No, they shouldn't.
In the case of the two companies identified in Allan's article, their approach to internal auditing is to meet the requirements of 8.2.2 in new and creative ways - without doing internal auditing as is conventionally taught and practiced.
Lets face it, if they didn't meet the requirements, they wouldn't have been given a certificate.
If registrars are to begin the practice of not awarding certificates to companies that do not meet "the requirements" [of ISO 9001 etc.] they would not award a certificate having open CARs etc. They would also begin withdrawing certificates from those found to have developed CAR issues. In that case I suspect the total number of registered firms would appraoch single figures as opposed to the alleged several hundred thousand.
The interpretations of any standard that matter are those agreed between customer and supplier: not between registrant and registrar. the need for any standard to apply either as guide or mandate is a matter between customer and supplier; not registrant and registrar.
Ethics have never been a prime issue of the quality standards and I would be highly amused if registrars were required to judge on matters of ethical conduct given their sad history of performance, willingness to be negotiated or threatened out of accurately recording what their clients might view as unacceptable, their willingness to continuously reduce the calibre of "auditor" assigned" the quality of training given, the time taken to perform the audit and so forth - all matters central to the position of trust to which they are appointed and for which they invoice.
I am personally disinterested in the fate of registrars. What I found interesting were the ramifications of the "precedent" set by a registrar accepting PR as an acceptable form of internal auditing for the purposes of complying with ISO 9001:2000. My article was lengthy simply because I feel the subject is of such importance that it merited a fuller analysis and discussion. I do not think "sound bite" discussion will be helpful because the quality movement has spent too much time and too many years advocating particular courses of action that management will be highly disenchanted if it was to be persuaded (rightly) to change the present course of action without a full understanding of the argument and reasoning.
As an executive digest one could simply say: "A precedent set by a particular registrar for the purposes of registering to ISO 9001: 2000 may point to the preference for abandoning "third party" registration, moving instead to "self certification
" with the possible use of ISO 9001:2000 as a guide. The future direction of mtually agreed relationships between customers and suppliers are described. In light of that precedent, alternatives to present day internal audit programs, auditor training and certification
are discussed and management is advised to swiftly take advantage of the precedent."
As a digest for the registration industry et al one might suggest, "A precedent decision made by a registrar could unleash a gale of change such that the good old days will soon be behind you."