Skip to main content

2026-03-19 1849 AEDT

Mar 19, 2026

UN CEFACT GTR Project - AUS / EU​

Attendees​

  • Alina Nica Gales
  • Hans J. Huber
  • Harmen van er Kooij
  • Jo Spencer
  • John Phillips
  • Sankarshan

Summary​

UN/CEFACT Global Trust Registry project reviewed document deadlines and quality expectations with a focus on resolving open issues and refining key definitions.

Deliverable Deadlines and Quality
A deadline of April 10th was proposed for the digital identity anchor specification and the Global Register Information Directory (GRID) design documents for UN/CEFACT Bureau review. The deliverables must demonstrate value and substance for the Bureau to approve the subsequent implementation phase.

Resolving Digital Identity Issues
Discussions centered on the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) design, moving toward simple, “atomic” DIAs where the Decentralized Identifier (DID) is provided by the applicant and wrapped into the registrar-issued DIA. Concerns were raised regarding confusing technical levels versus subject matter levels when discussing DIDs, requiring further review by experts.

Refining Glossary Definitions
The group debated the definition of an authoritative register, agreeing to separate the definition of a concept from its eligibility requirements to maintain simplicity. The consensus was reached to focus the register scope on entities “somehow useful for trade,” including business and land registers, with established qualitative eligibility requirements.

Details​

  • Meeting Welcome and Project Context: The meeting of the UN/CEFACT Global Trust Registry project started on Thursday, March 19th, with a reminder about codes of conduct and IPR rules relevant to the UN/CEFACT project. Speaker John Phillips was prompted by speaker Sankarshan to share their screen and approve Harmon into the group [00:00:00]. The agreed-upon agenda for the next few meetings involves working through open issues and reviewing any necessary project schedule changes [00:01:00].

  • Deadline for Deliverables: A proposed deadline for having documents ready for UN/CEFACT Bureau review is set for approximately April 10th, which is about three weeks from the meeting date. Although this deadline is not strictly binding, the participants are encouraged to expedite progress to meet it [00:01:00]. The two key deliverables for this deadline are advice on modifying the digital identity anchor specification and the design/working model for the Global Register Information Directory (GRID) [00:01:57].

  • Expectations for Deliverable Quality: The deliverables being prepared are intended for review by the UN/CEFACT Bureau and are not expected to be the final, finished blueprint for implementation. The documents must be "good enough" to demonstrate value and substance in the proposed ideas to convince the Bureau to move forward with the project. Implementation guidelines and other finalizations will occur during the subsequent phase of "going ahead and doing the stuff" [00:02:52].

  • Commit and Merge Review: The commitment process involves making changes to the documentation that result in a commit (a push to the website), which can include adding meeting minutes [00:03:40]. A significant merge request had been completed earlier to ensure the project's deliverables matched the project brief provided at the start of the project. This merge resulted in the web pages now displaying how the numbering system, file names, and locations are mapped [00:04:42].

  • Open Issue: Trade Flow Diagram: One open issue involves explaining how the GRID is involved in trade flows, based on review comments from Brett Highland [00:05:34]. Speaker John Phillips has been working on a mermaid-type sequence diagram showing the grid's interaction with the registrar, and how suppliers and buyers use a registrar. The goal is to review and close this issue by the following week [00:06:28].

  • Superset Issue for Documentation Structure: Issue number 32, a superset issue concerning the documentation structure and content, is largely closed, with one child item still pending: the trade flow diagram. This issue was generated from comments received, including those from Brett Highland [00:06:28].

  • Implementation Guidelines Placeholder: A placeholder document for the implementation guidelines exists, but it currently lacks content. Speaker Alina Nica Gales affirmed that they would sort out the content for this document by the next meeting [00:07:44].

  • Substantive Issue: Digital Identity Anchor Specification: A substantial discussion is ongoing regarding potential changes to the existing digital identity anchor specification within the UNTP specification [00:07:44]. Key conversations involve whether a digital identity anchor should contain multiple registrar-issued identifiers or if it is better to have separate digital identity anchors for each identifier. Harmon van der Kooij and Alina Nica Gales noted the relevance of this discussion to the European business wallet context [00:08:42] [00:25:32].

  • Resolution on Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) Design: The current landing point for the DIA design suggests that the applicant provides the Decentralized Identifier (DID) during registration, and the registrar verifies that the applicant controls the DID. This DID is then wrapped into the registrar-issued DIA [00:09:53]. The consensus tends towards simple, "atomic" DIAs, though the issue is being kept open for further participant comments, especially from Hans J. Huber [00:10:56].

  • Concern Regarding DID and Technical Levels: Hans J. Huber expressed concern that the discussion lacks technicality due to the use of DIDs and the potential for confusing technical levels with subject matter levels [00:11:41] [00:13:13]. They acknowledged the need to read through the issue with a focused mind before commenting and that they would provide feedback [00:11:41] [00:13:55]. The goal is to address and potentially close this issue by next week [00:12:26].

  • ISO 27560 (Consent Records) Relevance: The ISO standard 27560, which relates to consent records and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) terminology, was deemed important for human-level data misuse issues. However, the consensus is that it is not directly relevant to the trade-related documentation for the GTR, GRID, and UNTP, and thus is not a fundamental requirement for inclusion. The participants plan to agree on closing this issue [00:14:52].

  • ISO 8000-116 (International Identifier Formatting): A proposal to consider ISO 8000-116, a standard for describing national identifiers in a universally unique, international string format, was introduced [00:16:01]. This standard uses a country code, a registrar identifier string, and the registrar-released identifier. Hans J. Huber expressed concerns that this approach, which builds intelligence into the identifier by including country codes, violates the rule of not adding intelligence to identifiers. [00:17:16].

  • Discussion on ISO 8000-116 and Identifier Intelligence: Speaker John Phillips countered that ISO 8000-116 does not change existing identifier structures but provides a prefix for the recipient to understand the registrar's country and identity, which is useful in trade documentation [00:19:50]. Harmen van der Kooij noted that the standard seems universal and could work for various identifier types, such as VAT or business registration numbers [00:19:03]. The standard’s dependency on ECCMA, a non-UN not for profit organization that registers registrars, was noted as an interesting consideration [00:21:42].

  • Linking Subsidiary Companies: Speaker Alina Nica Gales asked how the digital identity anchors of a parent company and its subsidiary company in another country would be linked [00:22:32]. The technical answer is that the organization could use the same DID for both registrations, placing both DIAs in the same DID doc, or use separate DIDs and separate DID docs, proving control over the DIDs cryptographically [00:23:43]. Harmen van der Kooij confirmed that this approach is similar to how organizations are working in the European business wallet context [00:25:32].

  • Definition of Authoritative Register: The group began reviewing three definitions for the glossary, starting with the definition of an authoritative register. Alina Nica Gales’s proposal for a revised definition seeks to keep definitions simple, while John Phillips suggested that his suggestions were "absurdly simple" and the final answer lies somewhere in between the current length and his shortened versions. There is a need to ensure the definitions are not so simple that they refer to "anything" but avoid unnecessary inclusion of eligibility requirements, which are better established by national jurisdictions [00:26:32] [00:28:45].

  • Scope and Focus of Registers: The conversation focused on whether to limit the scope initially to business registers or include other types, such as land registration [00:28:45]. While birth, deaths, marriages, and land registration are vital, the consensus previously established a focus on registers "useful for trade," which includes business and land registers. The group agreed that a set of qualitative eligibility requirements (e.g., founded in law, UN member state recognition) and a defined list of things of interest to the grid (e.g., business and land) is the appropriate resolution [00:30:40] [00:32:19].

  • Addressing Conceptual Differences in Definitions: Speaker Alina Nica Gales noted that participants have different understandings of the concepts of "authoritative register" and "registrar operator," which depend on their national legal frames (jurisdictions) [00:35:30]. They emphasized the need to harmonize and agree on the fundamental idea of these concepts to reach an agreement [00:36:42]. Speaker sankarshan clarified that the definitions in his comment on the issue were proposed as a "thought experiment" to separate and simplify the concerns, not as final proposals [00:37:54].

  • Separation of Definition and Eligibility Requirements: There was an agreement to separate the definition of a concept from its eligibility requirements to maintain simplicity. John Phillips suggested that the definitions should focus on the concept of a register (e.g., land or companies) without explicitly constraining the definition to that type. The condition that a register is authoritative should be placed elsewhere, such as in the eligibility requirements [00:37:54] [00:39:54].

  • Delegation of Register Authority Example: Speaker John Phillips provided an example from Victoria, Australia, where the responsibility for the driving license register was sold to a bank (Macquarie), which operates (under license from the Victorian Government) as VicRoads, illustrating a delegation of authority [00:40:59] and separation of operating duties. In this case, the legal authority still vests in the government, while a third party operates the register and registration processes. [00:42:10].

  • Qualities of an Authoritative Register: Speaker Alina Nica Gales suggested that an authoritative register must be an "authentic source of information" [00:42:10]. Speaker John Phillips noted that this quality, along with "public accessibility," should be determined to be either an eligibility requirement or a component of the definition [00:43:17]. Although a public register does not imply free access (requiring a fee is acceptable), transparency is important for UNTP goals [00:44:12].

  • Next Steps and Conclusion: The agreed-upon homework is for participants to read through and comments on the open issues, aiming to reach a general conclusion for the key issues by the following week so that we are ready to approve changes in the meeting in two weeks time. The goal is to address the issues asynchronously, reserving meeting time for exploring issues that could not be resolved in the written thread [00:44:57].

Suggested next steps​

  • [Alina Nica Gales] Develop Guidelines: Create content for the implementation guidelines placeholder document (Issue 33). Ensure completion by the next meeting.

  • [Hans J. Huber] Review DIA Issue: Read through the involved conversation on the digital identity anchor specification modification (Issue 37). Provide comments on the proposal regarding multiple identifiers and technical levels.

  • [The group] Comment on Issues: Read, review, and comment asynchronously on all open issues, including definition terms and ISO standards (Issues 34, 38, 40, 41). Aim for consensus to close issues by next week.

Chat​

00:29:13.925,00:29:16.925

Harmen van der Kooij: do we stick to the idea of focussing just on business registers/registrars?

00:29:38.130,00:29:41.130

Jo Spencer: I agree with the use of the iso standard definition. I'm assuming that unique identifiers will be required for DIAs.

Also, don't try and develop a group structure in this. Each organisation operates separately and is maintained in registries separately.

The group definition is in that the group subject has ownership of each DIA. If they need to present all of these , they can. But that's a specific interaction that might be built out.

00:33:49.794,00:33:52.794

Jo Spencer: Technical assets may be registered too... E.g. cryptographic certificates.

00:39:31.173,00:39:34.173

John Phillips: This is the research document:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bz3-jtd3k1k7Qfqjx8MzM3sdDumimhxfrb214Q98698/edit?tab=t.0

00:42:59.497,00:43:02.497

Jo Spencer: Two issues. The GRID has to have a design that supports flexibility in ownership and operation. What we include in the GRID is the implementation definition.