Noting your lack of response Yehoshua, I must point out that your statement that “[the IAWG] will reconvene once we have the necessary updates” is a dereliction of your duty as the Chair of the IAWG, a role which you chose to take on. Your excuse for cancelling this week’s IAWG meeting completely ignores the fact that there are matters within direct scope of the OIAWG’s remit, which require addressing, and which you appeared to have acknowledged last week.
Though I have posted these points before I reiterate them now, as the basis for an IAWG meeting on Thursday 2025-03-27.
Regarding the SACs:
1) Comparable Alternative criteria were reintroduced into the discussion and I was of the view that they were to be included in a revised 63A_SAC;
2) Proofing strength combinations – we agreed that 63A#0180 was worthy of amendment to accommodate STRONG+ and greater break-down to individual pieces of evidence, to better support component proofing services;
3) editorials – quite a few have been noted along the way and ‘stored’ for publication, and a recent assessment I’ve been involved in has led to a number of additional minor editorial changes being identified (one actually was a criterion mis-numbering, which is a little above ‘minor editorial’);
4) definitive ‘passkey waiver’ criteria – the IAWG never concluded its discussion about which criteria ought to be subject to a Notice, and the published Notice was therefore produced prematurely. This is problematic since other criteria are (I believe) worthy of inclusion, which presents a problem if assessments are performed with such findings yet the Notice does not support them.
These items 1-4 should have immediate priority since these MAY need wider review, depending on whether revisions are Material or Non-Material, and given the delays, perhaps Non-Material changes ought to be pushed through with Material changes to follow, allowing their formal adoption by CSPs.
Regarding the TSL web pages:
5) The definitions for Full Service and Component Service are incorrect, i.e. they do not align to the KI Glossary;
6) The TSL split between services is incorrect – they are grouped as ‘Full’, ‘Classic’ and ‘Component’. This is completely wrong – the distinction between Full and Component is equally applicable to both ‘Classic’ and ’63 rev.3’ services. At least one of the present ‘Classic’ listed services is a Component Service;
Items 5-6 should have high but not immediate priority. They are misleading and therefore do not project a consistent view of KI. And they’re easy to fix, and probably require no further IAWG input (other than encouragement?).
And then …
Posted list of Approval-scheme Assessors:
7) KI has been added as an Assessor under the existing Approval scheme. I consider this to be ethically challengeable and believe that this entry should be removed without delay.
This may not be directly under the IAWG’s remit but ought to be of concern.
Any discussion of ‘nice-to-haves’ in terms of potential longer-term revisions to criteria should not be addressed until the above existential points have been considered and resolutions determined, including the means for the IAWG to keep track of and ensure completion of those actions.
If others have germane agenda items for consideration, by all means let them be added, but let’s ensure that we understand the priorities.
In your role as Chairman of the IAWG, please respond to this email by end of this week with confirmation of an IAWG meeting next week covering at least the items I have listed above.
Richard G. WILSHER
CEO & Founder, Zygma Inc.
www.Zygma.biz
+1 714 797 9942
From: Richard G. WILSHER (@Zygma Inc.) [mailto:RGW@Zygma.biz]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March, 2025 18:21
To: 'yehoshua@proof.com'
Cc: IA WG (wg-idassurance@kantarainitiative.org)
Subject: RE: [WG-IDAssurance] Meeting Cancellation - March 20
Yehoshua,
This not acceptable – as the Chairman of IAWG you should be doing all you can to direct the business of the IAWG iaw its Charter. Last week you expressly chose not to accept my request that we address existential IAWG business first and instead the meeting got hijacked (not for the first time, imo). That is failing to uphold the principles of the Charter, and you might recall we deliberately (and recently) left it largely unchanged specifically so that it had nothing to do with any development towards establishing an Accredited CB.
I have documented genuine IAWG matters which have been overlooked for months, maybe some for six months by now. AH also professed to having a list. Furthermore, the meeting closed with an undertaking on the part of either yourself or AH to address ‘real’ (my choice of word) IAWG business this week. We should be holding a meeting this week to address those points which impinge upon current Approval-scheme assessments and which have nothing to do with future Certification scheme audits.
Resolution of the open questions seems to me be straightforward and frankly, not your (nor AH’s) problem – you are both caught between a rock and a hard place. Those questions should be addressed by KC and CB in a separate process and in separate meetings.
Please withdraw the e-mail below and post a meaningful agenda for the IAWG to meet this week.
Thank you and good morning
Richard G. WILSHER
CEO & Founder, Zygma Inc.
www.Zygma.biz
+1 714 797 9942
From: Yehoshua Silberstein [mailto:yehoshua@proof.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March, 2025 17:35
To: IAWG
Subject: [WG-IDAssurance] Meeting Cancellation - March 20
Good afternoon,
This week’s meeting is canceled as we continue working to address the open questions raised in the last meeting. We will reconvene once we have the necessary updates.
Yehoshua
--
Yehoshua Silberstein | Senior Counsel, Product Compliance R&D
(857) 577-8144
Notarize is now a Proof brand 🎉 We hope you love our new look and feel as much as we do!
NOTICE: This email may contain proprietary, business-confidential, and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. This email does not constitute a signed writing for purposes of a binding contract.
