 Okay, we are now live streaming as a backup. I'm going to resume the recording just because, and we'll give it to Faye and a few other folks a chance to join us. I am in another Zoom room just in case somebody uses the old link. So we've got that going. Awesome, thank you for doing that. No worries, no worries. And Tim, just so you know, once we kick it off, I'll trim out the first four, three or four minutes of the recording so we don't have dead air and no one has to listen to my voice talking about turning on YouTube and stuff. So... Sounds good, appreciate that. It is being streamed to the Hyperledger YouTube account. It'll be available. It's available right now, but it's also will be available under the Identity Steam Playlist that we have. All right, perfect. Tim, you got it. I'm just going to mute and keep an eye on the other room. Sounds good. Well, yeah, it is at 8.05, so we'll go ahead and get started here today. Welcome everyone. This is the Identity Special Interest Group at Hyperledger. And today we have a pretty exciting presentation from Stephane, for you. Stephane, did I pronounce your name correctly there? Not quite, well, that's my first name, but it's Stephane and my last name is Mui M-O-U-Y. But don't worry. All right, awesome. Yeah, he's here to share with us a little bit about E-I-D-A-S 2 and the European Wallet Initiative. And yeah, and before that, we have a quick summary of some other working group statuses. So I'm going to go ahead and share my screen so we can do a quick rundown of what everyone's been up to. Can I just confirm that you guys can see my screen? Looking good, Tim. Awesome, thank you. So to start us off, we have just a few announcements. We have some upcoming speakers on July 27th and August 10th. So come back if these presentations look interesting to you. There's also a couple of papers open for, yeah, the spring or open looks like. And then we have a meeting on running Hyperledger areas in the browser with non-creds on July 18th. So I believe you can just sign up and join right here at this link. Getting into some working group updates, we have the Hyperledger Indie Contributors Working Group met on the fourth. Was anyone able to attend this meeting? It would like to give us a quick summary. Looks like they just held their Indie Summit and they were doing a quick recap on how all that went. The Aries Working Group met on the 12th. Was anyone able to attend this session? All right, yeah, it looks like they were looking at some did peer and community coordinated updates there. And if you'd like more information, all of these links will take you to their most recent activity. The Aries By Fold Group met on the fourth. Was anyone able to attend this session? All right, well, yeah, that looks like they were just doing some By Fold updates. Aries Cloud Agent Python met on the 11th. Are there any updates from anyone who attended this meeting? Okay, it looks like they're working on some did peer stuff and move on from there. Aries Framework JavaScript met on the sixth. Was anyone able to attend this session? Tim, this is Sean. I was not able to attend the session, but on Tuesday we had a pretty great workshop with Ariel, Karim, and Baron from the Aries Framework JavaScript team showing off 0.4.0, the new release, as well as how to use credentials with Aries Framework JavaScript, how it fits into the overall ecosystem. That is also on YouTube. If anyone would like to watch it, I did a really great job of sharing some of the hard work that's gotten into that community recently. And I was unable to mute fast enough, but Acapai was recently mentioned there's an organization called Lisi, which has announced the release of its wallet that uses Acapai, uses an on creds, and I believe they're using Indy through ID Union. And so that came out recently and we're reaching out to them to do a blog post to share some of their experience. Sorry. All right, no, very cool. Thank you for sharing. So awesome. I think that covers Aries stuff. No, that's not recent last meeting. I do realize it's summer and not everyone is meeting super regularly as they used to. I think we've covered those. All right, I think that at least according to my list which includes any updates unless anyone else has anything they'd like to share. So I'm gonna go ahead and hand the floor off to Stifine. Is that closer? I'm sorry, I'm... Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Okay, I'll share my screen. Which one is this? I think this is it. Okay, now can you see my screen as well? Looks good. You're looking good. Okay. Well, good morning. First, I'm not sure I know anyone here. In fact, I've been interacting with VIPIN for two years. In fact, we used to be colleagues a long time ago. Anyway, and VIPIN has invited me to talk to about the regulatory initiatives especially the one concerning digital identity. Although I have to say I've always been quite explicit to VIPIN in that I know he's very focused on DLT and blockchain and I said to him repeatedly, well, it's very interesting but you're gonna be disappointed because when it comes to digital identity there is only an dimension of DLT or blockchain. So the way he said, well, never mind. It's still interesting to know what's happening. So, okay. Anyway, so as you can see from the, well, from the copper page of the cover slide I'm going to talk a little bit about digital identities in the European regulatory environment and it's certainly a major work undergoing with the revision of the so-called EIDAS regulation. So we are up to today, we're still living with the EIDAS 1 regulation, the one that it was enacted in 2014. And there's a lot of work going on trying to define a new architecture for digital identity schemes, which is