Draft Minutes of the IAF Technical Committee Meeting

Held 03-04March 2008 in Bonn

1. Welcomes and Apologies

Mr. Dougherty called the meeting to order (attendance list follows) and thanked TGA for providing arrangements and facilities for theIAF meetings.

Mr. Fredriksson, Mr. Jun, Mr. Knappenberger, Mr. Palmes, Mr. Phipps, Mr. Scicchitano, and Mr. Song had asked for and received permission from the chair to attend the meeting.

Mr. Dougherty extended apologies on behalf of Mr. Carmody, Mr. Commins, Mr. Fung, Ms. Leballo, Ms. Malmqvist, Mr. Muir, Mr. Pelan, Mr. Romyanon, and Mr. Saegesser.

Those attending the meeting introduced themselves and the membership list was circulated for verification.

Meeting papershad beene-mailed to the TC list and posted on the IAF Web site prior to the meeting.Additional papers submittedduring the meeting (numbered TC-17-08 and up) are included as attachments with these minutes.

2. Agenda and Objectives of Meeting

Mr. Dougherty noted that revision 3 of the agenda had been e-mailed prior to the meeting.

3. Minutes of 24-25October 2007 Meeting in Sydney

Ms. Gamaché said concerns about item 7.5 of the minutes of the October 2007 meeting in Sydney had been resolved with revision 2. No additional concerns were raised and the minutes of the Sydney meeting were considered to be approved.

3.1.Log of Key IAF TC Decisions

Mr. Borzek said the most recent decisions are now listed first in the document.It was noted that item 06/11/03 (Cancun agenda 8.2, Sydney 3.1) had been removed from the decision log.

The decision log will be posted on the IAF Web site.It was noted that decisions are internal to the TC, and publication might imply decisions being mandatory in nature. It was agreed that the document will be maintained on the member area of the IAF site to provide the proper context, via the relevant meeting minutes, for decisions.

There was a question about the decision regarding use of consultants being clear enough to be useful in item 07/10/08 (regarding Sydney agenda item 7.7) of the decision log. The decision was that if the payment was made to the consulting company rather than the individual, it would not be acceptable. Mr. Dougherty said the standard is clear on this. There was concern that some circumstances prevented disclosure of such relationships; in this case, a relationship would not be acceptable. In the case of single-person consultancy, if this can be confirmed, it would be acceptable. The decision as previously recorded was not changed.

4. Standing Groups Progress Reports

4.1.Work Group for ISO/IEC 17024

Dr. Swift reported the group had met in Bonn prior to the TC meeting. The group created a timeline for identified tasks. Proposed additional IAF GD 24 guidance was to be submitted for a vote in March 2008. A revised survey was to be sent to all ABs in June 2008. A new survey for CBs was to be created byOctober 2008. Proposed criteria and a process for approving IAF-endorsed schemes that can be used for certification of persons were to be created by October 2008.A decision on revising IAF GD24:2004 will be made in October 2008 based on the outcome of the five-year systematic review of ISO/IEC 17024. Tasks to provide the foundation for a peer-review process and an MLA were to be set by October 2009.

The WG sent a draft for comment regarding additions to GD 24 dealing with terminology and endorsed schemes. Most of comments were editorial in nature, many relating to the total document rather than just the proposed changes. Dr. Swift reviewed the specific changes proposed in the document circulated for comment.Based on rewording, the WG feels it is ready to circulate the document for formal vote. There will be a 30-day IAF ballot.

Initial concepts regarding criteria for endorsed schemes involve evaluating whether scheme requirements are reasonably expected to result in similar levels of competence and types of competencies among individuals performing the occupation or profession or procedure(s) for which they will be certified. Proposed criteriawere specified for the IAF process for endorsed schemes. Among these, it was proposed that the process for endorsed schemes would include a fee to cover the cost of the review process and prevent submissions that had not been well thought out. Additional discussion will be needed going forward.

Concern was expressed about the complex requirements and costs with regard to endorsed schemes. According to current IAF policy and procedures for endorsed schemes, the IAF Executive Committee is responsible, and may appoint a task group to review, and the MLA Committee may review a proposal. Mr. Xiao said the concept of endorsement of schemes was basically in line with IAF policy. He noted that two levels would be required for an MLA. Documents would be circulated to all IAF members for comment.

Dr. Swift said a questionnaire had been sent to ABs three years ago so the WG could make good decisions based on data. The survey will be revised and circulated to ABs by June 2008.

4.1.1. Revision of IAF GD 24:204

The revision as presented to the TC in March 2007 has been through TC and IAF comment. The WG agreed on accommodation of comments, so the document is ready for 30-day ballot.

4.1.2. Revision of ISO/IEC 17024

Dr. Swift reviewed the WG recommendation and rational for revising ISO/IEC 17024: non-IAF guidance documents have been developed; more clarity is needed regardinga personnel certification structure; some requirements do not achieve desired results and need rewording; IAF Guidance should be incorporated into the revision; security should be strengthened; a section on computer-based testing is needed; and further development of concepts of fair, valid, and reliable testing is needed.

