• Start recording
• Welcome & antitrust notice
• New member introductions
• Agenda review

• Antitrust Policy Notice: Attendees are reminded to adhere to the meeting agenda and not participate in activities prohibited under antitrust and competition laws. Only members of ToIP who have signed the necessary agreements are permitted to participate in this activity beyond an observer role.
• New Members:

The consideration of Trust Registries (TRs), their use and governance appears to be of primary concern from the NA/EU call.

JP reflected on the NA/EU meeting and how a rearticulation of the work to be done by the Governance Architecture Task Force (GATF) would be helpful. This might help contextualise the role of the group and save frustration building.

JS pointed out that the topic of TRs is across a number of different ToIP groups and probably needs coordination. The topics seen in these discussions were:

• What's deemed to be a Root of Trust, what are the different types of RoTs and how does a verifier navigate these using TRs?
• How are TRs discoverable?
• How does the definition of Use Cases, the use of VCs for these and the rules about the use of the required claims

JS suggested that if there is interest in TRs that members of the GATF should attend the Issuer Requirements or Trust Registry Protocol TFs.

JP proposed 2 models for credential presentations - simple and complex. The simple model is one where the verifier decides that they are satisfied with the proof(s) provided by the holder without any further investigation. An "atomic" or at least a sequence of bilateral transactions that is resolved between the two parties alone. This works for low risk, low value transactions. The complex model is where the verifier needs to check more things, "background checks" if you like on the organisations who issued the claims presented by the holder for example - this is where the governance trust graph navigation comes in (and TRs come into play).

The conversation also included considering how a verifier might know what they needed to ask, what would "suffice" as proof for their regulatory/licence conditions. The suggestion was that this was a problem already being solved in "the real world", to be licenced organisations they need to understand and demonstrate their adherence to regulations. The ToIP system might make these requirements "discoverable", but they have already been found and "encoded" by the time a holder presents their proof(s).

JP suggested a continued extension of the step-wise mental model definition to continue to articulate these kinds of topics. This was agreed. 

File is available for comment here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vYUJW76BEK_CQotAZ5maXYwe3H3K3dKCPAcTqEgfGJQ/edit?usp=sharing 

• Review decisions/action items
• Planning for next meeting