Trust Registry TF Monthly Meeting- AMERICAS+EMEA Time Zone - 2026/09/17

Hi Ser. >> Hello. Hello. >> September is half over. Can you believe it? >> The year is nearly past us. I can't believe that one. >> Same. Darren usually makes it a point to post an agenda. He did not. So, I'm not very sure if we have a meeting, but we'll see. Hello, colleague. >> Hello, Kie. >> Hello. Hello. I don't know if Daryl knows for having >> on my calendar. >> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Or if he is there a chat uh I'm looking in the chat because sometimes the chat is like oh by the way >> in the Slack >> in the Yeah. No, the Discord. >> Oh, Discord. Okay, >> let me see. the Trust Registry Task Force. The last message August 20th. >> Yes, it is not the most chatty channel. >> No. [laughter and sighs] Um, while we're waiting, just uh I got a I got a message yesterday from AI FAQ about setting up a reference implementation for uh doing AI reporting for trust IP. >> Well, that's good news. Mhm. I just have to go through the email and then um figure out what the next step is. Hello, Scott. I sent a message to Daryl in the uh Discord. >> Okay. So because my my question coming into the meeting is what are we doing? [clears throat] >> I don't know. >> I think I think the answer to that Scott is in two parts. One is Daryl at the last meeting Daryl was keen on formalizing the trust over IP trust registry part of your question which is how does uh the TRQP get uh adopted by groups like the COG C2PA and and while DAL is participating in in the meetings and conver sessions that you held there are certain things that we need to do as part of the uh specs in uh in trust over IP that we wanted to sort out. That was the primary thing. The second thing was that we had a few issues on the backlog related to uh uh advancing some of the topics that fell out in the version two and how do we bring that those back in a version three and be able to also take stock of other registry implementations and see how the main specification which is the upstream can be uh made uh more advanced. in context of all of that. So, it is uh a spec development and an implementation adoption two-part topic that Daryl was exploring. That's where we left it last time we met. >> Okay. So, you know, our challenges within the COG are that the TRQP is just very generic >> and we're going to, you know, put some verbiage or descriptions or specifications above it whether the TRQP does it or not because we have to have a you know a useful use use case associated with it and TRQP didn't really have a use case, okay? It was just coming up with something generic that people might want to do when things start to congeal in the marketplace. Well, I'm pushing cuz this is, you know, this isn't the only available protocol that's used to communicate with trust registries. So I took it and it's it needs to be now more defined around you know so that we in the cog or use cases around the world are not you know thinking out of the box to try to fix it. So we need specificity uh regarding a variety of use cases using this protocol because you know I was at the global digital collaboration and trust registries was a big com you know was was a big part of it and Daryl was at was at the session so he's he's hearing all these things >> indeed >> and I expect him to come in with a list of okay I just went to the GDC these are the things that we need to do to add to the TRQP to get ahead of uh the requirements that people are coming in to use it. >> Yes. Uh I think I think there are there are again two parts that will emerge from this. One is the TRQP itself is going likely going to be the spec. it just the barebones spec with probably some bit of uh uh use case or adoption related uh here is how kind of uh content created hopefully but I think the the the more important part is what happens when uh implementers or adopters like era who are basing this uh registry on the trp also get involved in in use cases that that come out of COG C2PA and how they deal with stuff and that allows us to kind of create a very welldesigned parallel tracks that meet the requirements that you are so clearly uh putting forward which is specs need to be modern they need to be advanced but you also need to have enough for the implementers to understand what they need to do and how they are going to go ahead and do that. Right. No, I but you know I mean to answer your point some of the things that we're even asking in the cog are very generic. Okay. >> So >> and that that would be something >> and that's you know and also we need Drummond here because he's you know was listening and also you know is coming to the COG meetings and can hear it as well. So I'm not the only one saying these things but I know that Will and Maki you know attend some COG meetings. I just said draw a message on signal. >> Yeah. And so what we're coming up with is you know the generic call on the on the you know on the protocol is to say okay this individual is making a claim on a digital object and wants to refer to a trust registry where they have a certificate in so that you can say I'm I'm part