[Speaker 4] I know how, you know, working with Canada on one side and Japan and China and places on the other can make it very difficult. [Speaker 1] Yes, yes. [Speaker 4] Well, the rest of the people on this call are sitting in Australia. [Speaker 5] Sorry? Sorry. [Speaker 4] Hi, Brett. [Speaker 5] Hi, Gideon. It's a bit light for you, isn't it? [Speaker 4] Yeah, so I just said I'm not necessarily going to come and stay on all of them at this time. It's 10 o'clock here. I thought, as it's the first one, make the effort. [Speaker 5] Good on you. [Speaker 4] I was just emailing with Ronaldo as well, actually. So, yeah, we know each other from Casco. [Speaker 5] Yeah, Ronaldo's a great guy. It's hard to find times that suit Europe and poor old Ronaldo and other US colleagues. [Speaker 4] Yeah, yeah. We were just saying that. I recognize that from when we did the ISO IWA 48. So on ESG implementation principles, I was the lead technical editor on that. But we had Canada one side and the other side of the world for others. So, yeah, difficult one. Hi, Finn. [Speaker 5] So where are all the Americans today, Steve? One of them just joined. Well, she's Canadian. Canadian. [Speaker 10] Same difference. [Speaker 2] I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'll get kicked out of Canada for saying that. [Speaker 1] All right. I might have confused everyone with mailing list changes. And also, I realize there's misaligned information on the website with regards to the timing of this meeting. The website says it's one hour from now, and it's actually one hour earlier. So I've got some things to fix up. Normally, we have about 20 on this call, but I think we've got 10 because of some understandably confused people. And I take the blame. Here we go. Give it one more minute. [Speaker 5] Hello, Michael. [Speaker 6] Hello, Brett. [Speaker 1] All right. Well, we may get a few more laggards joining, but let us kick off with a smaller than usual group, mostly because of, I think, my manipulations of mailing lists and meeting times that have caused some confusion. So everyone is now on a gaggle list instead of a Google list. And that's because Google made everybody create Google accounts. And I didn't realize that because I didn't used to do it. So we've changed to gaggle as a mailing list because it's less onerous. You can just use whatever email account you want. But that means everyone got a meeting cancellation because they got taken off the Google list, or the Google list got taken off the meeting calendar meeting, and then added Google. So it would have confused everyone. Hopefully things will sort themselves out. [Speaker 5] There's another possibility. When I started a gaggle list for my new group, it went to everyone's junk folder. So after people didn't realize they'd been invited. [Speaker 1] Okay. I seem to just not be having great wins with trying to organize multi-disciplinary teams from time zones all over the world in self-subscribing groups. Either it doesn't go to junk mail, but it forces you to sign into Google, or it goes to junk mail then. [Speaker 5] Right. So I sent everyone a note through a normal email channel to say that they were on the gaggle list. And if I didn't get notification, let me know. What I should have said is junk folder. [Speaker 1] Yeah. Okay. That's a good tip. So I suspect there's a lot of people with a meeting invite in their junk folder and not joining. All right. [Speaker 6] I will check. I will send a direct BCC email out to everybody as well, because I wonder if that's some of the troubles as well. [Speaker 1] Yeah. I might do the same. I'll have to go and get all the subscriptions. All right. [Speaker 8] Anyway- You'll probably hit that firewall as well. [Speaker 12] Yeah. [Speaker 1] Yeah. Okay. Well, then the alternative is always to keep clearly on the UNTP site. When is the meeting? Here's the ICS link. And I realized that, again, due to time zone changes, the calendar meeting changed from 8 p.m. UTC to 9 p.m. UTC, because of Australian time zone changes. But the website still says 8 p.m. UTC. So there's probably half a dozen people that dialed in an hour ago. So it's a complete stuff up. And I can see a way forward to fix it. I'll fix the website. I'll email everyone directly, not through gaggle, to say, hey, there's this mailing list. It might be in your junk mail, but in any case, you can subscribe from the website. Anyway, apologies, everyone. Enough of that. Let's move on to the agenda. The usual initial disclaimer, this is a UN project meeting. We don't talk about commercial issues, only about the standards development. And when anyone is contributing something material to the standard that is going to be published, you are contributing your IP to the UN. If you're not happy to do that, then don't do it. And this meeting is being recorded and will be published. So if anyone has any concerns, let me know. With that, we might have a shortish meeting today. A few things on the agenda. I wanted to talk briefly about next week, a busy week in Geneva. Some of you may be attending. Some of you may want to attend some of these things. So we'll talk about that. And then a recent extension request from Global Battery Alliance and also what that means more generally for any extender. And then we'll get a little brief summary from each subgroup or working group member. So let's start with Geneva next week. There are three things going on. There's a UN plenary where the recommendation policy instrument that goes with this project is up for approval by member states. And then there's a bunch of DPP-related work sessions that the UNECE is organizing. And then there's an Open Wallet Foundation and about 20 other co-organizers of which UN is one. Big sort of convention. So I might give you the floor, Nancy, just for a Great. [Speaker 2] Steve, what topics would you like me to cover off? There's lots to talk about. [Speaker 1] Oh, just whatever you think is relevant for this group. Just the fact that the REC 49 is going up for approval. And that's probably it, isn't it? Would you want to give a quick summary or do you want me to just do that? [Speaker 