Skip to main content

2026-04-02 1755 AEDT

Apr 2, 2026

UN/CEFACT GTR Project - AUS / EU​

Attendees:​

  • Alina Nica Gales
  • Hans J. Huber
  • Jo Spencer
  • John Phillips
  • Sankarshan (last few minutes)

Summary​

Finalizing glossary definitions and Digital Identity Anchor specification drove the decision to merge all current content updates for a complete review.

Update Definitions and Eligibility
The team tightened definitions for “registrar,” “register,” and “digital identity anchor” by implementing suggestions and creating new Issue 51 for updated eligibility requirements. Revisions to Section 4 incorporated provided text and referenced ISO 27560 as a non-mandatory standard for registrars addressing privacy and consent.

Digital Identity Anchor Definition
A detailed discussion on the Digital Identity Anchor definition aimed to align it with 3 existing standards while clarifying that the DIA is a “trust wrapper” and not a novel identifier. The team addressed concerns about terminology, ultimately agreeing to keep glossary definitions brief and detail the DIA further in documentation sections.

Merge Updates and Schema Changes
The updated DIA schema now uses “authoritative,” “verified,” and “asserted” to distinguish the registrar’s role in handling data elements, ensuring the relying party knows the legal weight of the data. The decision was made to merge all current comprehensive updates into the main branch to establish a consistent baseline for full review before the next meeting.

Next steps​

  • [John Phillips] Check Approval Power: Check GitLab settings after the call to confirm capability for self-approving the pending content merge.

  • [John Phillips] Notify Merge: Send notification confirming merge completion; advise participants that updated web pages are available for review.

  • [Hans J. Huber] Review Content: Review the newly merged project documentation candidate release. Provide detailed annotations and feedback on all updated content sections.

  • [Alina] Refine DIA Wording: Review the merged Digital Identity Anchor definition wording. Propose necessary improvements, specifically regarding the word novel.

Details​

  • Meeting Introduction and Agenda Overview: John Phillips initiated the meeting, stating that attendees are familiar with the project's code of conduct and IPR, and would not dwell on these topics. The agenda focuses on outstanding issues, completed actions between meetings, and agreeing on the path forward, maintaining the established approach [00:00:00]. The proposed order for reviewing open issues is: glossary definitions, the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) definition, and then the DIA specification [00:01:04].

  • Update on Merge Requests from Non-Members: John Phillips reported closing a couple of merge requests from Kartik Guleria, whom they believe is not a member of the project team [00:01:04]. The merge requests were closed without merging, though some minor style script tweaks were adopted. They suggested Kartik follow the normal procedure to join if they wish to contribute [00:02:03].

  • Glossary Definitions and Eligibility Requirements Updates: The team sought to tighten the definitions for "registrar," "register," and the "digital identity anchor". John Phillips implemented suggestions from Alina and Carmen, updating a content branch with a new definition for the register and revised eligibility requirements [00:03:46]. A new issue, number 51, was created specifically for the eligibility requirements updates to ensure traceability, incorporating text provided by Alina [00:04:42].

  • Review of Eligibility Requirements Changes: The eligibility requirements, found in Section four of the legal, governance, and target operating model section, were updated. John Phillips confirmed that the changes, including the addition of new section 4.5, incorporated the text Alina had provided via email [00:06:43]. They also mentioned adding a reference to ISO 27560, encouraging registrars to consider adopting the standard when addressing privacy and consent issues, but not mandating it [00:07:39].

  • Discussion on the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) Definition: The DIA definition is considered complicated due to the need to align with three standards: the W3C's verifiable credential data model, the W3C decentralized identifier standard, and the existing UNECE specification [00:08:42]. The definition aims to reflect a better way to describe the DIA than the current UNECE specification, which was initially copied into the project's glossary [00:09:50].

  • Review of Proposed DIA Definition Text: The proposed definition states that a digital identity anchor is a specialized verifiable credential issued by an authoritative register, which acts as a digital attestation anchoring a legally recognized identifier to an entity-controlled decentralized identifier. Hans J. Huber raised a concern about the use of "specialized" and the necessity of clarifying what the specialization entails [00:10:54].