of this trust registry and being part of this trust registry, I'm part of their the the governance framework that was set up to issue me this credential that I'm using on this digital object. And that's fine, but it, you know, the the the use case then gets into from a clog standpoint, okay, great. you have a gen you're you're you're um on the trust registry meaning that you did get a signingert from and and that's endorsed by this trust registry but it doesn't really give any credence around the use of a specific claim and trust registries are likely to get into you know more than the just the generic but get into specific uses of a claim certificate. Okay? And that's, you know, X509 does that all the time because, you know, you have EKUs said, you know, built in to to uh to to claiming signatures to say what is the use case? Okay, what's the extended key usage? Usage is the is the key word. And so, you know, I I I would say that the trust registry query protocol needs to get into at least an EKU at a minimum to, you know, to open up a variety of more use cases as opposed to I I at the cog I don't want to create that EKU specification. I I I I think it's so generic that it needs to come from the protocol specification. >> Yes. Uh I I don't think there's disagreement on that. And selfishly, I had hoped that today I I would be listening to Darl explaining how the GDC event went and in terms of uh requirements coming out and we plan that try to fit that back into the DRQP uh V3 uh road map that we were building up. But I don't think that's going to happen. I am not sure if Drummond is back at Seattle. He was traveling. So >> no, he was he was in DC yesterday. So I don't know if he when he flew or when you know he could be >> you know there is Wi-Fi at times on the planes but uh anyway but you know if there is some recording or something that's what we need to that's my proposal for the next step for the TRQP is to come up with the usages and to pull trust registries for the usage in addition into that whether they're located on a trust registry because that will open up you know that you know that's the next step really of its maturity. Um, >> I'm thinking about uh extended key usage for I mean there's going to be a huge class of ways to specify would it I I I'm just thinking here would it be better instead to to be like I like to say here's the uh syntax by which your ecosystem will document their extended key usage policies and then uh um and rather than so then rather than trust over IP being the source of that vocabulary, it depends on the ecosystem, but they all follow the same syntax. >> Yeah. Well, it's pretty baked into at least X509. Now as you get to verifiable credentials we need to find an alternative to that. So what we're building within the cog and we just started actually you know because there's you know they're they're saying okay we need to build a certificate policy and part of the certificate policy would be creating a specific EKU. Right now our EKU is the SMIE and that's doesn't make any sense. We want content signing and so you know so that there's three I guess three tiers once is the identity of the claimant then is the type of claim signature that they're using EKU content signing and then the third which is you know would come is going to come up and I don't know if we do it in COG or not is the specific use of the claim of the EKU against a specific digital object. Do they have the right to do that? Whether it's a, you know, the class of digital objects or that specific digital object. These are the questions that will be needed to be pulled to a trust registry. Say, do they have the right to do that or have they been endorsed to do that? And the other key thing that we're missing at least it's difficult for me to find is yes no and the protocol needs to and maybe I've been told that it's there but you know for for a user like like cog we need to know what the validation is. If someone used the protocol to say I'm going and I'm using this, there should be validation codes or processes to say yes this is correct you know it is on the trust registry or this EKU is you know acceptable by the trust registry you know or not right yes no and I don't know where I would find that so that we can build that into our cog and specifications because that's part of the cog specification is the validation codes we get back when we make queries. So, so these are the things that I bring to the table as I think the you know the first main user of the TRQB. I don't I did not hear at the GDC anyone using this. Okay. But we want to use it. And if we want to use it, this group needs to be receptive to it or it doesn't exist. >> Can you hear me? [clears throat] >> Yeah, I can hear you. Are you flying over the United States? Who knows? I don't even know where you are. It's like where's where's one of those? >> I'm flying uh on I'm on the metro to Reagan airport [clears throat] and uh I I just >> Yes, I've been there before. Yes, it's not easy. You hit some tunnels. Go ahead. >> I just came out of the tunnel so I should be okay now. Yeah, we're going over the the Um anyway, sorry