Content Comparison

Andrew Hughes

Charter update text discussion -

• NOTE: Notes on our vigorous discussion are embedded in the draft for discussion document. It was a very good airing of views on the relationship and responsibilities expectations between the assurance program and IWAG; a discussion on how specific (or not) the charter should be; discussion about maybe reorganizing existing requirements so that they better match how existing service providers structure and deliver their offerings; discussion on what ‘assessable’ means; and so much more.

Next week’s call we will look at the text of the “purpose and scope” section.

Notes from the draft charter notes page:

Notes 2025-02-06:

[edited 2025-02-11]

• Jimmy - notes that the shift in responsibilities from IAWG to Kantara program - this is not a minor change

• Richard - we should be setting the charter according to what we are doing today - not according to some future situation

  • Andrew (ACH): Good point

• Yehoshua - this is in line with the ISO 17065 discussion of last week. Kantara can delegate development of text as it wishes. Kantara has chosen to take on the ownership of the assessment critieria.

• Richard points out that 17065 states no obligations on some of the changes that Kantara is wanting to implement.

  • ACH points out that regardless of that, Kantara wants to make program changes to meet market needs

• Richard: these changes seem to be outside of IAWG’s authority/scope

• Jimmy: these are big changes

• Richard: ACH trying to change the charter before the Accredited CAB in place - not productive use of time

• Yehoshua - is there objection to restructuring the criteria?

  • Jimmy - CSPs want the Trust mark because either their client or their opportunity specifically requires it

• Yehoshua - gives an example of some areas that lack detail in the SACs and how the criteria have mismatches to how service providers organize themselves to deliver real services. The criteria need to evolve regardless of any other factors.

• Richard - IAWG continues to ‘own’ the SAC (manage, etc)

  • The Charter should set up space for us to work within, doesn’t need to be too specific

• Jimmy - the current way of working/managing the SAC has been working

  • Jimmy - “how compliance must be demonstrated” is this intended to assign the IAWG the responsibility of identifying “how criteria must be tested or demonstrated”?

• “The Service Assessment Criteria are the requirements that must be fulfilled by the service under assessment”

• Mike Magrath - agrees with Richard/Jimmy on what the program is trying to deliver and what services need

• The language in the proposal seems to say that IAWG might shift towards writing procedures instead of what we do today

• Eric T - are we seeking to move towards procedural text? (not really)

  • Today’s SAC clarify some of the fuzzy requirements as written in 800-63 today

  • Warns against being over-prescriptive if we tried to list all the ways that conformity can be achieved - very risky

• Richard - there is value in improving/enhancing how assessments could be done - but must be careful to avoid constraining service providers by bad process. There could be improvements to consistency coming out of 17065 accreditation.