  • Clarifying the DIA as a Trust Wrapper: The proposed definition includes the explanatory sentence that the DIA is a "trust wrapper" at a digital level, a term favored by Alina and John Phillips to avoid confusion [00:11:53]. To address concerns that the project might be creating a new identifier, a third sentence clarifies that the DIA is "not a novel identifier and does not supersede existing legal statuses" [00:12:49].

  • Concerns Regarding Identifier Terminology: Hans J. Huber expressed concern about using the word "identifier," noting that a Decentralized Identifier (DID) is an identifier itself, and questioned what the intent of the sentence about the DIA not being a novel identifier was [00:12:49]. Alina clarified that this statement is intended to alleviate concerns among colleagues that the project might create a new identifier or establish a hierarchy among identifiers, especially in light of the European identifier [00:13:49].

  • Strategy for Glossary and Documentation Detail: John Phillips suggested keeping glossary definitions short and simple, defining terms only within the context of the project documents, and expanding on details like the DIA in other documentation sections [00:16:11]. They noted that the proposed changes introduce an acknowledgement of the difference between data controlled by the registrar and data supplied by the applicant, such as the DID [00:17:11].

  • Defining Levels of Data Reliance within the DIA: A key capability introduced is the ability for the registrar to declare elements in the DIA as "authoritative" (controlled and issued by the registrar), "verified" (checked by the registrar but controlled by the applicant), or "asserted" (supplied by the applicant without authenticity checks) [00:18:26]. This model ensures that the relying party knows the legal weight of each data element within the DIA [00:19:19].

  • Terminology Concerns Regarding DIA Acronym: Jo Spencer expressed a persistent concern about the acronym DIA, noting that "digital identity anchor" is problematic because what is truly needed is a "registration identifier" that uniquely identifies a registration in the registry [00:19:19]. The team acknowledged the difficulty but agreed they are "stuck with the terminology" [00:20:18].

  • Review of the DIA Specification Content: John Phillips presented a detailed update to the DIA specification, which is intended to be proposed as an update to the UNECE specification. The updated document, which is on a dark-colored background in John Phillips' view, includes a clearer process for DIA issuance and a revised proposed schema [00:25:10].

  • Schema Changes and Trust Level Definition: The updated DIA schema removes the concept of a "trust level" being decided by the project, instead requiring the relying party to decide the level of trust [00:26:24]. The schema now focuses on the source of the data elements, using the terms "authoritative," "verified," and "asserted" to distinguish the registrar's role in creating, checking, or merely echoing data. Registrars have the option to include multiple identifiers in a DIA, though individual identifiers per DIA is also possible [00:27:28].

  • Call for Merging All Outstanding Content: John Phillips strongly recommended merging all current updates, including Alina's implementation guide, into the main branch to create a complete, consistent baseline for review [00:31:21] [00:33:14]. This candidate release would allow the team, including Hans J. Huber, to review the content in its entirety before deciding on further changes, such as refining the wording of the DIA definition [00:36:23].

  • Next Steps and Timeline for Review: The consensus was to merge the comprehensive set of updates to establish a current baseline for review, as reviewing individual changes in isolation is difficult [00:39:50]. The team will hold another meeting in two weeks, as the next day is a holiday in Australia [00:41:22]. The goal is to decide at the next meeting if the content is ready to propose for review by the UNECE Bureau, which is currently scheduled for the 10th of April, but will likely be a week or more later [00:42:07].

  • Discussion on UNECE Recommendation Process: Hans J. Huber inquired about the process for Bureau review and subsequent recommendations [00:22:20] [00:44:51]. John Phillips explained that if the UNECE determines the work is "really good stuff" and requires an operational unit (the Grid), a "recommendation" document, which is a much stronger document sent proactively to UN member states, would need to be written [00:43:58]. This process works backwards from the November Plenary, necessitating a first release of the recommendation around July 20th [00:45:51].

  • Financial Sustainability of the Grid: The discussion covered the sustainability argument for the Grid, with John Phillips noting that two papers already propose the Grid be a self-sustaining business unit funded by a small voluntary participation fee, similar to the fee charged for e-passport participation under ICAO PKD. These documents are currently visible on the existing web page [00:47:31].

Chat​

00:50:28.496,00:50:31.496

sankarshan: UTC 0800 = 1330 IST (it is 1327 now)