I just joined. I couldn't get on earlier because I got to be on this train to get to the airport. Um and and I was just going to say TRQP did come up um in the uh in the uh uh the grid the UNC grid session at GDC. So um I mean that was the only trustworthy session I was in, but we did we definitely discussed it there. You're right. We have to >> um whatever you know the meeting the COG requirements for trust registries. Absolutely. Um, I don't see uh uh I think Daryl had a conflict today because of his travels, so I don't see him there, but I'm I'm happy to try and answer any any questions that come up about, you know, usage. >> Well, we we need to put on the docket the next version. So, cuz I think the first version got our attention in COG, which is great, but as we're looking and we've been wrestling with this for the last month, um it's it's too generic for us and we've decided even this week and you were on the call that, you know, it's not enough and we're going to have to bake in more specifications above what the TRP does. And I don't think that's what this this group has intended. So I'm just that's what I'm reporting and this group can say okay you know this is the way it's going to be. It's going to be extremely generic and but I I think we can do more here. That's what I'm saying. >> Yeah. Know >> these are the types of requirements and so I want to get it on the docket. I don't want questions answered. I wanted on the docket that we will as a group here work on trying to advance the next version of this protocol to include these types of things that I know others will want. We specifically need it. >> So totally hear you. I was not on the call um the co call this week. I did answer a question from uh Charlie um I can't remember his last name uh on the on the >> Halford. >> Yeah, Charlie Halford. I answered a question that he he posted I think after the call this week. I answered it last night on the on the diff Slack. But is there Scott a document um of those uh specific requirements that that uh Cog's looking for um that we can reference? Yeah, I can tell you I'm not the best in taking notes on on task force meetings. So, um so and usually I spend most of the time just kind of hurting the cats here. Um I think um between Charlie, Eric, and myself, um I think we can carve that out and that's a fair request. So I can talk to Eric and you know and and we can you know and we can follow up you know so that you know I >> Yeah. So that would be and Charlie is the key person in this because he's running a trust registry and he you know he's he's re he has been the big challenge for me is to get Charlie to buy into the fact that we have this protocol and he's in. I don't want to lose him. I really don't and and so I want him adopting and getting forward. So >> I totally agree with you. So I want to be, you know, very responsive. Um again, that's why I try to make sure to answer his question on on deadl. But if if if we can get that document together so we can be very what are the requirements, you know, what's missing, what what what is needed, then we can uh move on it, I think, pretty fast. >> Okay. So, I I will take a note and I will poll and uh and Eric on Slack and uh see if we can come up with some bullet point items for for this group as far as uh needed requirements um to advance the the protocol. >> Will you have your hand up for a long while being curious about it? Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, so, uh, a couple things. One, I'm glad the call is being recorded. I think that was the message at the beginning of the call. [laughter] Um, as I take my own little notes here. The other is um, Hand as an IRA association member has made uh, progress in steps to support sustainup support for TRQP with the hand registry >> [snorts] >> uh, in a limited basis because of a crawl kind of a crawl walkound approach. But part of our curiosity, I think, comes to the core of the question that Scott raised at the beginning and people like Charlie Halford from BBC raised is like, so who's using it? Who's asking for it? And so what? [laughter] uh and those questions are going to be with us, I think, in the chicken egg model until we get to implementations that are driving value for organizations and for for uh systems that are reliant on the TRQP as was as intended. >> I'll leave that there. Go hands. >> So, this is Dr. I completely agree. Um, you know, first person cooperative is in that buckets as we're now asking folks ask specifically, all right, if we connect our trust community or our verifiable trust network, how is it verified that we are a member? And of course, we TRQP and trust registry is our whole answer to that. That's the whole reason we've been so we're we're in that same bucket and uh we're not >> we're not actually implementing a trust registry right now but in the next uh six to9 months we will be and we will be completely dependent on it. So yeah we're a customer too. >> Yeah I I guess we can't offer the world a circular answer pointing back to CA. it has to have a some linearity toward it toward a progression that's beneficial for all the