[Asis-standards] Comments on FDIS 17024

[Thornburg,Gail]

this sounds reasonable

-----Original Message-----
From: asis-standards-bounces at asis.org [mailto:asis-standards-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf Of Mark Needleman
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:58 PM
To: ASIST Standards Committee
Subject: [Asis-standards] Comments on FDIS 17024

Folks

 Here is a draft of some comments I wrote up to go with a NO vote on that document on certification authorities I sent you earlier today. It's just a draft and comments and suggestions would be most welcome - although I do need them by Saturday 4/28 at the latest

Mark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

Although we doubt that this will have any effect on NISO's vote in ISO on ISO/IEC FDIS 17024, ASIST has decided to vote NO on this document. While we believe the document contains some valuable and useful guidelines and recommendations, we don't feel the document contains the necessary rigorous requirements that would justify it becoming an ISO standard.

Most if not all of the requirements specified in FDIS 17024 are general in their specification and contain no definitions of what they mean and no definition of what compliance with them  would mean. Also, because of this, the document does not define any mechanism for enforcing compliance or even discussing what compliance with it would mean, and, in fact, no mechanism for judging wether a certification body is or is not compliant with the requirements specified in the document.

In our opinion, this is another of what seems to becoming a trend of ISO attempting to produce standards, that while they may contain useful information and guidelines, do not contain anything that meets the level of being a standard that organizations could comply with, and thus does a disservice to the community by attempting to make them standards.


Sent from Mark Needleman's iPad