Mr. MacCurtain said ISO had received a request for revision, regardless of the results of the review of the need for systematic revision.The ISO TMB rued that the documents be reviewed on a three-year cycle.

Action:There was consensus that IAF should recommend revision of ISO/IEC 17024.

4.2. Work Group for PEFC

Ms. Rantanen said there had been no meetings in Sydney or subsequently. The document established as joint effort with IAF WG PEFC and representatives from PEFC had been sent for 30-day TC comment and a sub-group reviewed the comments. The document is currently being considered by the PEFC chain of custody (COC) group. There is a question regarding moderated requirements for micro enterprises, and there are additional requirements for COC auditor competence criteria.

The WG was scheduled to meet later in the week in Bonn. The WG will discuss COC guidance to produce a final draft for ballot and ISO/IEC 17021 implementation in certification of sustainable forest management. There is also an initiative from the WG to include certification activity in the MLA.

Concern was expressed about trying to create an MLA that takes into account all national schemes activities, as there would be great difficulties in managing this. Mr. Xiao noted there are currently two different certification schemes in the forestry industry: certification and management systems. The current IAF MLAs differ in these two areas. The MLA for product certification is a framework MLA that can only identify those competent to provide a certification scheme and does not demonstrate the equivalence of certification schemes. The effort is to get the PEFC scheme endorsed by IAF as a sub-category for product certification. There is an existing procedure for approval by the EC. The second area, sustainable forestry, is not currently covered by the IAF MLA for management systems. If it is to be covered by IAF, the General Assembly would have to agree to cover sustainable forestry in the IAF MLA. The MLA Committee would subsequently review with the regard for additional work and TC review.

4.2.1. PEFC-IAF Requirements for Chain of Custody

Ms. Rantanen reported under item 4.2, above.

4.3. Work Group for ISO/IEC 20000

Ms.Makino reported that at the Sydney meeting of the WG there was consensus to conduct a gap analysis between ISO/IEC 17021, itSMF 15/15, and ISO/IEC 27006 and identify the sections to provide as normative document, apart from Annex A. The TC was asked to agree to the WG developing the IAF document for ISO/IEC 20000. The WG already has a draft that was to be discussed later in the week. The hope is to have a final MD with a request for comment in March 2009, with publication of an IAF document for ISO/IEC 20000 in May 2009.

The intent is to develop an IAF document only when needed. The WG was charged with reviewing the need for such a document. The TC has the opportunity to review any proposed documents and the need for them going forward. There was concern expressed about the proliferation of such documents. With regard to ISO/IEC17021, part 2, it was noted that it deals with generic requirements.

Ms. Makino noted that the intent is that the document be based on ISO/IEC 17021. The WG also took into account part 2 and would thus like flexibility in the timeline going forward.She said the gap analysis was complete and could be provided to TC members to foster understanding of the WG desire to develop a mandatory document.

Mr. Dalrymple said because the IT sector moves quickly, there was a need to move quickly and not wait for ISO/IEC 17021, part 2, and not make it a mandatory document. He said one of the proposals for the ISO/IEC 17021 group was to rewrite the generic requirements. IAF should be reaching toward the TC to see if something can be produced quickly to meet the needs of the market, rather than doing things in isolation.

Action: There was consensus with regard to the WG for ISO/IEC 20000 proceeding in developing a document that could be mandatory or informative.

4.4.Work Group for Product Certification Accreditation

Mr. Moliski said the WG had held its second meeting in Bonn prior to the TC meeting. The WG received three requests for discussion. With regard to the overlap between ISO Guide 65 and ISO 14065 regarding carbon labeling, the WG will use the requirements of ISO Guide 65 when the verification program issues a mark. In response to a paper submitted by HKAS concerning clause 8.3 of ISO/IEC 17021 regarding a directory of certified clients, the issue was referred to the TC (to be discussed under item 7.3, below). The WG did not feel it could respond to a paper submitted by SAC regarding clause 10 of ISO Guide 65 (TC-28-08).

With regard to use of ISO/IEC 17020 during accreditation of a product certification body, the WG agreed it was not necessary to issue accreditation to ISO/IEC 17020 when accrediting a product certification body.

Some inquiries were received about IAF JGA Sydney Resolution 7 – Certification to Accreditation Standards, the issue beingthat particular CBs and sector schemes that have been qualifying manufacturer testing laboratories for many yearsneed a document to issue to their customers to show that a facility is qualified to certain requirements. The WG suggestedthesefour points be considered in coming up with such a document: (1) there should be no reference toISO/IEC 17025 in the document; (2) there should be a reference to the type of qualification program of the CB; (3) there should be no reference to the term “accreditation”; and (4) acceptable termsare“authorization,” “verification,” and “qualification,” and also “certification” if not used in a predominant format.

