodies will vote for the second time on whether to adopt the Office Open XML (OOXML) document format as an international standard.

Following a Computerworld report on the appointment of a Microsoft consultant as part of Standard Australia's (SA) delegation for this month's Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) in Geneva, the organization's CEO has defended the objectivity of the decision.