stakeholders. um hand is questioning or just wondering not questioning wondering are we to your point Drummond in these early days one of the first registries to uh in in as we're preparing to stand up support for it in that position of supporting TRQP against a registry. >> The answer is unquestionably yes. Um the other you know the other it's a significant customer uh and sorry about the noise but um is you know the the UNCE ECE grid project um you know they're they're totally a you know registry of registries of uh national you know national um uh authorities and uh they you know TRTP is absolutely made for that. So um and they are you know that's why I was on the on that panel at G GBC. Um so so we similarly um they're they're like there's no other protocol right now they're they're saying is going to uh you know meet that need. So we have the leading candidate to do it and as they need to stand up they're in public review right now but once that finishes then they start implementations. Um, so they're they're at the table for commuting, too. I got to get off the train here. >> We all know the met we all know the DC Metro. >> Yes. Well, we're off the train now. So, uh, signal should be better. I just got to figure out where to go. So, yeah. So, I think, you know, in some ways, this is exactly where we wanted to be. One of the reasons Darl wanted to get 2.0 go out was to say, "All right, you turn up and start building those implementations. We need to get the early implementers at the table and you know and finding out, okay, does it work? What's missing?" You know, uh I know sorry that was noise should be down now. Um, affinity is also and I remember you know working with uh a bunch of us on [clears throat] decentral the decentraliz trust graph. Uh they have some discovery requirements the protocol does not currently meet. Um and so they also are preparing a requirements to talk about that. So, you know, I I think we just have to have to start taking in these, you know, sort of basically as much as we were like pushing to get to a 2.0, we got to start into the cycle and take in the requirements and say, you know, what's necessary is it going to be a 2.1, a 3.0, whatever it is, you know, let's we are still the leading candidate to fulfill this. And the other thing is um with DSP going to 1.0 this fall, we're in a perfect position to now define a trust pass binding. I've said for a while that that is something that should be part of the spec and we put it off because TSP was not at 1.0, but any next version we're going to do TSP is going to be at 1.0. So we should include a u a tsp binding um for uh for the protocol which by the way will make it both very efficient and it will deal with the issue of uh uh privacy um respecting or privacy preserving queries uh because you can uh you can tunnel those queries in uh TSP and yeah it's just it should be very efficient and very privacy preserving and that's why we're developing TSP. So all makes sense >> there. I guess one of the things that Scott will appreciate is come back to is that for any new initiative where it's potentially um a kind of new paradigm you want to know if the juice is worth the squeeze the costbenefit analysis meets uh plays out that the investment in time and development cycles uh is has some kind of a compounding or if not exponential factor of value for any of the players or or the stakeholders who are participating in the ecosystem. Maybe hard to define right now though, but still uh that is a that's part of uh a metric that people should be thinking about mindful of >> it. It is the classic thing that applies to any protocol, right? you know, and and but every protocol has to start with the first adopters. Um, and you know, we're we're seeing that for GSP. I mean, the whole the whole stack, everything we've been working on. >> So, uh, um, what what I'm clearly sensing now though is we need to uh, uh, well, we're currently meeting monthly, right? I mean, that's one of the reasons this this call I was like, oh yeah, that's right. There is a call this month. So it's not not a weekly call or bly call. So thank you for the reminder by uh by the way will I was I was like oh yeah I remember but is it it's on my calendar still weekly and I so I don't know which of those is actually happening and I need to update that. But in any case uh we need to also uh tap Daryl and start you know start this process of getting the requirements docs together reviewing them. We might need to go back to either We lost you there. >> Eight words there. >> Yeah. >> Crossing the battoic and I guess >> hope over into the battoic. You know, >> Reagan, >> there is a there is a growing backlog of issues listed on the TRTP registry and I think that since more stakeholders are putting together requirements document, it would be easier to sort of create a real backlog uh do a prioritize list and then uh push decide on pushing out whether a minor version or a major instinctively I think it's going to be V3. 