10] Um, yeah, you go ahead and then I will. [Speaker 1] Correct me. Okay. [Speaker 10] I'll compliment. [Speaker 1] Yeah. So Nancy is the UNCFAC chair for those that are new to this group and will be coordinating the plenary next week. And it's just a two-day event, but it happens once a year where the member states who are essentially the shareholders in UNCFAC review the program of work for the next year. And things like sustainability agenda and UNTP are on that program of work. So that needs to be approved. And then there's sometimes some particular deliverables that are need to, before they're published as formal UN outputs, member states need to approve them. So Recommendation 49 is called Transparency at Scale. And it's a policy document that accompanies the UNTP or more accurately, the UNTP accompanies the policy document and it's up for approval. There may be some, and if there's any member state that has any concerns, then they raise them and there could be a vote. So we're preparing for a possible vote. We hope there won't be one and it just gets approved. That's probably about all there is to say on that. Anything to add? [Speaker 2] No, I think that's it other than I think this group would, will be interested to know about the, so the chair. So I was asked and have written and submitted a report around operational efficiencies for UNCFAC. And one of the recommendations in that report is around the use of open source technologies to both project management tools, and then also creating UNCFAC standards that are themselves open source solutions like UNTP. And I was in New York last week, I was invited to speak at UN Open Source Week about UNTP and REC 49 specifically. It's seen as a really positive example of the kind of work that the UN can do using open source tools and solutions and creating solutions. And we got a lot of support from the UN executive and others, sort of global UN members, states and participating organizations around this work. So yeah, I wanted to make sure that everybody knew that you're really working on the forefront of what the UN is trying to do in terms of creating open source solutions. [Speaker 3] That's great, Nancy. [Speaker 6] Is there any expectation, is there any concern that there will be, that REC 49 will get held up, or is it at this point more of a feeling that this is a process that has to go through, but there's not expectation of any issues? [Speaker 2] So there's, I think that the decision that we're being asked to make is, or that's being put forward, we're not entirely sure. So the way that the plenary works is that each of the member states has the opportunity to make a statement. And then they either, there's consensus around approval of, for in this case, a recommendation. Or if there's actual sort of concerns with the recommendation, then the member states can say, we would like it adjusted in this way. The only concern that we've heard of is from the German delegation that they would, they're very supportive of REC 49, but they want the annex that refers specifically to UNTP to either be removed or include other types of implementations for the principles that are put forward in Recommendation 49. So we're working with them. I think this is going to go to the wire in terms of getting consensus language, but we're definitely like in constant discussion around, with them around what we can do to make sure that Recommendation 49 is approved. And perhaps we adjust the language somewhat within REC 49, like UNTP among others, that kind of thing. And so that we can retain the annex. That's our, what we're pushing for. But we do, we've been strategizing on all sorts of different scenarios that could get raised and then what our approach would be if they are raised during the plenary. I'm confident that REC 49 is going to get approved. But I am not entirely sure like what the final version will look like. [Speaker 5] You can go to a vote. Is that right, Nancy? [Speaker 2] That's right. Yeah. And we're, we're working to get supportive nations empowered to be able to voice their support and vote. Okay, sorry, Hedian. Recommendation 49 is a recommendation to nations around how they can create the conditions for and empower industries to make their supply chains more transparent and sustainable. And so it points to UNTP as one of the tools for, that can enable this. And we know that there's other groups, nations and jurisdictions and industries that are creating industry specific tools or nationally specific tools to reach the same goals. And so we've talked a lot about interoperability and how UNTP can play a role with that within the recommendation. [Speaker 1] Thank you. I'll just put a link to it. [Speaker 8] Yeah. There's been a considerable amount of work that has an effort has gone into this. It's incredible. I want to commend all of you that have been working on it because no small feat. [Speaker 7] Yeah. And Steve was a little bit, when he was talking about not being able to coordinate international collaboration and stuff like that. I kind of laugh because you've done an amazing job coordinating international collaboration across time zones, across several years to get us to this point. So a little bit of a challenge the last couple of days doesn't reflect, I think, at all on the quality of work that you've achieved over the last couple of years. [Speaker 11] Yeah. [Speaker 1] Thanks for that, Zach. I've just put a link to the, I think it should work, to the published version of recommendation 49. So Gideon, this happens to be the 49th recommendation since about 1950 or something that the UNEC have made. And it's targeted at member states. So it's a policy statement about how to do transparency to scale. And it mentions UNTP quite a lot. And the challenges Nancy is talking about is that technically you can implement transparency measures and traceability measures in a variety of different ways of which UNTP is only one. And some member states have invested quite heavily in other mechanisms like the whole Gaia-X, Catena-X, Industry 4.0 framework in Germany, and therefore rightfully go, well, wait a minute, you know, we think our