Subject Re: Certification marks and why I don't think we want to go there
From Peter Schober <peter.schober@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:05:38 +0200

* Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack@xxxxxx> [2013-06-02 14:47]:
> > From: Leif Johansson [mailto:leifj@xxxxxxxx]
> > Also note that KI calls the IAF certification a Trust Mark -
> > possibly to avoid some of this.
> Hmmm. "Trust Mark" appears to be a multi-valued term. Among others,
> it's a certification mark for builders, electricians, etc.

Note that the InCommon example (successful uptake and willingness to
trust the Federation to "certify", which is more of a "review", from
what Ian said at the meeting today) shows what can be achieved without
certification programmes and full legal protection.

But I also see this as a potentially dangerous thing as the existence
or prominence of "trust marks" (or logos or stamps) seem to imply a
level of checking that maybe does not reflect reality. (To those who
do not read the small print.)

Seems it both is and isn't "just semantics" (whether or not to have
"certification marks" or non-legal-term surrogates),