called EIDAS 2. And at the core of that project is the digital identity wallet. So let's see a little bit what's happening here. So yes, as often in Europe it's, as soon as that's something happening there is a new regulatory initiative. So you can't really say that the European commission is not active in that field. It is, everybody's talking about digital identity and there's a lot of movement and a lot of change being implemented. So the main effort is the revised EIDAS regulation. As mentioned earlier, we're still living with EIDAS 1 voted in 2014, came into effect in 2016 and even in 2018 for digital identity schemes. It's a fairly imperfect construction. It's based on two pillars. One is the mutual recognition of digital identity scheme and one is the regulation for so-called trust services. I'll come to that later, but trust services are primarily electronic signature and the like. It's been very positive on the electronic trust services side but very disappointing on the digital identity side. And because of that disappointment, there's been a new proposal that has been announced nearly two years ago, in fact, over two years ago, which is expected to reach the legislative process in the coming weeks, the school EIDAS 2. It's not the only piece of regulation that is making reference to digital identities. I don't know if you've seen, there's been literally last, in the last few days, there's been a digital year draft proposal, which was presented again much to VPNs regret, a very little mention of DLT, but I think there's a good reason for that. It's primarily related to the fact that offline connectivity is a requirement and reconciling offline connectivity with DLT is a little bit of a challenge, maybe have a different view on that. And also there's a complete revamp of the European anti-money laundering architecture. With uniform, know your client rules, and these are centered around digital identities for remote ID perfings. So it all fits together in a way, but there's no, again, there's no direct reference to DLT in EIDAS 2, nor in EIDAS 1, of course. There is no explicit reason for that. It's not mentioned in the explaining three-moment memorandum prepared for the regulation, but I would say that it's not completely surprising in a European context because I think you have to understand that in Europe, digital identity is viewed as the domain reservé, the preserve of member states and governments. I have in Europe, at least, I'm not taking that positive view about DLT. However, there was initially a reference on the electronic trust services side to electronic leisure services, which was sort of indirect way to recognize DLT services. That was presented by the European Commission in the initial draft of the EIDAS 2 regulation, but it's been removed by, it was maintained by the European Council document, but it has been removed by the European Parliament. Now, that may seem like convoluted discussion. What you have to understand is, I think, is that currently the EIDAS draft is nearing its final, well, the EIDAS 2 legislative process is nearing its conclusion, there's been a vote been presented by the European Commission, been voted by the European Council, which is the body representing the European governments, and it's also been voted by the European Parliament, but not exactly in the certain terms. So there is now a sort of reconciling effort to come up with a definitive final version that will apparently deal has been done literally last week. We'll see what happens. So EIDAS 1, as you can see, it's a fairly modest construction and it's really two houses in their same roof. So you have the electronic trust services side, which is basically private sector, common standard and certification processes. So you're talking about the electronic trust services, e-signatures, electronic sales, electronic stamps, registered messages, electronic web authentications, common rules, technical specification, usually they're prepared by the European Etsy, which is the European Standards Specification Agency. They are offered by the private sector. So every company who wants to become a trust service provider can apply. It just has to be certified with a common framework. And once it is certified, it can offer trust services throughout the European Union without discrimination. They have to be accepted on the same basis. On the EID side, you're really talking about a completely different construction. You're really talking about an inter-governmental recognition of digital identity schemes that have been notified by member states to the European Commission. So it's a voluntary framework. It has a very public sector focus. That's one of the reasons why it hasn't been successful actually. For example, when it was presented, one of the use cases that was promoted was the Finnish student controlling in a Spanish university. And instead of doing all the paperwork by paper and by mail, he would do that electronically at Spine. But how often do you have to do this? I mean, in your life, I mean maybe twice, once, twice, but not more than that usually. So it's not really worth. Anyway, it's not like paying electronically or anything that comes as a daily occurrence. Another problem was that there are very few on the EID side, there are very few common technical specifications. So member states have considerable freedom to implement digital identity schemes, which led to interoperability issues. So they're not exactly the same. They can't correspond. They do not fit quite well one with another. It's not that easy to make them work together. So interoperability issues. And on top of that, it's based on an IT protocol that is now looked quite dated. So and does not integrate mobile device