Skip to main content
Version: Stage 4 - For Public Review

2026-07-23 1655 AEST

UN/CEFACT GTR Project - EU​

Date: 23 July 2026

Attendees​

  • Alina
  • Hans
  • Jo
  • John

Summary​

Public review strategies and pilot program expansions and sustainability models defined project goals.

Public Review Launch Strategies
The public review for the trust registry officially launched with accessible feedback channels. Team members aligned on processing feedback by grouping issues thematically and addressing comments in real-time.

Pilot Programs and Sustainability
Pilot programs expanded across several nations to test decentralized grid participation and design features. The group established that the system must remain self-sustaining and independent of United Nations funding.

Technical and Strategic Alignment
The team aligned with external consortium standards regarding recognized entities. Developers decided that the grid design must incorporate historical status tracking for accreditation bodies to ensure long-term data accuracy.

Decisions​

Aligned​

  • Review comment processing method established The team will process review comments by preserving the original submission as a GitLab issue and creating a markdown table of specific tasks derived from that submission to ensure the input is honored accurately.

  • Review comments processed during open period The project team will process public review comments throughout the 60-day review window rather than waiting until the end to handle them, to provide better feedback transparency.

  • Review comments categorized using labels Incoming review comments will be triaged and grouped by topic using GitLab labels (e.g., technical, interoperability) to facilitate better organization and assignment.

Next steps​

  • [John Phillips] Create GitLab Issues: Convert review comments submitted via email or word documents into GitLab issues. Ensure the integrity of the original feedback is maintained within each issue.

  • [Alina Nica Gales] Meet Italian Ministry: Coordinate a meeting with the Italian ministry in September to discuss a potential pilot. Establish a point of contact to facilitate this.

  • [John Phillips, Sankashan] Create Contribution Guidelines: Develop a document providing guidance for contributing content based on the suggestions for issue 66. Make this documentation available on the project website.

  • [The group] Clarify Raised Issues: Review and clarify previously raised issues, specifically addressing the digital identity anchor definition. Ensure these concerns are resolved openly.

  • [The group] Triage Review Comments: Label and organize incoming review comments by topic using the existing system. Assign interested participants to perform triage on these specific categories.

  • [John Phillips] Align Grid Understanding: Engage with Manu Spawny to align understandings on the W3C grid standard.

  • [John Phillips] Discuss Status History: Create a thread in the group to discuss status over time and history tracking for grid accreditation.

  • [John Phillips] Share Video Link: Send the YouTube channel link containing meeting recordings and explainers to Alina via WhatsApp.

Details​

  • Public Review Kickoff: John Phillips introduced the global trust registry project's public review phase, which launched approximately 24 hours prior to the meeting [00:00:01]. The team discussed the review channels, noting that while the project is hosted on the UN/CEFACT collaborative environment, there is no email list for notifications [00:00:49]. It was confirmed that feedback can be submitted via email or a web form, allowing participants to provide input without needing a UN/CEFACT or GitLab account [00:03:02] [00:05:44].

  • Handling Review Comments: The team deliberated on the methodology for processing feedback, emphasizing the importance of honoring the integrity of each reviewer's original submission. John Phillips suggested treating complex submissions as parent issues with child tasks to ensure complete coverage, while Jo Spencer noted that grouping feedback by topic is necessary to progress issues toward a resolution [00:07:25] [00:11:10].

  • Benchmarking Review Process: The team compared their current workflow to the recent UNP public review, which successfully managed hundreds of issues [00:09:17]. John Phillips proposed addressing comments in real-time throughout the 60-day review period rather than waiting until the end, to provide reviewers with immediate visibility into how their concerns are being addressed [00:10:08].

  • Triage and Governance: John Phillips proposed using labels in the GitLab environment to categorize issues by theme, such as technical, interoperability, or governance, to facilitate effective triage [00:12:00]. The team discussed assigning subject matter experts, such as Alina Nica Gales for legal matters, to lead the review of specific issue types [00:12:55].

  • Unresolved Issues and Transparency: Hans J. Huber raised concerns about previously discussed topics, specifically regarding technology neutrality [00:13:46]. The team affirmed that the public review process is open and allows for the re-submission of unresolved concerns, ensuring that all participants can track how feedback is addressed [00:15:21].

  • Documentation and Guidelines: John Phillips addressed issue number 66 regarding guidance for contributing content to the grid [00:17:06]. The team plans to convert this into a publicly available document to support contributors, which will be discussed further with Sanka Shan in upcoming meetings [00:16:08].

  • Pilot Program Updates: Alina Nica Gales provided updates on pilot developments, noting interest from the Italian mission, Uzbekistan, and continued engagement with South American countries, specifically Brazil, Uruguay, and Colombia. The team also confirmed that outreach efforts toward Australia remain a priority [00:19:20].

  • Purpose and Design of Pilots: The discussion centered on the dual purpose of pilots: to allow registrars to explore grid participation and to improve the design of the system based on participant feedback [00:20:24]. John Phillips emphasized that the grid is designed to be extraordinarily decentralized, with authority returning to the registrars [00:28:39].

  • Operational and Financial Sustainability: The team debated the long-term operational model of the grid, stressing that it must be self-sustaining and not reliant on UN funding, which is currently subject to a liquidity crisis [00:22:21] [00:24:44]. John Phillips suggested that while the UN provides the framework, the grid may eventually require an outsourced infrastructure provider and private advisory services to function effectively [00:23:55].

  • Strategic Approach to Digital Identity: Alina Nica Gales and John Phillips discussed the distinction between the Global Trust Registry and the digital identity anchor [00:29:30]. They noted that the grid supports digitally immature states by acknowledging them as participants even without the capacity to issue digital credentials, while still offering a path for those capable of issuing digital identity anchors [00:30:25].

  • Spain Pilot Implementation: Alina Nica Gales highlighted that the pilot in Spain will serve as a model for harmonization with European initiatives, such as digital wallets. The team agreed that this pilot will likely cover both stages of grid participation and digital identity anchor issuance [00:31:45].

  • World Wide Web Consortium Working Group Engagement: John Phillips reported on an initiative with the World Wide Web Consortium regarding recognized entities [00:32:30]. The team is aligning with this group to potentially include an appendix on the grid's use case within their standards, with Sanka Shan already managing the pull request [00:34:21].

  • Accreditation and Historical Status: John Phillips discussed work with the National Association of Testing Authorities regarding the status of accreditation bodies [00:35:32]. The team identified a need to track historical status changes—such as suspension or withdrawal—in the grid, which requires a design capable of handling status over time rather than just current states [00:37:29].

  • Communication Preferences: The group discussed the best channels for ongoing collaboration, with Hans J. Huber noting a preference for email over Slack. John Phillips committed to creating a thread in the group email system to facilitate broader discussion on complex technical topics, moving them outside the weekly meeting agenda [00:41:44].

  • Educational Resources: John Phillips shared a curated YouTube playlist featuring explanatory videos created for the project, including content on cryptographically signed data and accreditation [00:45:05]. The team agreed these videos serve as effective tools for external communication, and John Phillips committed to forwarding the link to the team via WhatsApp [00:48:38].

Chat​

00:48:03.899,00:48:06.899

John Phillips:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCZ-FmZNgh10&si=JjxKYkZCf51H2ie3