3 rather than 2.1 primarily because if we get discovery in it would be a bit of a breaking change. So we might end up doing V3 but that's not something that we should bother about right away. I think right now we should be focused on ensuring that we have a the necessary set of requirements in the backlog for us to start building out the spec and any other adjacent content that needs to be done around the spec. Welcome back. >> Yeah, I don't know why. Uh I mean here I was clear of the train everything and it dropped me. Sorry about that. >> It happens. >> Uh secret just raised a good point about the backlog in the Do you want to say that again for Drummond's benefit? >> Yeah. So dram there is a growing set of topics in the backlog for the TRQP in the registry primarily uh connection from things we did not complete for V2 and then there are other inputs that were coming in now that I think in the past four weeks or so there has been renewed active interest and a whole set of requirements coming up >> it's best for us to do a backlog sprint with the topics added >> and uh then we and cut timelines and milestones will then just spring straight up towards getting this spec out. >> Great point. 100%. In fact, the perfect place um to uh to start putting those requirements or getting reference to those requirements is as um as issues. Um we should just start posting them as as issues. Um, so for instance, Scott, if you get a document together, if you posted an issue with even even if it's a Google doc or whatever, but just post an issue with a link to that, then we can >> No, I I could post I know how to do issues now on fantastic >> because then it's really nice because then we have a discussion thread right there and we can ask questions about it and >> and you know and then ideally turn around and say, "Oh, well, this is what needs to be in 2.1 or 3.0." So, that's great suggestions. Thank you, Shan. I'm all for it. Um, and of course, it helps with the asynchronous um activity. Uh, fantastic. Okay, I'm going to have to go through security here shortly. So, yeah, just I mean, I'm here, but you know what happens with security? Sometimes you have to >> Yeah. What else is on >> Yeah, because I'm not I wasn't uh clued into it. What else is on the agenda for today? Is is there uh are there any other key things that we want to go over? >> There isn't an agenda per se. I think one of the things we were looking forward to is having uh some feedback on the GDC conversations and any other conversations that has happened since. But uh given that we I think our current priority is getting a issue backlog in place to start making good progress. Uh we could wrap up the meeting here and give everybody around half an hour back that that wants to >> go ahead. I was um with regards to the TRQP GitHub, I my my development team would like access to that. I don't know. I don't think we're dialed into that quite yet if that's possible. >> Oh yeah. I mean GitHub is is it's open as public. Um you do not even have to be a uh SRP or DI member to you know to access that. So uh Sanen would could share um you know put in the chat the link to the uh uh >> add the link to the issues and hence the rep. >> Thank thank you. So appreciate that. >> Yeah. Perfect. And [clears throat] will any um you know as your team gets access any issues or questions they have um well if they're questions they should probably go on the discussion section of the repo but if they're you know issues or or requirements that they're saying well what about this absolutely just have them posted um um >> so so we can really make sure basically everything on the docket for the next version is in >> an issue uh or a discussion. Uh but ideally the issue is if it's you know if it is a a real requirement um that would get perfect >> and and that way we can Sorry I'm getting an announcement. >> Um but we can also uh uh you know Daryl I think everyone like they aware now is is officially a nomad at this point. Um I can't remember I think they're up to Bangkok. uh but uh you know he can work asynchronously on this stuff too and again we'll bring in uh uh more folks working on the decentralized trust stuff because our dependency on the on TRQP is is just going to go up and up um so we can we can you know start to bring resources bear making this happen um I do relative need See though, I do want to say um we should pull John Phillips back into the discussion as well because once they I think they get out of u public review the end of this month um at which point like I said they're moving into implementation uh as well and you know they're a huge uh customer at the table put it that way you know um I was on the panel with four no five others that for um basically different representing those different national uh trust registries um uh or or or business registries that are going to be part of that network and you know it's as clear as a bell it's like yes we need this yes it's taking a long time to get here and we need to go the focus was not I was the only one there to talk about the technical pieces um but it was just obvious everyone you know it's like they need a solution they want to implement this uh the grid infrastructure. Um, and uh, so we should we should pull John Phillips back into this