Industry Debates regarding credential schemes, technologies, formats, etc.

[trbouma]

Hi everyone,

If you are following the recent discussions on the industry mailing lists, it's worth being aware that there is a sense that participation. or lack of participation in certain groups is being viewed by some as a bias or favour toward one set of standards/technologies over another.

To counter that perception, further comments in the email discussions are reminding everyone that it is about process, being open and transparent. Since, CIOSC is an accredited SDO (Standard Development Organization), we are bound to being neutral and fair in the standards development process and are audited as such. While the conformity assessment schemes are not necessarily bound by the accredited SDO requirements, but we feel that the same principles extend to the conformity assessment schemes we are building with the community.

The market is still early (we are in the VHS vs. BETAMAX phase): we need to be sure that the conformity assessment scheme is fair to all contenders. Further, we need to remind ourselves, that specific knowledge in one technology stack might unintentionally prejudice the scheme, so we need to be mindful of our own views and knowledge as we build out the criteria.

I know this common knowledge to the contributors; this is a just a reminder to everyone and this discussion is a matter of record for the broader set of stakeholders that this is our approach. All said, we have an excellent opportunity to shape up the conditions for a competitive marketplace for both the public and private sector by means of these schemes.

Tim

[kjansa]

While true that "conformity assessment schemes are not necessarily bound by the accredited SDO requirements", conformity assessment schemes developed by organizations in accordance with WTO TBT provisions and accredited to international standards in providing audit and certification provides credibility, confidence and legitmacy of those schemes to others.