initiatives, yeah, what about us? So we've got to get the language of the recommendation right. And that's the problem. All right. So also next week, there are a number of meetings, which I think also have a virtual online option organized by the UNECE around digital product passports in textiles, in batteries, and so on and so forth. So if anyone's interested in attending those, we can send an email out about how to subscribe and join them, at least as a listener. [Speaker 3] Yes, Steve, that would be great for me. And I can share it with the group on DPP. All right. [Speaker 1] All right. So action after this is I'll send out an email to the gaggle list, which will go straight to junk, except that I'll also send out a direct email that won't go to junk, reminding everyone of that. Also next week, there is an in-person only meeting. So anyone that is in Geneva or close to Geneva and would like to attend a two-day conference organized by the Open Wallet Foundation with a lot of presenters around this whole issue of decentralized identity, verifiable identity, verifiable credentials, digital driver's license, personal health records, international trade, all that stuff. I still have some tickets. I'll also send an email out about that. But that's an in-person event, but could be quite interesting. We have a two, three one-hour sessions at that event. Okay. Moving on. [Speaker 2] Steve? [Speaker 1] Yes. [Speaker 2] I could just flag, if anyone is interested in sending an email to your head of delegation in support of Recommendation 49 and UNTP, hearing from UNC FACT experts can go a long way to helping influence HOD support. So if that is something that you're interested in doing, we're happy to connect you and get the head of delegation information to you, depending on what country you're from. [Speaker 1] There's a number of Australians on this call, and they're already on board, Will Nixon, but Gideon, are you British? [Speaker 4] Yeah, I'm from the UK. So opposed to British, but yes. Okay, right. But the head of delegation would be good. I haven't engaged much with UNECE for a very long time, to be honest, but I don't know who the head of delegation is, but that'd be good. [Speaker 1] Well, if you're willing to write a, have a quick look at REC 49, the link's there. You're willing to write something in support of REC 49 to the UK head of delegation, we'll forward you his contact or her, I'm not sure, and right up to this meeting. That would be great. What other nations have we got here that are not Canada or Australia? [Speaker 6] I'm in Austria, so if you want... [Speaker 1] Austria? [Speaker 6] Yeah, yep. [Speaker 1] And you're an Austrian? [Speaker 6] Well, I'm in here as an Irish person. I have an Irish passport as well, so it's an EU. Or should it be Ireland or Austria? I mean, I live in Austria. [Speaker 1] Yeah, I think it's less about where you live and more about what your nationality is when it comes to influencing heads of delegation. Ireland would be... Okay. [Speaker 2] Yeah, or Michael, there's the EU head of delegation, so that might be helpful. [Speaker 1] Yep, okay. All right. Okay. Well, there's a little bit of possible support you can give us then, and we'll follow up with you to the whole mailing list, actually, not just people on this call. And then see what we can do on that. Thank you for your help. I think, yeah, words to heads of delegation before the meeting from their citizens is important. [Speaker 6] I'm one of those rare persons who actually legally has three passports. [Speaker 1] Oh, you can write to three of them, then. [Speaker 6] Yeah, Canadian. Well, I figure Canada is covered, right? The United States is my other, I don't know if it would make sense for the US. I'm happy to do it as well for there as well. [Speaker 10] Yep, that would be helpful. [Speaker 7] Yep, okay. There's a new head of delegation, right? Yes. US? So, yeah, I'll also send one to them. [Speaker 9] I thought I was going to offer my support, but I let Michael said I think Canada is covered, so I don't... Okay. [Speaker 1] Okay. All right. So then extensions, especially for those that knew that one of the key core tenets of UNTP is that it's deliberately industry neutral and country neutral, and provides, if you like, a common architecture. But then, of course, any particular industry implementation of traceability measures, transparency measures is going to require some tweaking. And so UNTP comes with a kind of extension framework that says, if you want to take UNTP digital product passport and turn it into a digital battery passport, then here's how you do it in a non-breaking way. And that's one of the key ideas of UNTP. And I'm pleased to say where the list of parties that are interested in creating formal extensions is both growing, but also not only growing in size, but growing in importance, right? So this week, I'll find the link, or last week, sorry, the Global Battery Alliance, for those who are not familiar with them, they're a World Economic Forum group that has been working for several years to define rule books, codes of practice, et cetera, for battery sustainability, carbon footprinting, and traceability, and so on, have formally requested to be the owner of a global battery passport UNTP extension, which I think is a good signal that we must be doing something right. And so we're quite pleased about that. And there's a few more coming. So is that the link? Thanks. That also brings us to a bit of a question about, well, if there's three or four or five or six, and eventually maybe 100, who knows, extenders of UNTP, each of which are themselves some sort of industry group representative, right? So we don't so much anticipate an individual company saying, I want to extend UNTP in any sort of formal way, obviously, they can take it, use it and add whatever they want. But by extension, we mean a collective that's defining some standards for their collective. What is the role there? The question that then comes up is what role should they have in the ongoing governance of UNTP, right? If you're building something like a global battery passport on top of it, you ought to