EESSI Accreditation: the Need for Harmonisation Claude Boulle, Bull SA

1. EESSI Open Seminar, Budapest, 8 May 2001 EESSI Accreditation: the Need for Harmonisation Claude Boulle, Bull SA

2. The Directive on Accreditation • “where as” 11: • “Voluntary accreditation schemes aiming at an enhanced level of service-provision may offer certification-service-providers the appropriate framework for developing further their services towards the levels of trust, security and quality demanded by the evolving market; ... certification-service-providers should be left free to adhere to and benefit from such accreditation schemes.” • Accreditation Definition: • Art. 2.13: “Voluntary accreditation means any permission, setting out rights and obligations specific to the provision of certification services, to be granted upon request by the certification-service-provider concerned, by the public or private body charged with the elaboration of, and supervision of compliance with, such rights and obligations, where the certification-service-provider is not entitled to exercise the rights stemming from the permission until it has received the decision by the body” • and Art. 3.2: “Member States introduce or maintain voluntary accreditation schemes aiming at enhanced levels of certification-service provision”

3. EA Definition of Accreditation • EA = European co-operation for Accreditation • EA Definition of Accreditation: • “Accreditation delivers confidence in certificates and reports by implementing widely accepted criteria set by the European (CEN) or international (ISO) standardisation bodies. • The standards address issues such as impartiality, competence and reliability; leading to confidence in the comparability of certificates and reports across national borders. Governments have confidence in testing and certification in support of regulatory functions.” • to be compared with Directive • “permission… to be granted upon request…”

4. Present situation • No obligation on MS’s to implement harmonised accreditation schemes • As a result, • EESSI notes MS’sdefinition or implementation of non-harmonised and potentially conflicting national accreditation schemes • EESSI Position: • assisting the Member States to avoid a situation where there could be total lack of mutual recognition of accreditation schemes between Member States, and therefore the creation of additional barriers to trade in conflict with the spirit of the Directive and the expectations of the market

5. EESSI Conformity Assessment Guidance

6. EESSI Conformity Assessment Guidance • CWA 14172 1-5 • Content • Part 1: General • Part 2: Certification authority services and processes • Part 3: Trustworthy systems managing certificates for electronic signatures • Part 4: Signature creation applications and procedures for electronic signatures verification • Part 5: Secure signature creation devices • Objective • those “guidance documents are applicable to independent bodies, assessors, evaluators and testing labs in assessing conformance to EESSI specifications”

7. EESSI SG Actions • At “political level” • by promoting an open platform, with the involvement of the relevant European organisations such as EA and EOTC (European Organisation for Conformity Assessment) for all actors involved in accreditation and certification, with a view to facilitating mutual recognition within the EEA • At industry level • through the organisation of awareness events bringing together all involved stakeholders (users, TSP’s, product and solution manufacturers), by promoting the EESSI “harmonised” approach