This TF schedules meetings as needed. Each meeting will be announced on the GSWG mailing list and the #governance-architecture-tf Slack channel.
The meetings (and Zoom links) are available on the ToIP meeting calendar:
https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/ToIP?view=month
...
Missing Recording from Previous Meeting: John Phillips reported that the recording from the meeting two weeks prior was lost [4, 5, 21]. Only the first 6 minutes of preamble and chat were captured [5, 22, 23]. This issue was attributed to a problem with using the stop and start recording function [24, 25]. Michelle from the Links Foundation confirmed the recording could not be found [24]. As minutes rely on transcripts and chat, this made creating comprehensive minutes difficult [5, 26].
Recap of Previous Meeting: Neil Thomson offered to share his personal notes from the previous meeting by adding them to the Wiki page [27-29]. The previous meeting's discussion included looking at the conceptual model and the workflow for discovering, resolving, and verifying information [6]. This related to the UNTP principle of finding verifiable data about a thing using an identity resolver specification [7], based on reviewing the UNTP specification pages [7].
UN Global Trust Registry (GTR) Project Update: John Phillips provided an update on the UN GTR project [8].
It is a formal project given the go-ahead by three or more countries [8].
It is currently in a "call for participation" phase [8].
They are partnering with the registradores registadores of Spain (https://ww1.registadores.org/?usid=27&utid=12335149050) from a business perspective [8].T
Registradores Registadores run Spain's registry for various things like businesses, land, trucks, and planes, relevant to supply chains [30].
A kickoff meeting, cadence, and infrastructure still need to be set up [30].
John expects this pro bono project may take up to 30% of his time per week, which will significantly reduce his available time for other areas [31]. He flagged that he would be very time-poor for other focuses [31, 32].
Synergy between Trust Over IP and UN GTR:
Many GATF deliverables for the current period are consistent with the UN GTR work [33].
Scott Perry asked if GATF work could contribute to the GTR project to better utilise John's time [9].
John's hope is to find a way to cross-pollinate and potentially combine the groups [9, 34].
The UNTP project (driving GTR) requires significant time to manage participants and questions [35].
John aims to cross-share between Trust Over IP task forces and the UN project, flagging interesting developments, getting input from Trust Over IP into the UN project, and making sense of it all [10, 36, 37].
It was noted that Trust Over IP and the UN are independent organisations and not required to align [10]
Scott Perry highlighted that participating in projects like GTR helps test Trust Over IP's methodology and perspectives, which can improve the task force's architecture work [38].
Invitation to Participate in UN GTR: John extended an invitation for the group to become active participants in the UNCEFACT Global Trust Registry Project [39, 40].
Active participation involves a registration process through UNCEFACT as an expert [39].
Participants can legitimately claim they are a UN expert in this area [39, 41, 42].
The process requires being sponsored by your country via the Head of Delegation [41, 43, 44]. John provided links to the Heads of Delegation list and the expert registration form [2].
When filling out the form, participants should select areas of interest where they have credible expertise [45, 46]. While there isn't a "trust registry" checkbox [45], participants can express their interest in writing regarding the UN Global Trust Registry project specifically [25, 47].
Managing Meeting Cadence: Given John's anticipated time constraints [31, 32], the group discussed how to manage the bi-weekly meetings [12, 48]. Options included going asynchronous or moving to ad-hoc meetings [48-50].
Neil Thomson offered to step up and run meetings if John is absent [13, 28, 48, 50].
The decision was made to keep the bi-weekly schedule and calendar entries [13, 48]. Neil will run the meetings if John is not present, ensuring a process of reviewing previous work and planning next steps [13, 48]. They will decide on a meeting-by-meeting basis if there is substantive content [48].
Deep Dive into UNTP: The group revisited the UNTP specification, specifically the "resolver" section [14, 51].
The resolver section uses a flowchart to explain how UNTP understands and resolves the identity of things for potentially non-technical audiences [51].
UNTP is influenced by contributions from GS1 and interest from Europe regarding deforestation regulations and the Digital Product Passport (DPP) initiative [52].
Key UNTP terms include DPP (Digital Product Passport) and Dia (Digital Identity Anchor) [53].
UNTP focuses on being a protocol, not a platform, contrasting with prior failed supply chain efforts that required participants to join a specific platform [17, 54]. Requiring all participants to join the same platform (or blockchain) is seen as implausible due to existing systems and standards like customs systems and GTINs [37, 55].
UNTP defines a core architecture of fundamental requirements for supply chain transparency [18].
Extensions can be built on the core by specific sectors (like textiles, leather, automotive) to add their own vocabulary and specifics while complying with the core [18, 56, 57].
The core is updated based on common consensus fed back from extensions [42, 58]. This model was compared to the Linux Kernel [58].
The goal is to enable a "transparency graph search" allowing participants to find claims made by upstream parties regarding issues like greenhouse gas emissions or modern slavery [59, 60].
UNTP aims to be lightweight and balances usefulness with avoiding conflict [61].
Jo Spencer clarified that UNTP is specifically about transparency of a product's process history and regulatory compliance, not a comprehensive trade platform [62-64].
John explained a fundamental UNTP idea: data stays with the originator [19]. Parties publish data (like a DPP) to their own store and share a link/identifier [20]. A trust graph is built using linked data, and exchange happens via link exploration rather than sending/receiving data [20, 65]. This was compared to the internet and hyperlinks [65].
The potential for adding concepts like the Trust Spanning Protocol and Trust Registry Query Protocol as extensions was discussed, noting they could add value but might also add complexity [66]. Extensions are where work on technical bases like levels of assurance and interaction protocols will likely happen [67, 68].
There is a naming conflict with Europe regarding the term "Digital Product Passport", as Europe has a legally defined standard under their CIRPASS project and wants UNTP to use a different term [69]. John feels UNTP should stick with the term as their structure is different and Europe doesn't own the phrase [69, 70]
Neil shared an analogy from his work on a Digital Travel Profile, which also avoids dictating storage but defines schemas for presentation and exchange, similar to UNTP's ethos of "data at the edge" [71, 72]
Makki asked about the potential link between DPP and eIDAS (European wallet identity framework) [73, 74], to which John clarified UNTP DPPs are for products, but acknowledged the idea of linking with identity frameworks [75].
...