Skip to main content

2026-02-05 1850 AEDT

5 Feb, 2026

UN CEFACT GTR Project - AUS / EU​

Standing Invitations: John Phillips Jo Spencer Steve Capell Alina Nica Gales

Attendees:​

  • John
  • Alina
  • Sankarshan
  • Yash

Summary​

Project Context and Terminology
The meeting began by confirming the project context under UNCFAT IPR rules and ensuring consistent terminology, specifically the use of 'UN member state' throughout documentation, while affirming the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) acts as a container for existing identifiers.

Refining Registry Scope and Authority
A critical discussion focused on distinguishing authoritative registers, which must be legally mandated public authorities, from administrative databases, leading to a decision to narrow the initial grid focus to one or two types of registry, such as company/organization identity or land, to ensure legal certainty and manage scope.

Document Reordering and Pilot Architecture
Document ordering was reorganized for clarity, starting with the Economic Argument, and a pilot architecture was presented, showcasing how participating registries publish and sign data which is then harvested and checked, preventing the grid from becoming a single point of failure.

Details​

Decisions

NEEDS FURTHER DISCUSSION

Registry Inclusion Prioritization Criteria

Registry inclusion criteria require prioritization to distinguish authoritative registers from administrative databases. Registries whose records have constructive or declarative legal effects under national law considered high priority.

ALIGNED

Remaining Open Issues Sanity Check

Remaining open issues from previous review used as sanity check against current documentation to verify clarity and address initial concerns. Check confirms new content satisfies issues raised.

Authoritative Register Legal Definition

Authoritative register definition clarified; definition included in glossary. Authoritative register understood as public authority established by law.

Initial Registry Scope Definition

Initial Grid release should focus on supporting limited types of authoritative registries. Recommended registry types for initial support include company identity and land registries.

Project Documentation Reordering and Renaming

Project documents reordered and renamed for logical flow and clarity. Ordering starts with Economic Argument, followed by Legal and Target Operating Model, then Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) Trust Wrapper.

Remove Document Title Numerical Prefixes

Numerical prefixes removed from document titles displayed on public website for cleaner user presentation. Internal file numbers retained to force correct document ordering.

More details:

  • Project Context and IPR John Phillips opened the meeting for the UN UNCFAT global trust registry project, noting that they were working under UNCFAT rules regarding IPR and development processes. They stated that the goal for the meeting was to review content changes made by John Phillips and Sankarshan, discuss document naming and ordering, and listen to suggestions from Alina Nica Gales regarding future content [00:00:00].

  • Consistent Terminology and Identifiers A key discussion point from a previous meeting was the agreement to use the phrase "UN member state" consistently throughout the documentation instead of other terms like "country" or "nation". There was also a revisit of the discussion around identifiers and containers, affirming that the DIA (Digital Identity Anchor) is not a new identifier but a construct that encloses existing identifiers, such as the LEI or the European e-ID [00:01:06].

  • Addressing Brett Hyland's Review John Phillips mentioned that Brett Hyland, a globally known NATA accredited individual, provided a solicited review of the project documents, which Sankarshan subsequently broke down into manageable issues [00:03:09]. They provided an example of a change made in response to Brett's comments: redesigning the GTR introductory diagram for clarity, which now includes "UN member state" at the top of each item [00:04:05].

  • Simplifying the Economic Argument and Review Strategy John Phillips noted that a significant amount of work has been done, with Sankarshan playing a large role in simplifying the economic argument and presenting it in less technical terms. They agreed that the remaining open issues from Brett's review should be used as a "sanity check" against the new text to confirm that the previous issues have been resolved [00:05:01].

  • Clarifying "Authoritative Register" and Legal Mandate Alina Nica Gales reviewed the fourth document and suggested clarifying the notion of an "authoritative register" to ensure it is understood as a public authority established by law, to provide legal certainty [00:06:03]. John Phillips confirmed that this clarification is appropriate and noted that such terms are defined in the project's glossary to avoid repetition across documents [00:07:15].

  • Distinguishing Authoritative Registers from Administrative Databases Alina Nica Gales stressed the need to distinguish authoritative registers from administrative databases to mitigate the long-term risk of including public databases that do not perform a true registry function [00:08:07]. John Phillips acknowledged this valid concern and suggested narrowing the focus initially, potentially to only business entities and land registries, to avoid confusion and ensure only entities that satisfy the authoritative register test are included [00:09:16].

  • Excluding Non-Authoritative Entities There was an emphasis on the criteria for inclusion in the grid, affirming that entities like Golife cannot be included because they are not authoritative registers of a UN member state [00:10:09]. They confirmed that if a UN member state recognizes an entity, such as a Cadastre, as the authoritative register for their land, it could be included under that jurisdictional interest [00:10:59].