have a say on how is UNTP developed on an ongoing basis, right? Another meeting next week in Geneva is the first meeting of the extenders group. And its objective is to come up with a terms of reference and some sort of governance framework, where an increasing group of communities, community of communities, if you like, meets regularly, decides what they value out of UNTP and what they might want next. And basically becomes the requirement source for us as the UNTP team that's maintaining it, right? So that's one to kind of close that loop of users coming back and having the authority to tell us what we should be doing. So a couple of questions. Nick's got his hand up and Gideon, Nick. [Speaker 3] Mine's more a comment. I think it's awesome that we've got that sort of voice of the customer coming in and great to see the importance of the groups growing as well. It's really good timing with standing up the supply chain group. Thinking about what you were just saying, Steve, like how would they have influence and when should they get a say? I feel like there should be a little bit of a threshold that they come and work constructively first before they get to change the direction fully or, you know, influence the direction. I don't think, you know, just signing up as an implementer should be enough to then change the direction. I feel like it should be sign up as an implementer, come and work, test out, you know, a trial implementation and then take the feedback back to that governance group saying, you know, hey, it needs to change here, it needs to change there, or it works for us. That's just a logical thought that I have. [Speaker 1] I also want, we should probably be careful to distinguish between two types of language extenders, which is a whole industry group, like all the members of the Global Battery Alliance taking UNTP and creating, in essence, a specialized standard versus individual implementers, this software company or that company. So we're not so much proposing that the individual implementers have a governance voice other than joining whatever either this group or one of the extension working groups, that would be their voice. Yeah, it's more the voice of the extenders. Gideon, you were next with your hand up. [Speaker 4] Yeah, thanks for that. A couple of things sort of spring to mind, and one of them Nancy mentioned earlier is interoperability between different ones. And then, you know, if there's any going to be any benchmarking or peer review across how do we actually ensure that that's able to be done, not necessarily saying that everything has to be the same, but it needs to be consistent in a number of ways. And from a conformity sort of world, if you like, we really need to understand how these things are going to influence and affect the global conformity assessment side of things to ensure that we can actually have those mutual recognition going forward as well. I know it's probably a different part to it, but it needs considering early on. [Speaker 1] Yeah, thanks Gideon. Just quickly on that, I hear the word interoperability used in two different contexts when talking about UNTP and conformance schemes. One is kind of data interoperability. Can someone who is used to reading UNTP digital passports, can they also read a battery passport or a livestock passport? That one's a more technical vocabulary ontology kind of question, and the extension framework is designed to accommodate that. And it's a tricky balance, right, to say you want to make UNTP core as simple as possible, but avoid too many different extensions of the same thing. And it's not yet clear exactly where the boundaries are. The other more challenging interoperability question I hear quite often, and more from scheme owners, conformity scheme owners, is interoperability between scheme criteria. And what they really mean there is comparability or equivalence of performance rules. That's a rather more difficult problem. And Brett's got that one on his plate, not to solve world hunger in it, but to provide guidance about how the world can start to understand those things. Because this is the bigger problem, I think, when it comes to sustainability across the world is, do you mean the same thing as me when I talk about how I measure carbon footprint or whatever? [Speaker 4] Can I just come back on that one? Because it's not only that, it's also about consistency. As well, in terms of the level of requirements and the way they're actually managed and things like that, within a conformity assessment that is also needed to be considered in these kinds of things. And we've applied from an ESG point of view, environmental social governance, we're already looking at different schemes who are trying to work out how you can actually provide your information from one scheme, working on one scheme into another and things like that. But there is compatibility. There is also consistency issues as well, I think, that need to be considered. [Speaker 1] Yes, it's a tricky one. And there is a one page on the NTP site called the Sustainability Vocabulary Catalog, which you might have a look at, which is beginning to think about how do scheme owners publish their stuff in a digitally referenceable way? How do you start to categorise criteria across scheme owners and so on? Brett, I'll leave that to you, though. It's your hands up. That's your pain point. [Speaker 5] I wasn't planning on talking about that hideously complex topic, actually. But yeah, that'll be front of mind in our conformity group, of course. I was just going to ask, Steve, with that extender meeting in Geneva, whether folks like me can attend, because I've been very interested in getting in touch with the extender group, because they will have interest in what we're doing with the conformity credential. [Speaker 1] Oh, yeah. Well, you'll be there anyway, won't you? Let me talk to Matthias. I think you'd be a valuable contributor. So, yes. [Speaker 7] Steve, I've also suggested in our extenders WhatsApp chat that we invite Michael as part of the adoption group to that session as well. Okay. All right. So, talking to Matthias, Michael, and Brett. [Speaker 