This TF schedules meetings as needed. Each meeting will be announced on the GSWG mailing list and the #governance-architecture-tf Slack channel.

The current cadence is that there are two GATF meetings every two weeks:

Americas: Wednesday 4pm PDT | 7pm EST | Thursday 9am AEST (UTC+10)
Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/94290110805?pwd=OEVhd2IwUUxTblNtYUNOVEtGaUNBUT09

APAC/Europe: Thursday 1am PDT | 6pm AEST (UTC+10) | CEST/3pm (UTC+2)
https://zoom.us/j/97765626957?pwd=L2RFRmczTlpoWS9RQkhwaUdjaVpHdz09

The meetings (and Zoom links) are available on the ToIP meeting calendar:
https://lf-toip.atlassian.net/wiki/display/HOME/Calendar+of+ToIP+Meetings

Zoom Meeting Links / Recordings

Attendees

@Scott Perry

@Neil Thomson

@John Phillips

Time	Agenda Item	Lead	Notes
3 min	Start recording Welcome & antitrust notice New member introductions Agenda review	Chairs	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. No new members in discussion
2 min	Review of previous action items	Chairs
	Topic #1
	Topic #2
	Topic #3
	Topic #4
5 mins	Review decisions/action items Planning for next meeting	Chairs

Minutes of the Governance Architecture Task Force (GATF) Meeting

Date: 2nd October 2024

Attendees:

Apologies:

John Phillips opened the meeting and welcomed attendees.
John Phillips noted that he had not yet drafted an agenda, as he was unsure if others would be able to attend. He also acknowledged that he had not made much progress on the task from the previous meeting (redrafting the GATF charter).

John Phillips raised the question of GATF's purpose and if the group still needed to exist. He noted that the group should decide on a focus for the next phase of work that would be exciting and interesting enough to encourage participation.
Neil Thomson suggested that GAN was a relevant and current topic the group could focus on.
John Phillips agreed that GAN presented a relevant case study for considering governance architecture, particularly concerning multi-layered governance and ecosystem infrastructure.
Neil Thomson added that GAN raised questions about how to verify credentials and ensure interoperability across different ecosystems and technology bases. He noted that the 'mix and match' group, tasked with aligning different credential exchange protocols, had not yet reached an agreement.

John Phillips questioned the relevance of existing issuer governance requirements in a GAN context. He argued that GAN should only focus on the aspects of credential issuance relevant to its role as an interoperability layer between ecosystems. He believed that ecosystems should retain the right to determine their credential issuance criteria.
Neil Thomson and John Phillips agreed that determining how the existing issuer requirements document could be used in a GAN context presented a potential focus area for the group.

Scott Perry joined the meeting.
The group discussed the lack of guidance for ecosystems looking to join GAN and how GATF could contribute to a more structured onboarding process.
Scott Perry questioned whether GAN was functioning as a "we work," providing space for ecosystems to connect without offering substantial guidance or templates. He suggested that GATF could leverage its existing toolkit for governance (developed by the Trust over IP governance stack working group) to address this gap.
John Phillips agreed and highlighted the importance of considering existing work to avoid redundancy and ensure efficiency. He also noted that applying the existing toolkit to a GAN context would still require work and should be approached as a commercial engagement if GAN intends to utilise it.
Scott Perry supported this approach, emphasizing that the existing toolkit was valuable and could be further refined based on feedback from ecosystems using it.

John Phillips raised the possibility of collaborating with the Trust over IP ecosystem foundry working group, as their work seemed to overlap with GATF's proposed focus.
Scott Perry and Neil Thomson agreed that collaborating with the ecosystem foundry working group could be beneficial.

Neil Thomson suggested that the group should go beyond issuer-centric governance and consider the perspectives of verifiers and holders in a multi-ecosystem environment. He noted that holders and verifiers faced unique challenges when dealing with credentials issued across different ecosystems, potentially using different protocols and standards.
Neil Thomson argued that relying solely on a trust registry, such as the [ISO 18013-5] VICAL system, would not address these challenges adequately. He proposed that GATF consider the risks and impacts of operating in a multi-ecosystem environment, particularly for verifiers and holders.
He suggested that establishing clear rules and guidelines upfront, potentially through a risk analysis exercise, could help to mitigate some of the challenges associated with interoperability.

John Phillips highlighted the risk of GAN prioritizing technological development over governance considerations. He suggested that GAN's technology choices should be informed by a clear understanding of its governance framework.
Scott Perry agreed but noted that GAN's technical protocols were still being finalized, making it challenging to define a concrete governance framework at this stage. He acknowledged the need for GAN to build momentum but cautioned against doing so at the expense of developing a sound governance framework.
Neil Thomson emphasized the importance of defining governance requirements alongside technology development, arguing that doing so would help to ensure that GAN's technology infrastructure could support its governance goals. He cautioned that failing to address governance considerations upfront could lead to significant challenges and rework later down the line.

John Phillips proposed that the group draft a message to Judith and Drummond outlining their suggested focus for GATF's work. He emphasized the need to balance their pro bono contributions to Trust over IP with their commercial work.
Scott Perry advocated for a focus on testing and refining the existing governance toolkit, suggesting that the group should encourage more ecosystems to adopt and provide feedback on it. He also expressed the need to gather feedback from ecosystems not currently part of the Trust over IP Foundation, such as Velocity Network and Bhutan, potentially through GAN.

The meeting concluded with John Phillips agreeing to draft a proposal based on the discussion and share it with Scott Perry and Neil Thomson for feedback.