usage. So quite successful on the ITRA services side, very disappointing on the EID side. But in spite of that, it still remains a landmark regulation for digital identity. I think the main reason is that it's the first, and if I'm not mistaken, it's still the only set of rule organizing the cross-border recognition of digital identity. I don't think anywhere in the world you have anywhere a framework that says, you know, digital identity coming from that country is are going to be recognized with the same value with same effect in other countries. And it also enshrines the LLA, the level of assurance concept for digital identity. It's not, of course, it's not a unique European concept, but it's, you know, it was quite significant. And certainly, it's quite structural as an element. I had a slide for the pin, but unfortunately, it's not here because as mentioned earlier, I made a couple of presentation last year, one last year and one two years ago on the very same topic. So I was wondering if the pin was going to think that, you know, it was a repeat of what I had to say at the time. And basically, I suspect none of you have were present as the, you know, when we made a presentation in 2021-2022. But anyway, what's the latest news? So the latest news, oops, sorry. Well, first of all, before we get into this, maybe we should have word of caution for non-Europeans. I guess that's the vast majority of the audience today. One is EIDAS2 is a very ambitious project. There is no question that this is certainly a piece of regulation where you cannot say that the European Commission has lacked ambition. So it's aiming for the highest level of assurance, the highest level of privacy, the greatest diversity of use cases. So reconciling these requirements is guaranteed to be challenging and difficult. We can see that already. And one of the problem that is facing the team leading the effort is that, you know, technical specifications are not that easy to find in order to cover such a broad spectrum of use cases. Some are only draft forms, some are not fully stable. So it's, you know, it's a difficult decision. The second aspect you have to bear in mind, which is that it's a regulatory initiative and it has very obvious, very clear, very powerful, in fact, political backing. It's seen rightly wrongly as the most tangible initiative for European citizens in the digital area. And it's, you know, it's heavily supported by the, I would say the heads of the European Commission, but also the European Council representing governments. And it's a public, you have to understand that it is a public initiative in many ways. The Member Space will notify the Digital Identity Wallet, they have discretion in defining who will, you know, who would be allowed to present a Digital Identity Wallet and they are legally responsible for that process. So they call the shop still. It's taking a lot of time, it's already been two years in the making and I think you really are, we're still, I think, not even sure with midway. I would consider a five year horizon. So basically, we still have three years to go. It's not completely, it's not completely surprising given that, you know, this is an effort that is effectively involving 30 different countries. And that means that, you know, success is, by no means guaranteed, but likewise, on the other hand, complete failure is then likely. So, you know, we'll probably fit someone in the middle, you know, which side, where are we going to end up? That's still very indecided. There are many factors that have to be worked out. It's pretty still, the jury is still out. There are a lot of things that need to be decided still. On the EIS ecosystem, well, hold on. Maybe I should have been here. So where are we now? Basically, the first project was presented in 2021. That's when I made the first presentation to the Pittsburgh. Then there was an EIS expert group set up in October of that year. There was a first version of the architecture and reference framework document presented in 2022. And then, you know, the elicited process was initiated, first considered by the parliament in October 21. Four large-scale pilots launched in December of last year, while a design consortium selected. Draft regulation approved by the European Council in December of last year, approved by the European Parliament in March. And now there's the so-called Trilog process aiming to reconcile the EU Council and the EU Parliament's position initiated in April. Why is it called a Trilog and not a dialogue because the European Commission is involved as well? So, however, you may have seen last, well, in fact, 10 days ago, there was a political agreement and a statement saying that, in fact, you know, the representatives of the European Council and of the European Parliament had agreed, settled, found a deal, so to speak, on the key terms of the European Digital Identity Framework. I've, you know, put extracts of the EU Commission communique. We'll see, we haven't seen the final draft, but it's very likely to be somewhere between what has been approved by the European Council and what's been approved by the European Parliament. There is, for you guys who are interested in DLT, there is an interesting topic here because the electronic ledger services were struck down by the European Parliament on the basis that, you know, they are not consistent with an environmentally friendly environment. So they were, you know, for that, you know, the green movement in Europe is quite strong. So they've taken a negative year of DLT services and they shut down everything that was even remotely related to DLT in the draft. Whether that will continue, will that position will be appealed in the final draft? We don't know. I mean, that's