1] Yeah. I'll remember that. Just make a note to yourself. [Speaker 6] Okay. On the extenders, or the extension process, I guess it was more just a comment about, particularly, it sounds a little bit like some of these improvement processes. So, you know, maybe there's something to steal on how some of the different Web3 projects actually work, because they are community-driven enhancements to the base chains or the base ecosystems. So, instead of reinventing stuff, that it may be a way to do it, a UNTP improvement process of some sort. [Speaker 1] Yeah. [Speaker 6] Okay. [Speaker 1] Thanks. I think that's all hands up on that issue dealt with. We might just have five minutes from those that are on the call that represent their subgroup. So, just before we do that, if you'll remember, we've created four subgroups, three of which have a lead. Still missing a technical lead. Hopefully coming soon. And this meeting will have a brief update from each lead. For the leads, by the way, you know, there's, I don't know, about 300 tickets, issues on the GitHub repository, 200 or so of which are closed. There's about 80-something open. I've gone through and tagged them all with my just best guess of which group is responsible to answer them. So, you might want to have a look at that as a group owner and see which ones have your tag against them. Not very many. There's a lot of technical ones, and that's the group I don't have a lead for yet. But I hope that as these groups take off, this whole UNTP conversation will get less technical and more business-centric, in which case we'll get more tickets relevant to each group. So, let's kick off. Who wants to go first? [Speaker 5] Brett, a quick update of what's going on with conformance? Yeah, sure. So, we've not had our kickoff meeting yet. We have established the mailing list. I think we're up to about 37 members. Of course, we're more interested in quality than quantity, and I'm happy to say that the quality is pretty good. Well, Gideon's an example. So, Gideon's involvement actually came about through a representation that we made to ISOCASCO recently, and it's really always been my private view that ultimately the work of the conformity credential group should be administered or owned or at least taking guidance from ISOCASCO because there is an existing global conformity assessment arrangement, and we're not trying to set up a competing system. But in the meantime, we're doing our best to respect global conformity norms, and that'll be something that we'll be working with going forward. Our kickoff meeting is scheduled for the 15th of July. [Speaker 1] Awesome. Thanks, Brett. And you're right, not reinventing the wheel and aligning with important established groups is critical. And fortunately, UN does have a memorandum of understanding with ISO, and there is a pathway at some point if it deemed useful to co-publish things. So, let's see if that's worth pursuing at some point. Who's next? [Speaker 6] I'll go next. [Speaker 1] Adoption? [Speaker 6] Yep. We had our call, our first formal call just before this call. It was light attendance. I am wondering if there is a gaggle. I don't know that for a fact. I also had a screw up in that something happened. I copied the wrong Zoom link. I thought it was the right Zoom link. And so, I think everybody who was trying to get in got on. But it was a good conversation. We went through the terms of reference. People were in agreement. Obviously, they'll evolve as we get going. Talked about the Global Battery Alliance, the Copper ICA, and the New Implementers Act mentioned as well. So, it was a good first start, I think, but looking forward for the next one to get more people on the call so we can actually start assigning people out to different areas within the terms of reference. [Speaker 3] Hey, Michael, how many folks do you have in your group now, roughly? [Speaker 6] Well, if I look at the mailing list, it's about 15. Yeah. Okay. But my concern right now is that I'm not convinced that everybody is actually… I think there was about 11 or 12 that we had on the first kickoff, which was a few weeks ago. And it was a light response. I don't know if that's the time because it was 10 o'clock Central European. And if that caused some people just not to attend, the next call will be 11 o'clock in the morning. So, two weeks from now. [Speaker 5] Okay. Well, I think with the wider mailing list, there's quite a few folks that are just trying to keep tabs on things. They're not really interested in doing a whole heap of work, whereas the working groups sound a bit more like some actual input is required. So, I'm not surprised that the number is a bit lower than the main list. Yep. Yeah, absolutely. [Speaker 1] We've got about 300 on the main list of which Brett's right. I think 80% are just interested to be kept informed, nothing more. And so, you would expect maybe between 10 and 20 on the subgroups. And that's more than enough. Okay. [Speaker 3] Over to Nick for the quantity. I'm going to get this right, but we definitely have quality. So, we've got about eight folks, which I think is interesting because we're sort of looking at the implementation to particular standards and DPPs and applying it to a supply chain. And we have had some initial discussions, not a whole group meeting, but I've caught up with all of the members, Bartu, and got their input on how we should work, what we should avoid, and what are the priority areas to start on, as well as some of the priority stakeholders. So, it's really, really interesting for me. I'll just share our draft terms of reference here on the screen quickly so that you can take a look. And I think one insight I have is just the overlap between what we're doing and Michael and Brett's group. Sorry, Michael and Brett's group will be pretty important as well. So, we've tried to put this in relatively plain language, and this is draft, but the first, we sort of listed a building off what you did, Brett, objectives, purpose, and some near-term goals. So, I think our objectives will be what guides us, so it's probably really important to get these right, a little bit like