#527461 IAF-1400
This page contains the text of the IAF Ticket, relevant links, and Disposition information and status.
Ticket Metadata
Ticket # | 527461 |
Date Received | 13 June 2013 |
Topic Title | Clarify application processes |
IAF Document | IAF-1400 |
IAF Document Version | v3.0 |
Status | Disposed |
Links to Meetings | IAWG Meeting Minutes 2013-08-1 |
Final Disposition | Add to IAF enhancements list |
Ticket Text
Ticket # 527461
The process below does not clearly state if the ARB must vote to accept an application and list it as registered applicant or if the application can be accepted by the secretariat upon performance of review that the application is not a wast of time (so far out of scope or not aligned with mission). I apologize for the line numbers but the below, I believe, references the section where the clarification is needed. Could you please ensure this is entered as a change request for the AAS officially? Thank you! Quoting from AAS v3-0: 6.7 Specific Evaluation Steps 651 The Secretariat will validate the initial Application submission up to and including Part I clause 652 4.1, step 9. 653 Where the Application is for a Full Service Approval, the Secretariat will ensure that the overlay 654 of the collective criteria covered by the combination of the Applicant’s SoC and those of its 655 component parts encompasses 100% of all SAC for the chosen Assurance Level. 656 When all of these validation steps are completed affirmatively, the Secretariat shall advise the 657 Applicant’s Point of Contact (APoC) that the Application has been found fit for assessment. The 658 Secretariat shall then take these additional steps: 659 a) Counter-sign and return the SPA to the CSP’s APoC; 660 b) File the Application for later reference, and; 661 c) Notify the Chairman of the ARB of the Application’s receipt (simply for advisory purposes 662 – no action is required of the ARB at this stage). 663 Evidence of its acceptance of the SPA is a necessary pre-requisite to enable the Applicant’s chosen 664 Assessor to formalize the contract for Assessment (see clause 6.8, below). Â
Discussion Summary (if applicable)
- Request is clear
- Request is not Errata
- Experience with TrustX was that there was a lengthy delay between submission and approval of receipt.
- Where applicants see a business benefit in being listed as 'in progress' on the Trust Status List, a quicker turn-around time is preferred
- Opinion is that early list as in-progress is preferred - no downside anticipated.
Â