one of the things to see. Anyway, and once that is done, you know, once you have a regulation, it's not, you know, it's not the end of the process by any means. One of the reasons is that because there are quite a few delegated and implementation acts to prepare. So they are, you know, second-degree regulation, if you wish, that is being mentioned in the EIS regulation, but not the drafted. So that's, you know, that's another regulatory dimension to consider. And on top of that, there are two other aspects. One is the so-called architecture and reference document. This is a document that is defining the technical specifications of the digital identity wallets. If you're interested in that, there's already, well, it's an ongoing document. So, you know, you have, there's an interactive process. There's the first version was published in February last year. The current version is, the current public version is, was probably released in April. And I think the next one should be available within weeks or maybe days, actually. And I'll mention a little bit about this. And on top of that, there's a so-called reference, a reference implementation of the digital identity wallets. So there's a consortium that has been assigned or with the task of building a digital identity wallet that will have to be after that, that will be used by member states when notifying their own solution. And on top of that, you have currently four so-called large scale pilots that are designed to test the real life usage of the digital identity wallets. There are two use cases that have been prioritized to that effect. One is the mobile driving license and the second one is the identification, an authentication for online services. But on top of that, there are other use cases like health, educational credentials, disability diplomas, digital finance, digital travel credentials. So if you look at some of these large scale pilots, they're public at three of the four. I think the fourth is still to be announced, but three of them are known. They have a website, they have already published information about which use case they're considering. There isn't that much information yet, but these are consortium that are gathering firms from companies from different environments. I've been looking for obvious reasons. I've been looking at the financial sector, digital finance use case, and you can see that quite a few banks are involved in the, there's one large scale pilots that is fully dedicated to payments. And there's another one that is dedicated to digital travel credentials, including payments, and they include most of the big names in Europe on that. So you'll learn. We'll see. So where are we now? Yeah, that we've done, that we've done, that I think we've done. Okay. Now, just how familiar are you guys with the digital identity wallet? Do you, I mean, do we need to go through the details presentation or is this something that is quite well known? I think so. Go ahead, Tim, sorry. Oh, so I was gonna say, I think this group would be at least fairly familiar with the wallet. Okay. Right, so just a quick recap. Well, first of all, there must be creditors that must comply with the common specifications issued, that will appear in the architecture reference document. They have to be issued or approved by member states. So there's, if a member state does not like your solution, even though it may be a very good solution, no, there's no hope, I'm afraid. The must offer a high level of assurance. The must put the users in full control of the wallet. They have to be accepted by for identity proofing by relying parties offering financial and other key services, as well as very large online platforms. So that's an important aspect because it means that all providers of key services will have to accept digital identity wallet, no matter what. They have to accept electronically tested at stations. They will have to be free of charge for users. They must be able to create, to allow the user to sign with the highest level of certainty. So this is the qualified electronic signature. They must allow the user to interact online and offline and the must support strong customer authentication requirements, including for payment that is, incidentally that is a topic that is creating a lot of tension with the banking sector that is the banking industry that is not really happy and that's an understatement about this. And on top of that, they should be able to strengthen privacy. They should be able to lower several identity profile and should be able to support CBDC interactions. So we'll see how far we go in that. Stephanie, can I ask you a question about the last slide? Yeah. In the early days of self-sovereign identity, correlation resistance was a very big deal. It's absolutely something that a lot of organizations looked at as a requirement. Unique identifiers kind of defeat correlation resistance. When you say whenever required, who is the doing the requiring? Is it a bank? Is it a state? Is it any entity on a network could require your unique identifier? I know what you're referring to. There's a reference to the unique identifier in the regulation. I think what it came from, surprisingly, is a request or demand depending on how you say it, from the tax authorities. Because they are saying, well, some people come up with one country with one identity and they're binational. They have another identity from another country and we cannot correlate the two. And this is problematic. Don't ask me why, but this is apparently quite problematic for tax avoidance proof because it facilitates tax avoidance. That is a great answer. Thank you. I wasn't expecting that, Fred. Yeah, so just to, you need to know that, but once you know that, you