IIABA is desperate to head off any federal charter initiative, which appears to be gaining momentum.

(Momentum being relative–while Congress works at a snails pace, it beats the tortoise-like speed of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.)

As reported by our Washington Editor, Dave Postal, IIABA CEO Robert Rusbuldtin a Sept. 20 op-ed piece in The Hill, a Capitol Hill publicationincluded NARAB as part of a vigorous, but targeted reform of state regulation.

Mr. Rusbuldt said NARAB would give agents and brokers a choice between the current state-by-state licensing system and a national licensing portal, adding that agents and brokers comfortable with the current system and those licensed in one or a couple of states could choose to remain licensed in the traditional manner with no outside interference.

However, a splinter agent group issued a sharp counterpoint in the same publication. In an Oct. 11 article, Peter Ludgin, executive director of Agents for Change, dismissed NARAB-II as a band-aid solution.

Today, some of the largest markets are not fully participating in NARAB, many states are not truly reciprocal, and it has done little to fix agency licensing problems, he wrote, calling an optional federal charter the right fix.

He said an OFC would promote competition. It may lower prices. And it will be a boon to consumers. An OFC is the right policy prescription for the 21st century.

My first reaction was, who the heck are Agents For Change? But then I took a step back and thought, fair is fairif there is a group of agents out there determined to get a federal charter, let them have their say.

However, I tend to side with the Big I on this. It seems to me their position is a reasonable compromise. If you had a federally mandated NARAB, everyone would have to get on boardwhich would address the objections raised by Agents For Change, while solving a host of regulatory problems.

Indeed, the broader SMART Actin which the federal government would set regulatory standards for the states to implementseems to me a sensible solution to the industrys regulatory woes, especially if it could be expanded to cover licensing of insurance and reinsurance carriers as well.

Like the Big I, I am keeping an open mind. (IIABA wouldnt have been caught dead endorsing any national regulatory scheme a few years ago.) Their position appears to be evolving, and mine is open to argument as well.

What do you make of this battle? Would a national licensing agency run by the industry relieve the need for an optional federal charter? If not, why not? File your comments below.