Skip to main content

Meeting 2026-05-14 1649 AEST

UN CEFACT GTR Project - AUS / EU​

May 14, 2026

Attendees​

  • Alina
  • Jo
  • Sankarshan
  • John

Summary​

Meeting discussions facilitated glossary updates and finalized project transition toward public review with technical alignment strategies.

Glossary and Identity Definitions
Definitions regarding digital identity anchors were clarified and merged. Critical terms for authoritative registers and registrars were verified for project scope.

Public Review and Specifications
The project moved toward public review for the UNTP specification version 0.7. Feedback on implementation guidelines remains a priority for external stakeholders.

Operational and Strategic Planning
Participants planned to declutter glossary terms while separating the project from European wallet dependency. Coordination continues for upcoming pilot documentation reviews.

Decisions​

ALIGNED​

  • Digital identity anchor definition updated The team approves the update to the digital identity anchor definition, adopting the refined wording proposed by Hans.

  • Public review initiation with bureau The team decides to move to public review and initiate communication with the bureau, with the specific intent of seeking feedback on the implementation guidelines.

  • Implementation guidelines redundancy reduction The team decides to update the implementation guidelines to reference the glossary for definitions rather than duplicating text, while correcting existing terminology errors.

  • Glossary decluttering initiative The team agrees to review and reduce redundant or unnecessary terms in the glossary in parallel with the public review process.

Next steps​

  • [John Phillips] Merge Glossary Update: Incorporate the suggested text provided by Hans into the glossary. This update will include the revised ordering of terms for the digital identity anchor definition.

  • [John Phillips] Reply to Hans: Explain the specific meaning of functional equivalence within the existing issue thread. Use this response to clarify the term for Hans and address his inquiry.

  • [John Phillips] Notify Bureau: Email Nancy and Steve to request the initiation of the public review process. Highlight the importance of their feedback on the implementation guidelines section.

  • [John Phillips] Update Implementation Guidelines: Modify section 3.1 of the implementation guidelines to reference the glossary for the digital identity anchor definition. Remove redundant descriptive text to ensure document consistency.

  • [Alina Nica Gales] Organize Meeting: Schedule a follow-up meeting with the IT department to clarify the digital identity anchor concept. Coordinate this session to support the Spanish pilot project before the board vote.

Chat​

00:18:13.353,00:18:16.353

John Phillips: https://digitalcatapult.my.salesforce-sites.com/events/event/invite/pRVbGET8rgTafgZl1nclq7\_6L0CK84znR3Ng2WUZ1m4dbGybYbOgSNWJna0Y2bsG?start=register

00:19:31.108,00:19:34.108

sankarshan: I have a minor question about the text in the Implementation Guidelines. It states "A DIA is a verifiable credential issued by an Authoritative Register to a subject" - should this read Authoritative Registrar ?

00:21:45.648,00:21:48.648

John Phillips: https://opensource.unicc.org/un/unece/uncefact/gtr/-/blob/main/docs/Documents/05\_Implementation\_Guidelines.md?ref\_type=heads

00:28:24.479,00:28:27.479

sankarshan: if you are willing and agreeable, LLM tools are well suited to check if terms in Glossary are being used in the documents and generate a consistency check report

Details​

  • Opening and Meeting Protocols: John Phillips opened the meeting and confirmed that it was being recorded for transcription and future publication. Participants were reminded of the UNFACT open development process and existing intellectual property rules. The agenda for the session focused on reviewing the issues log and discussing updates regarding the project.

  • Digital Identity Anchor Glossary Update: John Phillips reviewed a suggestion from Hans to rephrase the digital identity anchor definition, noting that the proposal involved a clearer ordering of terms. Alina Nica Gales and sankarshan expressed support for the update, noting its improved clarity. John Phillips decided to merge the changes directly into the glossary without the standard two-step review process because the adjustment was minor.

  • Preparation for Public Review: John Phillips proposed moving to an open review status with the Bureau, provided there were no major outstanding issues. Alina Nica Gales requested feedback on the implementation guidelines section before finalizing this step. John Phillips explained that declaring an open review does not signify the completion of the project, allowing for further changes if necessary. The group agreed to contact Steve and Nancy to propose public review while specifically inviting their feedback on the implementation guidelines.

  • Authoritative Register and Registrar Definitions: Alina Nica Gales asked if the definitions for authoritative register and registrar were sufficiently clear. John Phillips confirmed that these terms, which had been previously developed, were reflected in the website glossary. The participants agreed that these definitions were critical for ensuring that the appropriate eligible registrars and registers are included in the scope of the project.

  • Clarification of Functional Equivalence: Alina Nica Gales raised a point regarding Hans’s inquiry about the meaning of functional equivalence within the digital identity anchor definition. John Phillips and Jo Spencer determined that they would address this question within the issue thread rather than changing the definition itself, as functional equivalence is an established, standardized term. John Phillips noted that they would only consider changing the text if a broader consensus indicated confusion, rather than responding to a single request.

  • UNTP Specification Update: John Phillips reported that the UNTP specification version 0.7 is moving toward public review. He noted that relevant organizations are currently retooling their tools to meet the updated standard, a process estimated to take approximately two weeks.

  • Organizational Identity Conference: John Phillips shared information about an upcoming conference in London focused on building trust in digital supply chains and organizational identity. Steve Capel, Nancy Morris, and Lucy Yang are scheduled to present, and the team noted that the grid project is included on the conference agenda.

  • Implementation Guidelines Terminology Correction: sankarshan identified a terminology error in section 3.1 of the implementation guidelines, where the term register was used instead of registrar. John Phillips agreed with the correction and proposed referencing the glossary directly within the document to maintain consistency and avoid future errors.

  • Glossary Decluttering: Alina Nica Gales and John Phillips discussed the potential for confusion caused by having several similar terms like register, registrar, and registry. They explored the possibility of performing a review to declutter the glossary, and they agreed that this could be conducted in parallel with the public review process.

  • Spanish Pilot Project Update: Alina Nica Gales provided an update on the Spanish pilot, explaining that project leadership has transitioned to the International Affairs department due to the global scope of the project. The IT department is currently reviewing the documentation to understand how the project integrates with digital wallets. Alina Nica Gales plans to coordinate a meeting in the next 7 to 10 days to help the IT team better understand the digital identity anchor concept.

  • Strategic Alignment and Future Planning: John Phillips and Alina Nica Gales discussed the importance of ensuring the project remains independent to avoid being delayed by the European wallet rollout. John Phillips emphasized that the project's technical implementation is designed to be compatible with wallets without being dependent on them. The participants concluded by agreeing to continue their coordination efforts and proceed with their planned tasks.