  • Legality Check and the EU Context Alina Nica Gales raised a concern about explicitly listing a "legality check" requirement, such as the one reflected in EU directives, questioning its applicability to non-European countries. John Phillips responded that the UN context already considers UN member states as the norm unit for decision-making, and although the EU can collectively decide to do things, the EU itself is not a UN member state [00:12:07].

  • Grid Membership and Accountability Requirements John Phillips and Alina Nica Gales reviewed the eligibility requirements for grid membership, noting that authoritative status and legal mandate are mandatory, requiring a verifiable link to national legislation [00:13:21]. They discussed the requirement for a permanent point of contact for accountability, explaining that this is necessary for the grid operators, similar to EKO's PKD system, to clarify issues and speak on behalf of the registries [00:14:32].

  • Scope of Authoritative Registers for Grid Addressing the types of authoritative registers to be included, John Phillips confirmed that "honey registers" are excluded and that the project should focus on creating a repeatable pattern [00:15:43]. Following a suggestion from two weeks ago to narrow the focus for the first release, they agreed to recommend starting with one or two types of registry, such as company or organization identity and land, based on the interest of the participants, to allow the grid to grow organically [00:16:38] [00:18:38].

  • Proposed Document Reordering and Naming John Phillips proposed reordering and renaming the project documents to improve clarity and logical flow for new readers [00:20:21]. The new order begins with the Economic Argument, followed by the Legal and Target Operating Model, and then the document regarding the Digital Identity Anchor (referred to as a "trust wrapper" to avoid confusion) [00:21:22].

  • Technical Review and Merge Request Sankarshan expressed interest in moving forward by reviewing content on the website against a checklist and striving for clarity, rather than adding more content unless necessary [00:22:12]. John Phillips discussed a merge request they created to apply the new document ordering and naming, acknowledging a failing merge check that they would resolve after the call [00:23:25] [00:25:27].

  • Pilot Architecture and Functionality John Phillips presented a prototype pilot architecture, which allows participating separate registries to publish and sign data under their control [00:30:00]. This data is periodically harvested, checked for a valid signature, and used to update an example grid [00:31:04]. The prototype environment uses fictitious UN member states and their registrars to populate the grid data [00:31:57].

  • Pilot Environment and Participant Input The purpose of the prototype environment is to allow pilot participants, such as technical teams from interested member states, to experiment and provide feedback on the design decisions, with the expectation that the prototype will be modified based on their requests [00:34:13]. John Phillips emphasized that the pilot is a very early prototype and that two potential areas for experimentation are the use of the Digital Identity Anchor and the interface to the grid [00:35:15].

  • Technical Advantages and Grid Design John Phillips highlighted that the pilot design offers technical advantages, such as preventing the grid from becoming a single point of failure, as the failure of the grid would not affect the registrars or the accessibility of their publicly available information. They requested that technical pilot teams critique the architecture and crawl over the ideas to find the best way of working for the grid [00:36:14] [00:39:18].

  • Digital Identity Anchor as a Trust Wrapper Alina Nica Gales noted they liked the new name "trust wrapper" for the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) because it helps avoid confusion about it being a new identifier. John Phillips confirmed that the DIA is designed as a container for existing identifiers, which they call a generic way to address concerns, and that examples of other identifiers, such as an EU ID, could be included to dispel concerns about coexistence [00:40:25].

  • Coexistence of Identifiers John Phillips clarified that the DIA is not a replacement for, nor does it conflict with, existing identifiers, but rather "wraps them". He detailed that the authoritative registrar is responsible for issuing their required initial identifier, but other identifiers, such as an LEI or EU ID, can be included in the DIA if the organization requests them and the registrar acknowledges or verifies them [00:42:54] [00:47:08].

  • Next Steps: Merge and Review John Phillips proposed completing the merge request to implement the new document ordering and names, making the updated documents available on the public website. They requested that Alina Nica Gales and others review the documents, specifically checking the content flow and reviewing the open issues against the revised text to confirm they have been fixed [00:48:17].

Suggested next steps​

  • John Phillips will resolve the conflicts in the document reordering merge request, apply the merge, and notify the group.

  • John Phillips will rename Sankashan's files from letters to numbers at the beginning, and remove the numeric prefix from document names presented on the website.

  • Alina Nica Gales will review the reorganized documents, especially the pilot content, for flow and clarity and send the link to her team for feedback.

  • John Phillips and sankarshan will work through the remaining open issues from the first review to check if the revised text addresses the issues raised by Brett.