I would hesitate to use the term "open standard" until I'd thoroughly assessed the identities of everyone contributing to that open spec, along with those of their employers, and what history the spec has of accepting genuinely "community" contributions (in the 1990s sense of that word)
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2015/12/open-c... https://kubernetes.io/blog/2016/12/container-runtime-interfa...
You can see the releases and specs that are supported by all major container runtimes here: https://opencontainers.org/release-notices/overview/
For example, OpenShift ships https://cri-o.io in its kubernetes distribution as its container runtime, so this isn't really new.
Disclosure: I helped start OCI and CNCF
But let's say you're right and call it a closed standard. Then this change drops support for one older, clunkier closed standard in favor of the current closed standard. Still doesn't seem like anything to get upset over.
Docker was always a company first and foremost, I fail to see how leaving the technology in their commercial control would have been better in any way than making it an open standard. Just because Docker = small = good and Google = giant corporation = evil? Docker raised huge amounts of VC funding, they had every intention of becoming a giant corporation themselves.
And it's kind of bizarre to completely discount the outcome of this situation, which is that we have amazing container tools that are free and open and standardized, just because you don't like some of the parties involved in getting to this point.