a project objective statement. And so, what we've got at the moment is to try and deliver, in partnership with any scheme implementers, real-world applications of the UNTP, which would include the DPPs, the DFRs, all the acronyms, which we're trying to keep out of the title now, Steve. Also, there was a really great suggestion around communicating lessons learned, both for the benefit of our internal team, as well as for new implementers that might come along, and also try to kind of keep the approaches to managing the interplay of data simple. So, I think Brett and Gideon, I think you can think that we will take a look at the schemes, we will try and come up with some mapping of how things would work, and then I think that's a place where we come back to you guys as, you know, conformity specialists to say, would this work? You know, does this approach work? I think we've got a mixture of ideas on how to do that at the moment, so we're not quite at the point of having something to bring, but I think that's going to be in focus for us. There's some words there around, you know, why do we have those objectives, which I won't read through, but if we translate that to some sort of tangible goals that we might set ourselves, I think we're going after two to three implementations or extensions. I've sort of avoided the word extension here, Steve, purely just because I think we're going to try and work out the boundary of what's core and what's extension, so I didn't want to just preempt it all, but I also don't think that this can be limited to two to three. If we end up with lots more organisations and groups coming in, I think that's fine. We'll try our best to coordinate them, and then that can grow the number of implementations that we're trying to support, but then there's also one there about taking some lessons learned from past work, so I think that'll be an active area for us. We'll probably come to try and interview some of you who have implemented on the recent initiatives, and importantly as well, we've got a sort of a starting list of stakeholders that we'll need to maintain, which will include some of those scheme owners as well, and keep the comms up with them. So I really welcome any feedback here in the chat or verbally, and that's sort of the direction that we're taking. [Speaker 1] Okay, just a quick question. What do the working groups think about the level of transparency that should be followed in terms of publishing meetings? With this one, we basically just make the Zoom link, but this conversation we're having will be open, and a summary of it, and so on. Do we think it's necessary to have the same level of transparency for the working groups, or what's the right level? Do we publish the full meeting recordings or just like an AI summary? We've got to get into the sort of pattern of having a meeting and then updating your page on the UNTP site. What are your thoughts? I mean, as a minimum, you should have a meeting summary. [Speaker 6] I think the minimum meeting summary and maybe a transcript. I guess the question that I have around it, Steve, as well is that, I mean, I'm using my Zoom link for my Zoom, so where do the recordings end up sitting? And for a little while, it doesn't make a difference if it's mine, but from over time, I don't know how much- You close your account and the recording doesn't appear. [Speaker 1] Yeah. So let's have a think about that one. We can move them to YouTube or whatever, but I think the more important thing is just that we routinely publish perhaps a transcript that we can export and upload to GitHub and an AI summary. That way, that's sort of permanently there then. We don't really need the video recording, I don't think, as long as there's transparency on what was discussed. Gideon? [Speaker 4] I think that's right. I think what would be helpful is maybe if there's some ability to tag in some way so different groups that you have actually see things that might be relevant or potentially the group that themselves think would be relevant for cross-fertilization. It might help to then be looking out for certain things then maybe. [Speaker 1] Yes. I suggest at the moment, I mean, I think the boundaries between group responsibilities are sort of at best at the moment, vaguely fuzzy. And as the groups work on a little bit, hopefully they'll become clearer and people will get used to saying, I think that's an adoption group thing, toss it over the fence. One way to make that visible is through tickets on GitHub. So if you're discussing something and you think we should really make this a publicly visible issue and we think it's got some impact on the adoption group, what you can do is raise a ticket, tag it for a conformity group, but also tag adoption group. And that way routinely, when the subgroups meet and they go to GitHub and they say, show me all the tickets that are tagged for me, they'll see something that perhaps the conformity group created, but is tagged for the adoption group as well. I suggest that's one, at least until someone comes up with a better way, that's not a bad way to have visibility across groups of issues. [Speaker 5] Brett. So Steve, until I'm told differently, I'm just going to do what I did for the original digital product conformity certificate exchange project under UNCFACT, which is just to run using my company team's account and not to publish recordings, but to make sure that we produce decent minutes. I suppose I feel that we can record and publish everything, but how much use is that really serving? No one's going to watch all these recordings and for our own group, I'm trying to encourage participation, not have people not bother turning up because they know they can watch the recording, which they won't end up doing anyway, if you know what I mean. But anyway, I'm happy to implement whatever I'm told to do, but that's my current position and I think Gideon's right, the most important thing is identifying issues that interface across groups. [Speaker 1] Okay. Well, I think the collective viewpoint here is aligned with what you're expecting, Brett, which is use whatever tools you want for meetings, don't