It was noted that the IECEE scheme is widespread and very accepted by industry. Concern was expressed about including any reference to ISO/IEC 17025 on such a certificate as being potentially misleading and perhaps opening the door to additional confusing references.

It was noted that IIOC would not participate in any sense of consensus on this matter. Aside from this, there was consensus that this particular scheme was in compliance with the resolution.There was recognition that someone who met these four points would satisfy the resolution, although some felt this would go beyond the resolution.

4.4.1. Key Activities – Cross Frontier Accreditation-Product Certification

The WG will wait until the WG on GD 3 issues a draft document before commenting on the status of GD 3 with respect to product certification. The WG agreed on revised language with regard to the definition of key activities for product certification bodies.

4.4.2.GFSI

Ms. Cecile Gillard Kaplan said that since the Sydney meeting, an agreement for EA-GFSI cooperation was in the process of being drafted. In addition, a GFSI accreditation task force was formed to review the possibility of creating a more harmonized approach to accreditation and engage with IAF members. Additional members are sought. An action plan for the TF has been developed. Common areas of concern in the accreditation process have been reviewed, and common requirements against ISO/IEC 17011 will be reviewed and areas in need of more specificity will be identified.

While CBs are not yet part of the GFSI task force, Ms. Gillard Kaplan said the views of CBs will be sought and incorporated in the work of the TF. The group feels care must be taken to ensure no commercial advantage would be bestowed to CB participants. It was suggested that representative of associations of CBs would be appropriate participants in the task force to avoid this.

Ms. Gillard Kaplan said the GFSI position is that ISO 22000 is very important for food safety; because it does not include GFSI requirements for clients, however, GFSI does not recognize it. It was noted that nothing would prevent GFSI from adding its requirements to ISO 22000.

Mr. Moliski noted that the WG had trouble identifying what ABs offered this accreditation effort, or what CBs were accrediting. There was interest in IAF conducting a survey to identify who is involved in the various schemes.

4.5.Work Group onISO 13485 QMS for Medical Devices

Mr. Ramaley said the WG was to meet in Bonnlater in the week.It was noted that there was no agreement in principle that the MLA be opened up to include ISO 13485, and it was suggested that it would be good for the TC to request of the EC agreement in principle to do so. Mr. Dougherty said there would be nothing to prevent an IAF MLA for ISO 13485, and this would be different than asking for an MLA to the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) scheme. It could create confusion if there were to be two different MLAs, and the WG may need to do more work before seeking any action relative to an MLA. It was suggested that it might be good to solicit specific additional countries in the GHTF, and Mr. Ramaley indicated some effort had been made to do so.

The consensus of the TC was to not request of the EC an MLA for ISO 13485 at this time.

4.6. IAF-ILAC Joint Inspection Group

No report was submitted to the TC.

4.6.1.Key Activities – Cross Frontier Accreditation-Inspection Bodies

No report was submitted to the TC.

4.7. IEC/CAB-IAF Joint Technical Panel

Dr. Thione said the February 2008 JTP meeting had to be postponed to December 2008. The JTP received requests regarding the discussion under item 4.4, above. The JTP has been developing a document that has guidance recommendations in keeping with the spirit of the APG and AAPG – considerations to be taken into account when providing ISO certification to this industry group. Mr. de Ruvo said after the JTP meeting in December 2008 there would be a workshop with ILAC aimed at establishing a level of cooperation in preparation for joint assessments. He invited IAF to send lead assessors to this workshop, and to an IEC/CAB training course.

4.8. ISO 9001 Advisory Group

Mr. Dougherty reported that as chair of the TC, he also serves as co-convener (with Dr. Croft) of the IAG to study issues associated with ISO 9000 certification and find solutions. The last IAG meeting in Genevawas embroiled in issues relating to the transition to ISO/IEC 17021. It was decided to make ISO/IEC 17021 training material available on the APG Web site. IAG also intends to develop FAQs and make them publicly available (as personal and professional knowledge, not from ISO). The question of whether the IAF-ILAC-ISO JWG could serve as a last resort in the case of any disputes with regard to interpretations was tabled, although it was agreed that this group could steer parties to the best source for answers to questions. Currently, there is no formal interpretations process within ISO CASCO. Until a more formal process is developed, questions would go to the CASCO Chairman’s Policy Committee.

Dr. Croft said onequestion relates to the competence-based approach. He was to present an action plan at the next IAG meeting.

4.9. Auditing Practices Group/Accreditation Auditing Practices Group

Dr. Thione reported that 35 APG papers had been published and feedback was generally positive. A new paper on “Added Value Certification Audits vs. Consultancy” was approved for publication.

The AAPG has published nine papers. Final drafts of three additional papers were discussed at the meeting held in Bonn prior to the TC meeting; it was agreed to publish one on “Improving the Effectiveness of Accreditation through Feedback Mechanisms” but to do more work on the other two papers. Work was begun on two additional papers during the meeting.