Jimmy, at least understands the situation. I’m sorry to have to say Yehoshua that your response is a comprehensive misunderstanding of the situation, plus some obfuscation of the IAWG’s Charter. There is no transition of the IAWG’s role as defined and scoped by the existing Charter. As Jimmy rightly points out, we deliberately DID NOT address that subject. There is a ‘NOW/PRESENT’ scenario which is the existing Approval scheme which continues to function, albeit with some neglect, and is actively receiving applications for re-accreditation of Assessors and re-Approval of services; and there is a ‘FUTURE’ scenario which is a Certification scheme, for which there appears to be no substance, and so far as I am aware no defined ‘transition’ so that appears to be a long way off. Further observations are in-line. Richard G. WILSHER CEO & Founder, Zygma Inc. www.Zygma.biz +1 714 797 9942 From: Jimmy Jung [mailto:jimmy.jung@slandala.com] Sent: Friday, 21 March, 2025 01:29 To: yehoshua@proof.com; Richard G. WILSHER (@Zygma Inc.) Cc: IA WG Subject: RE: [WG-IDAssurance] Re: Formal request for Notice of an IAWG meeting, to be held 2025-03-27 OK – that I will push back on. The IAWG specifically chose to retain its original charter because the transition remains unsure. This group specifically made a decision to continue with our current charter because it has NOT YET transitioned. Yes we need clarity on whatever transition is coming. But this group specifically decided to continue with our current obligation of maintaining the criteria; NOT TO WAIT on some “broader” understanding of a structure that seems incredibly elusive and unscheduled. I understood us to elect to stand our post, as we have, until the next shift arrives, whatever form that may take. (I’m pretty sure there is a mixed metaphor in there somewhere) jimmy From: Yehoshua Silberstein <yehoshua@proof.com> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 1:23 PM To: Richard G. WILSHER (@Zygma Inc.) <RGW@zygma.biz> Cc: IA WG <wg-idassurance@kantarainitiative.org> Subject: [WG-IDAssurance] Re: Formal request for Notice of an IAWG meeting, to be held 2025-03-27 Richard, I appreciate your concerns, and I want to clarify a few points. The transition of IAWG’s role is not still under debate—it’s already been established, and we’re waiting for Carol to formally outline the implementation. RGW: This is nonsense, for two reasons: firstly, any transition of the IAWG is entirely irrelevant to the maintenance of the existing Approval scheme’s published criteria, revisions for which have been discussed and either agreed or are wanting final discussion and approval. At the least these need to be re-stated and means to track their implementation installed. Secondly, show us the established IAWG transition strategy, because I’ve yet to see much of any substance concerning this event. While I understand the frustration with the delay, the focus should now be on receiving that clarity from Carol rather than revisiting the transition itself. RGW: Wrong. The focus should be on maintaining the operation of the Approval scheme, as Jimmy has pointed out. The transition is an irrelevance. Regarding the specific points you raised: Some (like editorial updates and website corrections) are staff responsibilities, already addressed at a governance level. Moving forward, these require execution rather than further working group discussion. RGW: Well, some have required execution since September or October, so those responsibilities appear to have been neglected. In any event, I challenge you or anyone else to come up with a list of what those actions are. A useful product of an IAWG meeting would be the reassertion of those which are fixed and further discussion of any which are pending – you have the list I provided, Andrew claimed to have his own, so let’s review them. These are not transition of some future scenario, they are existential topics for the maintenance of the current Approval plan, as addressed by the Charter which you, as Chairman, ought to be upholding. For others (such as SAC criteria updates), these depend on finalizing the broader structure. Until that’s in place, we’re left making assumptions about how the updates will apply. A key next step in this process is conducting a gap analysis to ensure we fully understand what's needed for the development of complete and commercial-ready requirements. RGW: This comment illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the need to maintain the Approval scheme. SAC updates can be readily executed under that scheme, today, as defined by the SAH and other documents. Certainly, they do not “depend on finalizing the broader structure” – that is a complete smoke screen. I acknowledge that we don’t yet have a formalized process for passing items from the group to staff and ensuring accountability. However, the way that process takes shape should coalesce around Carol’s directive for how things should operate. Once that foundation is in place, we can build around it in a way that supports our goals rather than prematurely layering on additional processes. RGW: Irrelevant – once again, these things are future and some way off, they are not addressing the existing Approval scheme and the need to manage revisions TODAY, not under some future scheme. If there are specific approval-scheme-related issues requiring immediate action from the IAWG—things that fall clearly within our remit and are not dependent on Carol’s direction—let’s identify them and move them forward. I’m happy to meet to address those as needed. RGW: Then please call a meeting for Thursday 27th and lets deal with present and relevant matters and stop hiding behind an irrelevant transition. Let’s start the meeting by revisiting the scope of the Charter and keeping to it, without hijacking the meeting. Any discussion of any transition, of any Accreditation substance, should be explicitly excluded. Let me say it again plainly – this is your duty as Chairman of the IAWG under the published Charter. Kindly fulfill that role and facilitate us having a properly-maintained Approval scheme which supports its present customers. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 9:43 PM Richard G. WILSHER (@Zygma Inc.) <RGW@zygma.biz> wrote: 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 yehoshua@proof.com (857) 577-8144 <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7nPoP42JZWBh2Tlgr4Pk7-Xw-dNkaxwcdqDAvNQRyg6qsp8AF5yG2dS_GVGlTxN6HOjmQLy9Gz7BLQ6Mof1AGW2HvWNr9qo5ClraeV3cMw3mbQNSeXhW9MXLV7riSDcQQdKXYCRwkHzOaTP8sxWYhmo> 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. _______________________________________________ A Community Group mailing list of KantaraInitiative.org WG-IDAssurance mailing list -- wg-idassurance@kantarainitiative.org To unsubscribe send an email to staff@kantarainitiative.org List archives -- https://mailman.kantarainitiative.org/hyperkitty/list/wg-idassurance@kantara... ______ Group wiki -- https://kantara.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/WG-IDAssurance -- Yehoshua Silberstein | Senior Counsel, Product Compliance R&D yehoshua@proof.com (857) 577-8144 <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7nPoP42JZWBh2Tlgr4Pk7-Xw-dNkaxwcdqDAvNQRyg6qsp8AF5yG2dS_GVGlTxN6HOjmQLy9Gz7BLQ6Mof1AGW2HvWNr9qo5ClraeV3cMw3mbQNSeXhW9MXLV7riSDcQQdKXYCRwkHzOaTP8sxWYhmo> 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.