Are we having TOO much fun?
Angela, I think you are being naïve to think that we will see a crackdown and resulting cleansing of Registrars in 2003. At least, the last 10 years show ZERO, in terms of Registrars losing their accreditation. I don't know why we would see a change, next year.
In response to Jim, I believe that many people DO care. The reason we don't see a crackdown on malpractice is because there is too much burden, placed on the accusers to present evidence that is not easy to collect. For example, the case depicted in this thread of a Registrar writing majors in one day, just to be followed by a coincidental call from a related body, the next morning, offering to "help". How do you prove the connection? You need a sting operation a la "60 minutes". Also, the threat of costly law suits makes honest people think many times, before coming forward with evidence.
The same way the public backlash in the stock market is partially linked with the perceived failure for the market to police itself and the Security and Exchange Commission to act more harshly on the accounting firms that failed to develop more robust conflict of interest policies, we will see (more clearly) that the marketplace will place less and less confidence on third-party certificates unless transparency and integrity become prevalent. The fact that many organizations are undeservedly attaining and/or maintaining certification, by being either accomplices or victims of cozy, incestuous registrar/consultant relationships is eroding confidence in the value of the certificates, and the process, as a whole. This is the downward spiral I have been warning since 1994.
As the system stands now, only the Accreditation Agencies have the charter and authority to police this market and punish the violators. The fact that we have not seem more action there is concerning, in my opinion. I fully understand that they need factual evidence to dis-accredit anyone, and I even have ideas on how to get it, but it is imperative that the resolve and guts to disapprove chronic wrong-doers exists.
Sometimes I wonder if there might be a fundamental flaw in this accredited third-party certification process. The Accreditation Bodies (ABs) have to fund their own activities. They cover their expenses by charging fees and a percentage for each certificate, issued under their "oversight", to each accredited registrar. So, some people might think that the ABs would benefit from a large number of registrars and certificates, in order to keep their revenues steady and sufficient. Some might even think that the ABs would have little interest in disapproving registrars because that would mean loss of revenue for them. Others might think that we are killing the golden goose by not policing it to the extent we should . . . After all, when no one places confidence on "ISO 9000" certificates, AB's, registrars, consultants, even this Forum will be meaningless . . . .
I wasn't aware that they were the fastest growing registrar. Pretty sad that so many fall into the trap
I don't have an answer for that Mike it either says that there are quite a few quality people who don't pay attentin (scary
Later, Y'all.