need to publish recordings, but do need to publish quality minutes, whether they're AI generated or not, on your page, on the UNTP site, and then across collaboration, we just use those tagged issues. Does that suit everyone? I think that that's good enough for now. Yeah. Okay. No objections. All right. Right. Technical group, since it doesn't have a lead, I'll just very quickly say I'm trying to untwist a couple of very strong candidates to see if we can get them to take that role. I won't go through a whole bunch of the issues. There's probably two things I just want to say. One is our testing architecture is maturing. As you know, at the moment, there's a, what's called a playground. If you're a potential implementer, you can create product passports from your system and drop them into the playground to test them and it'll check their vocabulary conformance, schema conformance and stuff like this. But one of the key tenets of UNTP is that actually sometimes, or in fact, more than sometimes, very often what you want to validate is not just what's in a single credential, but actually the relationship between credentials, right? So this passport makes a claim against a criteria. Is there a conformity credential that makes an assessment against the same criteria? And therefore, can I make a connection between these two things and lift my confidence in the claim? That's just one example of what you might call a verifiable linked data graph. And so we're close, I think, and Zach might know better than me, to upgrading the playground so that you can drop more than one credential in there and it can show you verifiable links, right? Which is actually beginning to demonstrate the power of a decentralized verifiable information graph and kind of make it real for people. Because use words like verifiable linked data graph in conversations like this, and I don't know what it means to most people, but making it real, I think, is an interesting and looming opportunity. So look out for that. One other thing I would like to bring up for the technical group is we did get a feedback from a whole consortium of blockchain platform vendors that was a very politely and carefully worded feedback, which is now manifested as a ticket on our GitHub site, which refers to one particular requirement on the verifiable credentials profile page on UNTP, where it currently says something to the effect that when issuing verifiable credentials, you must support the web or, you know, and you must not enforce anyone to adopt a particular blockchain platform. And then when you read the wording, it could be inferred as being taking a bit of a, almost a political position against blockchain. And so interestingly, it triggered quite a, like I said, a significant and very politely worded, you know, could you reconsider the wording of that requirement? So I have two things to say about that. One, it's interesting that we are getting some attention to the details of some of these things. And there is, you know, we do need, I think, to think about how we position blockchain in this, right? I'm a little bit of a blockchain skeptic, but that doesn't mean to say I want to tell anyone that they shouldn't use blockchain. We just got to get the navigation around this wording, right? So I might send an email out about that. Gideon? [Speaker 4] Yeah, I did see the email chain to start off with that. And I went off and then started looking at blockchain because I looked at it for a while and tried to wade myself through the book originally on blockchain wasn't easy. And when I started looking at what they were saying, I think there's an issue that we need to be careful on in terms of accessibility for everyone. And we'll make it sound as if it's easy to do. And it's not going to cost too much. Actually, there seems to be quite some costs with some of it. So I think it needs to be carefully handled because some might feel excluded or barriers to it. If it's perceived that that's the route to go. [Speaker 1] Yes, yes. And the way I read their feedback, they're not proposing that we somehow take a pro-blockchain advocacy position where they're just asking for a tweak in the wording to maybe sound a little bit less negative about blockchain. So you have to think about it. And it's valid feedback. And I was impressed that they were quite serious and polite about it. And I think we should take it seriously and just think of how to express it. [Speaker 4] Yeah, I think I agree with you totally, but just worried that it goes the other way, if you like. Yes. And swings the other way, if we're not careful. So just a thought. [Speaker 1] I'm 100% with you on that. So we will take great care and have consensus around the revised wording before we update anything. All right. Well, we're coming close to the end. The only last thing I wanted to mention. Oh, Brett, I'm sorry. [Speaker 5] No problem. With our precursor work on the conformity credentials, we essentially decided the blockchain was not relevant and it was not mentioned in any of our publications. So that would be my recommendation. What any implementation should do is align with the principles, and blockchain probably does not. But if it can, well, good luck to them. We shouldn't exclude them. [Speaker 1] Yes. And that's the kind of delicate wording we want to have. And like I said, we'll think of something and ask for consensus on it before we make any updates. Zach? [Speaker 7] I actually just wanted to add a little bit on the technology update side. We have released all of the components for 0.6. So that's up and ready to test and ready to validate. So if people are running pilots or running projects, we should be all using 0.6. And that kind of also means that we're starting like the intent of 0.6 was to get kind of the technical schema updates in place. And as we head towards 0.7 or even a 1.0 release, we really want to get to the business validation side of things. So it's important to collaborate and test on these things. [Speaker 1] Yeah. And most of the weight on that will sit on Nick and Brett's shoulders. But thank you. Last quick thing. There are a couple of new projects