Choosing a Registrar - Registrars That "Do It All"

The bout has been decided.

Mike S. said:

Energy,

Being as dense as I am, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean it is a TKO of PJ, guilty as charged?

Again, I've got no horse in this race, but I just wonder why, if the rules are so clear, and PJ's violation is so clear (to some) why, in this litigous society we're in today, hasn't even ONE of the many jealous competitors (who would stand to gain business) or any disgruntled employee or customer managed to prove ANY wrongdoing by PJ? So much smoke and no fire, indeed. I just don't get it (again).

Click to expand...

My reference to a TKO is the showing of specific rules of engagement that registrars "shall" follow. Any defense of a Registrar who openly markets these services is "moot". I know of at least two more well known names out there who advertise similar deals. Disgruntled, employees? Jealous competitors? You don't need them. Just read the "published" advertising materials and it's easy to see any violation. Why haven't these guys been sued? I don't know. Maybe it's a "not deep enough pockets" thing for a potential plaintiff.
Maybe, the rules should be changed because a lot of Companies like the idea of getting a bigger bang for their buck and keep these guys in business.
Personally, I have no objection to it at all.
But, like a boxing match, there are rules. While I might want the boxers to kick each other in the ba**s, it is not allowed. TKO for Sidney

Okay, Energy, I'll let you play referee on this one, and since it is ruled a TKO the judges are useless (smart move). Ya'll may be right that PJ is violating the rules, but for the life of me I still cannot understand why someone or ISO doesn't punish them if all of the da*ning evidence is so blatantly obvious in published materials. Didn't ISO just recently ask for just such evidence? Deep pockets or not, too many other registrars have too much to gain not to raise **** and/or sue to discredit the wrongdoers. And it seems to me ISO could get some easy points by flexing their muscles and winning an easy one. It just doesn't make any sense to me. But, I'm dense.

Help me out here, Jim. Either I'm hallucinating (again) or I remember reading an article, discussed here in the Cove, about some governing body dealing with ISO or registrars, who was asking anyone who had knowledge of cert fraud to contact them and they would act. Do you know what I'm talking about?

As far as nobody caring enough -- wow. If I'm a legit supplier of a service and I find my competitors are cheating and breaking the rules in order to take away my business and grow theirs, I'm gonna complain long and loud to the relevant governing body - especially when I don't need CIA-caliber spies, I only need read and forward "published" advertising materials to prove their guilt .

Where is the police when you need it?

Mike, there have been HUNDREDS of complaints about malpractice in this business, but no public execration of wrong doers, dis-accrediting procedures, etc…. The worst they get it (when caught) is a slap on the wrist. To be fair, a couple of years ago, a well known registrar had their accreditation suspended by the RvA, but nobody paid attention to that . . .

In this VERY thread there are VERY recent allegations of what seems to be a VERY ODD coincidence by a Registrar writing major NCNs in one day and a related body calling them the VERY NEXT day offering to "help"!!!!!! This is the kind of SMOKE I am referring to ….. When you add so many cases together, what is the natural, logical conclusion? Tell me.

I keep repeating myself in this forum. With so many audits being performed every day and so many rumours of frauds, scams, malpractice etc . . and NOBODY EVER losing their accreditation, where do you think this process is broken? Where is the police? Right now the police expects we to bring the criminal handcuffed, with the incriminating evidence catalogued, indexed, so they can have a slam dunk case.

Why don't we have cases of disaccreditation? Most people with evidence of malpractice are either ignorant about the conflict of interest issue (remember the question that initiated this thread?) or are basically accomplices in the scam and benefit from the cozy, improper relationship between consultants and registrars.

The other people are either too busy or do not want get involved in a litigious case. But I keep asking. Where is the police? I have hands on experience complaining about a competitor's misleading ad for 4 months, and the accreditation agency I am complaining to has not taken ANY actions.

When will the accreditation agencies be made accountable to anyone? May be it will take some more IATF-like situations before they have the resolve to change and really police and enforce the rules.

https://www.iso.ch/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2002/Ref822.html

Sidney,

I don't claim to have the answers -- in fact just the opposite -- I have lots of questions. But no one has answered my questions to my satisfaction yet. This is not a complaint, as perhaps that is not even possible. I just have not come to a definite conclusion yet.

There are only so many possibilities: All cert agencies are 100% pure and following the rules to the letter of the law (if not the "intent"). Or... All cert agencies are impure to varying degrees so no one complains out of fear of getting caught themselves. Or... There are some really bad apples out there but most are quite legit. Or... The responsible oversight people are derelict in their duty. Or...

I have a gut feeling that, like so many other issues, the real truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. And, like so many other issues, not enough good people who know of the problems care enough to put forth the effort to make a difference.

Hey John,

If you're looking for a new Registrar, start with some of the guys that are here in the Cove like Sidney (DNV), or Rick Conover (Signature), or any of the others that may come here.

Just a suggestion.

Jim Wade said:

Mike

I have just asked myself "exactly what is the problem that is worrying Mike so much?". I'm not sure I have the answer to that question.

Let's do a FIVE WHYs on it (that simple yet effective technique developed by Yoko Ono ....what? .... o yes, by Taiichi Ohno)

Can you kick us off, Mike - what is the problem as you see it?

rgds Jim

Click to expand...

I don't know that I'm "worried so much", Jim. Just curious. As I said, I don't have a horse in this race (at least not yet - maybe someday). I just got curious when I saw one of the top cert providers in the US being dam#ed as being grossly unethical to the degree that "everybody" knows it yet there are never any consequences. It reminds me of a mob operation, "everybody" knows who is doing the bad deeds but they fear doing anything about it. Why, in the case of PJ or others, are people afraid to stop their unethical behavior, if it exists so blatantly, I wondered? Does PJ have a goon squad, breaking the bones (or worse) of anyone who threatens to "sing"? Not likely, huh? I just figure if you have the proof, present it to the authorities if not the rest of the world, and if you have the proof and do not do anything about it then you have little room to complain. If you don't have the proof, don't say you do. Pretty simple, no?

Jim,

Are you trying to make a point or just exercising me for a little Monday fun? I think my position is pretty clear. Let's do a "5 whys" on why you are so concerned about my opinion on this subject that you keep asking me these "why" questions.

The governing body that was reference earlier in this thread is the Oversite Board. I've met a few of these characters and they take it pretty serious. I believe your going to see the listing of registrars slim down over the next year. As far as PJ goes, I thought it was common knowledge in the Quality business not to accept those calls.

Angela,

I hope you are right -- if there are registrars out there not playing by the rules they should be sanctioned appropriately.

Regarding your statement "As far as PJ goes, I thought it was common knowledge in the Quality business not to accept those calls", I have to wonder: Why do YOU think PJ is (supposedly) growing by leaps and bounds to the point where they are now the top registrar? Lots of companies must not know about this "common knowledge" you speak of. Or do they know of this "common knowledge" but they don't care? Or something else? What do you think?