Skip to main content

2025-08-21 1650 AEST

Aug 21, 2025

UN CEFACT GTR Project - AUS / EU​

Invited John Phillips Jo Spencer Steve Capell Alina Nica Gales Anthony De Souza

Attachments UN CEFACT GTR Project - AUS / EU

Meeting records Transcript Recording

Summary​

John Phillips led the meeting, discussing the project framework, intellectual property rights, and the integration of the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) with existing systems like GLEIF and GS1. The team, including John Phillips, Jo Spencer, Alex Tweeddale, Manuel Lorenzo, and Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay, also discussed the legal requirements and tiers of information for the DIA, data minimization principles, registrar liability, and the importance of clear disclaimers for users. The project's role is to provide metadata for accessing and understanding digital identity anchors, with a decision to consolidate all contributions into a single document for finalization.

Details​

  • Meeting Logistics and Apologies John Phillips initiated the session, confirming that the meeting was being recorded and that the transcript and chat would serve as minutes (00:00:00). He also announced Alina's absence due to a migraine, which meant he would be presenting more of her legal work on the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) than anticipated.

  • Project Framework and Participation John Phillips outlined the project code and intellectual property rights framework for UN/CEFACT work, emphasizing an open-source, royalty-free contribution model (00:00:55). He explained that experts recommended by UN member states are welcomed, and currently, applying to Alina signifies acceptance of the terms and conditions.

  • Recap of Previous Discussions John Phillips recapped the discussions from two weeks prior, which focused on the Global Legal Entity Identifier (GLEIF) and GS1 frameworks (00:01:52) (00:04:55). He indicated that the meeting would then transition to new topics concerning the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA), highlighting contributions from Alina, Joe, and Marcos.

  • Existing Digital Identity Anchor Work (UNTP) John Phillips discussed existing work on the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) from the United Nations Transparency Protocol (UNTP) project (00:02:50). He mentioned that the materials, originally on GitHub, had moved to GitLab, and he was working with Steve Capel, the UNTP lead, to decide on the best way to integrate this content, potentially returning it to the UNTP folder for curation (00:03:57).

  • Interoperability with Existing Systems John Phillips explained that a significant discussion from two weeks prior revolved around integrating the project with existing systems like GLEIF and GS1, both of which manage identifiers for various entities and products (00:04:55). He emphasized that the project's Global Trust Registry (GTR) aims to provide a different value proposition by focusing on nation-state registers as authoritative sources, unlike GLEIF or GS1, which are organizations (00:06:02).

  • Collaboration with GLEIF John Phillips noted that there is mutual value in collaborating with GLEIF, particularly regarding their list of registrars (00:07:55). He suggested that the list produced by their project could be cross-referenced with GLEIF's list, potentially enhancing data quality or reducing workload for both organizations. Jo Spencer affirmed this, stating that GLEIF and GS1 were created for specific purposes and their identifiers are trustworthy within their governed frameworks, but the GTR aims to recognize and identify registries more broadly (00:08:57).

  • Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) Legal Requirements John Phillips explained that Alina has been working on the legal interpretation and meaning of the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA), focusing on what it means legally for an authoritative body to issue a DIA and how claims can be made using it (00:13:39) (00:17:34). This work differs from the existing UNTP requirements, which do not address the legal implications of the DIA in trade processes (00:18:37).

  • Tiers of Information in DIA John Phillips detailed three tiers of information within a Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) based on discussions with Alina (00:19:52). The first tier consists of data the authoritative registrar legally asserts, the second includes data verified by the registrar but not within its legal domain, and the third is information provided by the applicant without legal meaning in the DIA's context (00:21:00).

  • Digital Identity Anchor as a Verifiable Digital Reference John Phillips highlighted Alina's work on the DIA as a verifiable digital reference to a registered identity, aligning with the UNCITRAL and MLER models that recognize digital records as equally valid in commerce as physical ones (00:21:50). He emphasized that a DIA within their project's context would only be issued by an authority legally authorized to register and certify a subject under applicable law (00:22:54).

  • Data Minimization and National Laws Jo Spencer raised concerns about the GTR owning Personally Identifiable Information (PII), to which John Phillips agreed, emphasizing a data minimization principle (00:27:28). Alex Tweeddale added that national laws, such as South Africa's, may classify legal entity data as PII, stressing the need for the project to use "should" rather than "shall" language and defer to national laws (00:29:44).

  • Registrar Liability and Data Validation Manuel Lorenzo contributed by explaining that in Spain, business registers are statutorily liable for disclosed data, meaning they cannot attest to claims made by legal entities that are not directly recorded at the register (00:32:26). He emphasized that claims made by legal entities should stand on their own without being backed by the business register, as this might not be legally feasible for the registrars.

  • Leveraging and Referencing Other Digital Identifiers Manuel Lorenzo highlighted the value of leveraging and referencing other digital identifiers like LEI and GS1 product identifiers rather than embedding all information (00:33:59). He explained that including LEIs can enable automated lookup processes to authoritative sources like GLEIF, providing trustworthy and validated information that can be cross-checked with the digital identity anchor (00:35:16).

  • Governance and Supervision Concerns Manuel Lorenzo expressed concern about the governance and supervision of the system, particularly regarding tracking the legal status of entities, suspensions, and revocations, noting its complexity and cost in the LEI system (00:36:31). He questioned how challenges to data linked to a DIA would be handled given the open-source and voluntary nature of the project.

  • Governance Model of the Project John Phillips clarified that the project's responsibility is to define governance for the directory of registrars, not to dictate how registrars govern themselves (00:37:52). He stated that the project would note how registrars operate, including update frequencies and fees, so that relying parties can understand the process for checking information, acknowledging that the project cannot dictate national laws (00:39:10).

  • Concurrency and Updates of Identifiers John Phillips discussed the concurrency of updates between nation-state registrars and other operations like GLEIF, noting that these entities can have different update frequencies (00:40:57). He emphasized the importance of capturing update frequencies and revocation processes in the directory of registrars so that relying parties understand the reliability of a DIA that includes other identifiers like an LEI, which may be updated at different times (00:42:05).

  • Disclaimers for Users Manuel Lorenzo stressed the importance of clear disclaimers for users of the system, stating that the legal effects and value of the information will rely exclusively on the legal framework and liability regime of the business register backing the information (00:44:36). He noted that significant differences can exist across jurisdictions, making it crucial to set realistic expectations for users.

  • Project's Role: Providing Metadata Jo Spencer summarized the project's role as providing metadata that allows digital identity anchors to be accessed and understood (00:47:12). John Phillips agreed, stating that the project is creating new value by enabling UNTP to operate more effectively through this metadata, and that findings from this work may even lead to modifications in the UNTP specification itself (00:48:13).

  • Reconciling and Consolidating Documentation John Phillips discussed the challenge of reconciling Alina's numerous legal clauses for DIAs with the existing eight requirements in the UNTP specification, as well as Marcus's suggestions for improving the markdown text (00:49:13). Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay advised against continuing separate discussions and recommended consolidating all contributions into a single document to finalize and refine the work (00:51:02). John Phillips agreed with this approach, aiming to combine all technical and legal requirements to avoid duplication and gaps.

Suggested next steps​

No suggested next steps were found for this meeting.