being launched at UNCFAC that have some overlap with us and may actually lead to some parts of UNTP drifting off to be owned by another project. One of them is the Global Trust Registry project led by John from CESU and Alina from the Spanish Business Registry. And yeah, DIA, whoever typed that. That's exactly what one of the UNTP pages says. This is how you link some random self-sovereign identity to some authoritative identity. It's called a digital identity anchor. And actually, we added it to UNTP because it's important to know really who's issuing and signing a digital product passport or a digital conformity credential. But it's broader than UNTP if you think about it, because the same question applies to who issued that invoice or that purchase order or that bill of lading. So we're going to shift the DIA specification to that group. There is also another group called VC for Trade, which is basically applying many of the same UNTP principles about how data is bundled, signed, verifiable, moved around in a very scalable way to not just digital product passports and facility records, but to all trade documents, invoices, purchase orders, waybills. And that might mean that things like the verifiable credentials profile is better suited there than UNTP. I'm just flagging that these other projects for two reasons. One, people might be interested in them. Two, we might sort of re-architect a little bit the collection of UN standards and say some of these UNTP bits and pieces actually belong better over there. Just flagging that and looking for any thoughts. [Speaker 8] I was curious, Steve, I did see a bit of an exchange around the second group for the updates that were made to DidWeb, DidWeb VH. [Speaker 1] Yes. [Speaker 8] Did you get any further along that line? Can I ask? Is that a... [Speaker 1] I think there's a, to put it mildly, a very strong appetite in the Global Trust Registry group to, and for that matter in the VC for Trade group, because that's part of the VC profile, to see at what point we can promote WebVH, DidWeb VH, right? Because it's, particularly, I think, for digital identity anchors and particularly, especially for the issuer of digital identity, digital identity anchors and the authority, I think the increased robust key exchange and key history mechanism that comes with WebVH is really valuable. So, yeah, and I know the people on that group are close to it. So, I think we'll see it come through. It's good work. It started in Canada, that, right? So, yeah. All right. Well, look, we're three minutes before. I thought we finished a bit earlier, but we had a bit of a healthy discussion about the plenary and the relationship between groups and stuff. So, I've got a few actions, which is to go to the gaggle list, extract all the email addresses and send out an email, not from Gaggle, but from me to say, hey, you may have missed a bunch of emails and find out how many have missed. And it may even drive us to reconsider Gaggle, which would be a bit of a pain because I've just moved from Google. But let's see. And also to send out a note asking everyone which country are they from and whether they're interested to write something supporting to their head of delegation and to contact us so that we can provide that. I don't want to broadcast head of delegation email accounts publicly, I think. But for those that are willing to write, we'll respond with the contact details. And then I've got an action to add Brett and Michael to the UNTP extenders meeting in Geneva. And Nancy's got her hand up. [Speaker 2] Oh, yeah. Thanks. Yeah, I was just, this is really a comment for Brie. Do you think that we could, do you think that there's appetite within BC government to get more involved on the digital identity anchor trust registries project? [Speaker 8] I was trying. I was trying to get some of the developers like Deans on board with the EIA, but for BCGov, Nancy, I feel like, like, should we flag it for citizen services, do you think? I have every chance I get, I put a link to that exact UNCFAC project page, like the official project page. [Speaker 1] It takes a while sometimes for the momentum to build on these things, but sometimes it can. So this, the impetus in a national effort sense is the Spanish business registry, because they're co-leading it. And I think once other nations start to see examples of a nation actually building national trust infrastructure, that then they start to follow. So the other big one, that's not a co-lead, but is very interesting is India. They've got a huge register, probably the world's biggest identity register, right? And they're very interested. They show up with five or six. [Speaker 8] I did a presentation this morning at the trust over IP, I missed it. But yes, I'm curious, like, Steve, have we gotten in front of India, Bhutan, some of these countries, like, I feel like they would be such a good fit. And Nancy, I wouldn't give up on BCGov. Hmm. I feel like if we... [Speaker 1] Yeah. So more than in front of India, India has formally, is formally participating in the Global Trust Registry project, and shows up with five or six delegates at a meeting. And I think they're taking it quite seriously. So they could be quite a powerful influencer and reference. And I know that the consequence of Spain and India participating in this is also stirring a little bit of interest with our own domestic Australian tax office going, oh, maybe we should look at this too. So they're not formally participating, as far as I know, but they're definitely aware of it. [Speaker 7] Yeah, there have been a few sessions here locally around that, and there's some interest that we're kind of building that momentum as well. [Speaker 1] All right. You still got your hand up, Nancy, is that left over? Yeah, it's left over. Okay. [Speaker 11] I actually need to jump now. [Speaker 1] Yeah, we're one minute past. So thank you everyone for your attendance. I've got a few actions. As usual, we'll record, we'll publish this recording and minutes and so on and so forth. [Speaker 8] Thank you. Good luck. Good luck next week, everyone. Thank you. [Speaker 1] Thanks a lot. Bye.