Child pages
  • #527461 IAF-1400
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This page contains the text of the IAF Ticket, relevant links, and Disposition information and status.

Ticket Metadata

Ticket #527461
Date Received13 June 2013
Topic TitleClarify application processes
IAF DocumentIAF-1400
IAF Document Versionv3.0
Links to MeetingsIAWG Meeting Minutes 2013-08-1
Final DispositionAdd 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
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).

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.