can understand why it's in there. Now people are saying, and I think a lot of people, including I think you and me, are saying, hey, but a unique identifier is the worst thing that you can think about from a privacy viewpoint because basically it allows anyone to track your interactions and monitor your usage. So of course that's highly, highly problematic. So there's a tension between these two, I would say competing demands, if you wish, or objectives. How that is going to be, that's one of the topic that is still not completely decided we'll see in the final version how it will be taken care of. I think it's likely to remain as a requirement, but not everybody, I think what was likely to happen is that only certain public sector, relying parties will be able to, will be allowed to require the unique identifier. That's what I understand. Understood. Thank you so much for that answer. Okay, right. So at the very core, the ecosystem is pretty simple. You have basically an app provider that publishes the digital identity wallet on the app. It's been, of course, it has to be certified. It has to be, not only has it got to be certified, but it has to be approved by a member state and it has to be notified to the European Commission. So it has to be obviously approved by a state. And once that is done, the wallet user can use the app, can download an identity profile. That identity profile is effectively provided by several PID providers, providers of person identification data. And on top of that, you can also have electronically tested attributes, which are issued by effectively trust service providers. And you can combine the two, of course, and those are used to, and communicated to relying parties in the normal course of action. So what that means is that you have a plethora of possible use cases that can be considered, public sector, private sector, banking, non-banking, health, travel. There's virtually no elements, no aspect of one's life that cannot be considered or cannot be used by the digital identity wallet. We'll see again, we'll see how this is going to work in practice, but the ambition is certainly there. Bear in mind that you have public attributes, private attributes, and you have the ability to sign with the highest level of legal certainty, which is the qualified electronic signature. The combined effect of those should be quite transformational, assuming it works well. I've provided the, what I find is that, authorizing have been focusing a lot on the payment use case. And I do believe that the ability to interact offline is absolutely key. So there's been a fair amount of focus on that. And this is also quite relevant for the digital identity wallet to be used in connection with some bank digital currencies and the digital era in particular. Again, if you're interested at the use case, then you should look at the website of the EWD consortium, the potential consortium or the nobite consortium, the three publicly known consortia dealing with the preparing, working on use cases. Now, on the technology side, the current version of the AI does mention some technology choices that have been made. And what you can see is that those choices reflect the so-called priority use cases. If you remember, one of the priority use cases, the mobile driving license are gathered in the US. You do have Apple has been quite instrumental in deploying mobile driving license on the iPhone. And I think basically what is considered is, it's a repeat of that process. And so, there is a dedicated ISO standard for that, which is the ISO 18.013 slash five. And that is likely to be used for proximity connections. Proximity connections being when the wallet user is let's say physically present with the reliant party and is in fact interacting typically with an NFC protocol or Bluetooth or QR code. However, I'm not totally convinced that it can be developed beyond the mobile driving license use case because I don't know if you're familiar with this, but it's basically transferring to the reliant party the digital photo of the wallet user, which is fine if you're presenting it to a police officer, but not so fine if you're presenting it to someone you really don't know and you can't trust them. So, there's also reference to the W3C verifiable credential data model, but it appears to be given second priority compared to the MDOC ISO 18.0135 specifications. Again, no mention of DLT. You know, I'm part of the, I'm not a technology expert. So I think, but I have, I'm attending the, yeah, that's expert group meetings. I have never heard anyone saying, look, we should mention DLT. So why that is, I don't know. I mean, I, but it's a fact of life. The other thing that is quite clear is that those specifications are not addressing the reliant party authentication. It's basically not addressing the fact that, you know, maybe in digital interaction you should start from a zero trust basis or principle. You should apply zero trust principle and, you know, you should make sure that the reliant party is fully authenticated before you can do anything with it. Okay, on the other hand, could it still early days on the technology side because the AIR is designed to be a work in progress document and it's not, you know, it's quite possible that changes would be made to the choice of specification. Hopefully not major, major change, but you cannot completely, you know, restart from scratch and forget everything you've been working on for months, but there is certainly room for adjustment. So payment, which is my area of specialty. Yeah, maybe before that, firstly, yeah, that's too paradigm is, is really moving from a user controlled to a user controlled identity based system. Maybe SSI, SSI is really the right word. