Skip to main content

2025-10-03 0956 AEST

Oct 3, 2025

UN CEFACT GTR - AEST / PST​

Invited Jo Spencer Alina Nica Gales Steve Capell John Phillips

Attachments UN CEFACT GTR - AEST / PST

Meeting records Transcript Recording

Summary​

John Phillips outlined meeting logistics, emphasized adherence to the UN/CEFACT project's code of conduct, and recapped previous discussions on a curated directory under a UN organization. Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay presented consolidated comments on the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) specification, while Steve Capell suggested using GitLab for discussion and pull requests for the DIA [spec on the UNTP] project. The main talking points included the development of a registrar checklist, consolidation of requirements, eligibility criteria for directory entries, scope and acceptability of the recommendation, and the proposed renaming of "Global Trust Registry."

Details​

  • Meeting Logistics and Conduct John Phillips outlined the meeting's logistical aspects, including recording, automatic transcript generation, and automated minute production, which they review for accuracy. They emphasized adherence to the UN/CEFACT project code of conduct and intellectual property rights, encouraging active participation from attendees (00:00:00). John Phillips also mentioned a streamlined process for experts to accept terms and conditions for active participation (00:01:24).

  • Recap of Previous Discussions John Phillips provided a recap of discussions from two weeks prior, focusing on the broad concept of a curated body under a UN organization serving as a directory for authoritative registrars. They noted positive responses to the work done and highlighted the examination of existing systems like the UNCFACT low-code system and ICAO's PKD as models for learning from others' work (00:02:23).

  • Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) Specification Review Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay presented a consolidated document of Marcus Alando's comments on the current DIA specification, explaining that they wrapped all proposed changes into a single document for easier processing (00:05:36). Steve Capell suggested creating an issue in GitLab with links to the documents to facilitate discussion and a subsequent pull request, which would be ideal for the DIA project (00:07:06).

  • Engagement with DIA Project Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay discussed the plan to engage with the DIA project via the issue/pull request route for future change sets, ensuring the GTR project's needs are recorded and advocated for within the DIA specification (00:09:01). John Phillips and Steve Capell agreed that the current location of the DIA specification is acceptable for now, with the option to move it later if it becomes more beneficial (00:11:41).

  • Registrar Checklist Development John Phillips introduced a checklist for registrars, developed by Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay, as a simple, standalone document to help organizations assess their readiness to meet eligibility requirements for inclusion in the proposed directory (00:12:33). This checklist is intended to be an appendix to the main body of work, providing substantive examples without overburdening the recommendation itself (00:13:42).

  • Consolidation of Requirements John Phillips noted that work on governance requirements by Alina also includes eligibility criteria, leading to a realization that some documents, such as the registrar checklist, could be consolidated to avoid duplication and maintain synchronization (00:14:41). They affirmed that the idea of a simple way to assess eligibility was well-received by the audience (00:15:46).

  • Eligibility Criteria for Directory Entries Steve Capell raised a question about different tiers or categories of integrity for directory entries, suggesting the potential value of including less authoritative but still useful registers (00:15:46). John Phillips explained that the initial focus is on "authoritative registrars" recognized as legal registrars for their jurisdictions, with Paul Templeman also highlighting the relevance of intermediaries (00:17:04).

  • Scope and Acceptability of the Recommendation John Phillips expressed concerns about project scope, aiming for minimum viable criteria for directory inclusion to ensure the recommendation's acceptability and avoid conflict with existing commercial interests. They stressed the importance of focusing on interests relevant to the United Nations, particularly countries, to maintain clarity and avoid unnecessary confusion (00:19:39).

  • Qualitative Assessment and Transparency John Phillips emphasized transparency in declaring what registrars have and how they operate, rather than providing qualitative assessments of a country's maturity. They advocated for minimal, meaningful criteria to ensure developing countries can participate, avoiding hurdles that only a few countries could overcome (00:20:41).

  • Simplifying Document Structure John Phillips discussed simplifying the project's logical model and deliverables, aiming to consolidate documents like eligibility requirements, data types, and governance into a more streamlined structure (00:21:45). This consolidation is intended to make the documentation clearer and more manageable (00:22:48).

  • Governance and Operations Document John Phillips presented a governance and operations document, initially a placeholder, which includes a standard project template and a definitions register. They mentioned Alina's work on compiling terms for a more inclusive glossary, which still needs to be fully integrated and reconciled with existing terms (00:23:46).

  • Proposed Renaming of "Global Trust Registry" John Phillips raised the possibility of renaming the proposed system, currently referred to as the "Global Trust Registry," to something like "UN/CEFACT Authoritative Registrar Directory" or "Global Registrar Information Directory” , “GRID," to reduce confusion (00:26:00). Steve Capell supported this abstract approach for naming the product, noting that the UN is undergoing structural changes that might influence where such a project eventually resides (00:27:06).

  • Sustainability Model and Principles John Phillips discussed the importance of a self-sustaining service, citing ICAO's PKD as a successful model that does not require external funding (00:29:12). Steve Capell suggested considering a fee-based structure, similar to ICAO's PKD, as a "no-brainer" for maintaining a high-quality UN directory. John Phillips then highlighted the fundamental principles of the project, including legality, respect for domestic competencies, due process, transparency, and accountability (00:30:10).

  • Structure and Operations of the UN Body John Phillips detailed the proposed structure of the UN body overseeing the directory, including the constitution of a board with staggered terms for continuity, and the roles of a secretariat and operator (00:32:17). They also covered participation mechanisms, admission procedures, ongoing obligations, change management, and considerations for sanctions (00:33:15).

  • Document Review and Future Steps John Phillips indicated that the governance and operations document is open for review by the project group, seeking comments and suggestions for improvement (00:35:46). Steve Capell offered to engage UN ecosystem contacts, including legal experts, to review the document, suggesting it could then be published as a draft on a public website (00:38:15). The next steps involve merging old and new text within the document and completing the glossary (00:37:01).

  • Practical Meaning of Digital Identity Anchors John Phillips expressed the need to delve into the practical meaning of Digital Identity Anchors (DIAs), including their internal structure, resolution, issuance, and holding (00:39:04). They highlighted the existing specification within the UNP spec as a starting point and noted that implementation pilots would be crucial for testing and refining the DIA concept (00:39:54) (00:46:54).

  • Identity vs. Identification Paul Templeman questioned the use of "identity" in "Digital Identity Anchor," suggesting "digital trust anchor" or "digital identification anchor" might be more appropriate (00:43:08) (00:48:59). John Phillips acknowledged the semantic challenges and the need to be careful with terminology, emphasizing the project's focus on recognizing existing identifiers issued by authoritative registrars for trade purposes, not creating a universal identifier or personal identity system (00:44:10) (00:52:53).

  • Broader Implications of Terminology Mark Lizar emphasized the critical distinction between "identity" and "identification," especially when combined with "trust," due to their legal and societal implications. They argued that misnaming could create risks and hinder innovation in actual identity and trust work, highlighting the geopolitical sensitivity of such terms (00:50:08). John Phillips agreed on the importance of careful language to avoid misunderstandings (00:51:02).

  • Relationship with Other Initiatives Paul Templeman brought up EU initiatives on business identities and wallet relying party registries, advising careful consideration to avoid conflict and leverage existing efforts (00:53:52). John Phillips affirmed the strategy to understand and positively echo such investments, ensuring the project's work is compatible and complementary rather than competitive (00:56:40). Steve Capell reiterated that the project focuses on verifiable link data for trade, not wallet-based identity binding (00:57:48).

  • Digital Identity Anchor Deep Dive John Phillips announced that a digital identity anchor deep dive will be held in approximately two weeks to explore the concept of an enterprise wallet within a more expansive model of linked data. They also stated that meeting minutes would be available within about an hour (00:57:48).

Suggested next steps​

  • John Phillips will work out how to merge the old and new text together and update the glossary with a complete set of terms over the next two weeks.

  • Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay and John Phillips will work on getting the two documents that Sankarshan showed into the system to create an issue, post the discussion, and then create a subsequent pull request if help is needed to make a PR.

  • John Phillips will upload the minutes in about an hour or so.