too. >> Could you repeat who he's with? >> So John John Phillips is with uh, Seesu SO in Australia in Melbourne and you know he's a longtime contributor to Trust OP. He's on the steering committee. He was on the call our call yesterday and uh he's just not typically on these calls that we hold you know this is middle of the night in Australia. So, uh, we might want to, um, yeah, what one option we might want to cons consider is to do the same thing as the, uh, uh, steering committee does and if we hold our, if we moved our calls to two in the afternoon, uh, Pacific time, it still works generally for Europe, it's later, but that also then works for uh, for Australia and and folks like John will be able to join us. So, just a thought. Thank you. Appreciate [clears throat] >> you bet. And and Will, I want to connect with you. I gota let me get through security, but uh some really interesting u use cases in your industry are coming up um at this prohuman assembly I was just at. Um Joseph Gordon Levit was not there in person, but he did about a six minutee video that was just fantastic. I I hope they're going to release it on the internet. um and he uh he wants to bring a set of folks to the table around prohuman AI and they're going to need they're going to need our solution. >> Absolutely. Love to make the connection and find some financing. >> Yep. [laughter] That too. That too. >> Got to keep the lights on, baby. >> I know. >> Yellow. >> We're all in that situation. >> Everybody loves loves the lights. Cool. All right, I'm going to uh sign off from security. Thanks everyone and uh again, sorry I was late. Um rock and roll. >> All right, let's wrap this one up. Thank you all for joining. Uh I have posted a bunch of links as well including the grid project. the grid uh public review period ends 21st and right after that there are a bunch of pilots that are going planned to go live including one in Spain likely one in India and hopefully one in China that allows the grid project to demonstrate uh trade uh documents being uh exchanged and verified uh by using uh register information. So we'll see how that goes. And the you said that what ends on the 21st >> they are uh so the UN has a process of public review uh for uh documentation of specs that get created. The 21st is the public review end date. So the right now the grid uh work content is available for uh comment and feedback through multiple channels. There is a form, there is a word document, you know, somebody can write to the grid team and all of that. It's it's on the link that I posted of the grid. EC and at the risk of being kept obvious here. Has t has uh trust IP and TRQP submitted anything to grid? So the grid folks uh have been discussing what it means to adopt TRQP. Uh there's an there's an issue on the issue tracker that uh I believe the original submission was from me and there was a whole bunch of discussion going back and forth between John and to try and see how we can position TRQP and what we require out of TRQP to do that. So the grid folks are acutely aware of uh looking at TRQP as one of the mechanisms to deliver the set of capabilities that they're proposing to deliver. >> Uh thank you. Uh one more thing note on my my side of uh observing international and global cooperative efforts uh hopefully for the greater good of uh society. Um, the team at World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO has two organizations that I am monitoring and trying to actually get on to, although I missed the memo the first time they put out the call for participation. That's the um AI I A I I uh group and the uh 10 technical um uh [clears throat] like advisory committee that they're working on um how AI affects intellectual property and what systems and methods of protections are emerging to to be part of the kind of the solutions system or at least the guard rails around it. Um, and they're having a get together here in New York Friday and another big one, their uh second meeting of this year in Geneva in November. Uh, which I will probably not be there in person for uh, Travel Limited as I am, but I wanted to mention that um, that is got some pretty heavy hitters involved with it. Maybe nothing relevant to TRQP today, but um just wanted to put that in the record. >> Thank you. Uh given that this the recording of this call exists, so obviously we can point to anyone who's interested to look at the time snippet and be able to reference it. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Uh for those who if you are interested in joining one of the grid calls there is a call that happens uh so it's around 4 9 and a half hoursish from now that is geared towards getting the North America participation in and uh so if anyone is interested in joining that I can share the meeting link and you can take a decision. in whether we would have the time to join and stuff like we do that at least for those >> I'm off off to a nice call on persistent fires today. So >> here's the meeting link. >> Good to see you to have this conversation today. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Appreciate it. Until next time. Thanks.