Website review (Brett Hyland)
Brett Hyland (a respected contributor to UN/CEFACT work amongst many other areas) offered the following comments on the website as of 22 Jan 2026 0906 AEDT...
Hi John, my overall comment on the GTR site is that there seems to be parallel lines of the same information, expressed differently, that gives the website a rather burdensome feeling, across the following pages at least:
- About the Project
- Purpose Scheme and Name
- Background
- Economic Argument
- Economic Argument Supporting Research
In particular, the purpose of the project is stated so many times, in so many different ways, that I’m not actually sure what the purpose is.
About the Project
In the opening Diagram in the ‘Introduction to the Project’, I find the blue text to be distracting, rather than enlightening. It might be cleaner if the text across the top read “Trade participants based in jurisdictions”, then on the lefthand side I would have a section of blue squiggly line labelled ‘Cross-border trade” and below that have the text “Authoritative registrars having relevance to trade.” Then I would greatly increase the size of the boxes “Directory Management” and “Directory Access” to make clearer that trade participants have direct access and finally I would delete the key/legend at the bottom.
More broadly, I think the opening page fumbles the connection of GTR to supply chains and for that matter the relationship of GTR to DIA.
I would delete the following paragraph, which leaves the reader wondering, what is a DIA and why would the GTR project seek to help UNTP (whatever that might be)?: “In addition, the project will recommend how Registrars can use the UNTP "Digital Identity Anchor" (DIA) specification to issue verifiable identifiers for supply chain relevant claims and how these can further support global supply chain transparency and verification. This will include recommendations on the use of the DIA specification, as well as recommendations on the specification itself for the UNTP team.”
Instead, I would say that synergies have been identified between GTR and another CEFACT project, the UN Transparency Protocol (provide a reference), which is aimed at combating greenwashing in international supply chains. Verifying the reliability of product claims is a trade-critical aspect in which authoritative registrars play a key role and the UNTP has produced a supporting specification, the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA), by which authorities may issue verifiable identifiers for trade-relevant claims. To achieve this, UNTP has identified W3C Verifiable Credentials as a secure, platform-independent and scalable means of exchanging such credentials. Exploring the implications for registrars of the UNTP DIA and the use of VCs will form the second project objective of the GTR project.
In any case, subsequent ‘explanatory’ text looks like it was written by AI, ie, full of relevant words but the meaning fails to materialise. “This will require the project to align with recognized interoperability standards and promote semantic consistency through structured data models, enabling smooth integration across legal, administrative, and digital ecosystems.”
Purpose schedule and name
I would delete this section by moving any items considered critical into the ‘About the project page”
Economic argument
I have never heard the term “paper on glass” and I would drop it.
The ‘Economic Argument’ page gives a clearer technical description of the solution than elsewhere, but I wonder if this is the right section for it. Consider providing a reference to technical descriptions that are better to be held elsewhere on the website.
Another general comment is that there seem contradictory expressions across the website as to whether DIA is part of the GTR project or part of UNTP. I would make this clear in one place and then not muddy the water elsewhere.
Dunno if the above is helpful or just annoying, John, but I mean well :)
Cheers Brett