Randy said:
It already has been Mike and guess what....as long as there is no conflict between IAF guidance to ISO Guide 62 (QMS) or 66 (EMS) and the accreditation requirements the registrars basically have a blank check.
Remember, an organization when it approaches a registrar is ASKING permission to display a certificate with the REGISTRARS LOGO on it. The cert belongs to the registrar, organizations just rent or pay for the privilage to display them, so to speak.
With due respect, I guess it has not been proven to my personal satisfaction.
By your explanation, why could the registrar not make the cert. easier to get than the ISO 9001 standard since, as you said, "the cert belongs to the registrar"?
I can see wiggle room and grey areas for registrars to decide for themselves how long they should take to audit, or with how many auditors, or what level of proof or evidence they may require to verify to their satisfaction that a certain "shall" is met. I get that.
But I am not satisfied that it is kosher for the registrar to be effectively adding their own "shalls" such as the one I mentioned (the registrar telling me I have to maintain my final test quality records for 3 years even if my procedure says 1 year). Or let's say the registrar tells me I cannot do any in-house cal's. and the longest allowed cal. interval is 6 months. That is not an issue of interpretation or level of evidence -- it the addition of a "registrar shall" for lack of a better term.
I'm not saying you are wrong, Randy, I am saying I have not seen evidence that this is "legal" for the registrars to do as allowed by their governing bodies. Your posts do not show me this (or else I am not seeing it).