Skip to main content

2026-04-16 1643 AEST

Apr 16, 2026

UN CEFACT GTR Project - AUS / EU​

Attendees​

  • Hans Huber
  • Jo Spencer
  • John Phillips
  • Sankarshan

Summary​

Registry project leadership aligned on W3C standards and UNTP integration while managing technical neutrality concerns for future.

Project governance and scope
Registry project development continues with focus on UNTP alignment. Initial design choices prioritize interoperability through W3C decentralized identifiers and verifiable credentials.

Technical neutrality and constraints
Discussions addressed concerns regarding standard rigidity. Leaders finalized the decision to maintain current W3C standards to ensure supply chain interoperability and low implementation costs.

Commercial data and review
Discussion on distinct handling requirements for commercially sensitive data. The global trust registry is preparing for a 60-day public review of version 0.7.

Decisions​

DISAGREEMENTS​

  • Technical neutrality in documentation A proposal to expand project documentation to include non-W3C standards to ensure technical neutrality was raised but not agreed upon, as the project leads maintained that the current project scope requires adherence to specific UNTP standards.

ALIGNED​

  • Update Digital Identity Anchor definition The project leads agreed to revise the glossary definition of 'digital identity anchor' to resolve outstanding concerns before initiating the public review process.

Next steps​

  • [Hans J. Huber] Propose Changes: Create specific proposals updating project documentation.

  • [Jo Spencer] Send Email: Forward the UNTP versioning email to Hans Huber.

Details​

  • Meeting Introduction and Recording Access: The meeting for the UNCfact global trust registry project commenced with a standard review of the code of conduct, open development process, and IPR rules [00:00:00]. All meeting recordings are uploaded to a publicly accessible playlist, typically the day after the call, to make them available to all interested parties, including those who cannot attend the US-friendly time slot [00:00:56].

  • US Call Attendance and Participants: The US-scheduled call is typically attended by a diverse group, including individuals from Australia and Canada, and has had up to seven or eight participants at its peak. Notable participants have included Bree-Ana and Nancy Morris from Canada, and figures from Trust Over IP, such as Daryll O'Donnell [00:01:51].

  • Trust Over IP Influence and Tech Neutrality: The discussion about the Trust Registry Query Protocol (TRQP), championed by Daryl O'Donnell, was added to the issue log for consideration. There has been little discussion among the Trust Over IP (TIP) people regarding the need for more balance in technical neutrality within the project [00:02:50].

  • Protocol Specificity and DID Methods: Joe and John Phillips have been assisting developers in abstracting away from specific DID methods, recognizing that methods continually evolve. While the project's origins, dating back to 2018, prioritized W3C Verifiable Credentials (VC) data models and DIDs, the goal is for UNTP to support a range of DID methods, such as did:web, did:webvh and other methods in the future [00:03:46].

  • Rationale for W3C Standards Adoption: The initial decision to use W3C standards (VC data model and DIDs) was rooted in the early phases of the project, stemming from a 2018 white paper on cross-border trade [00:07:01]. The core ethos of the project was to develop a lightweight protocol that does not mandate a single platform, choosing W3C and DIDs as attractive technologies at the time [00:08:03].

  • Major Merge and Content Consolidation: A significant content merge was executed by John Phillips, intended to consolidate thinking and close various open issues, including discussions around the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA). This merge sought to integrate comments, such as Hans J. Huber's input regarding whether the DIA should support more than one identifier [00:09:25].

  • Digital Identity Anchor Review and Public Review Status: The current content is in a draft development stage and is intended to be reflective of the discussions held in the issue logs [00:10:57]. The project is now on the cusp of being ready for public review, but co-lead Alina wants to ensure the glossary contains an acceptable definition of the Digital Identity Anchor before proceeding [00:11:57].

  • Technical Neutrality Debate and Specification Constraints: Hans J. Huber expressed concern that the current definitions reference W3C decentralized identifiers (DID), arguing that this violates technical neutrality, as other identifiers could be used [00:13:19]. John Phillips maintained that a specification must define what is being specified to ensure deliverability and compliance, even if the project is strongly in favor of technical neutrality in legislature [00:14:50].

  • Commitment to W3C Standards and Evolution: John Phillips clarified that the decision to use the W3C VC data model and DIDs was established during the development of the United Nations Transparency Protocol (UNTP), which is currently undergoing a public review process [00:16:20]. Jo Spencer supported John Phillips, acknowledging Hans J. Huber's concerns regarding the limitation to W3C standards but stressing that the current project is a satellite program underpinning UNTP, and they must align with UNTP's existing anchors [00:18:12].

  • Designing for Future Technology Evolution: Jo Spencer suggested that the design of the global trust registry (GTR) should not preclude the use of different technology choices and standards in the future [00:31:35]. While the initial implementation aligns with UNTP's choices, the design should allow for an evolution where registrars can publish which standards and technology choices they have made [00:30:31].

  • Constraints of the UNTP Design: The UNTP design prioritizes a very low cost of implementation, requiring the use of open-source standards with no license fees [00:27:32]. The requirement for interoperability among participants in the supply chain necessitates a narrow set of choices to ensure that party A can speak to party B, thereby preventing a "myriad of different technologies" [00:21:50].

  • Sensitivity of Commercial Data: The discussion shifted to the concept of commercially sensitive data in the UNTP, distinguishing it from personal data [00:45:50]. Examples of sensitive commercial data include price information between suppliers, which downstream clients should not know [00:46:33]. The UNTP anticipates that some data must be made publicly available due to regulatory requirements, such as those related to deforestation, which limits sensitivity in those cases [00:47:31].

  • Next Steps for Public Review and UNTP Versioning: The UNTP is nearing a key milestone for a formal 60-day public review period, with the version expected to be 0.7. Once the review feedback is implemented, UNTP will be released as the final version 1.0 global standard, but subsequent minor versions will follow [00:52:29]. Hans J. Huber was encouraged to submit proposals for changes to the project documentation, which will be received with a positive response [00:33:38] [00:53:32].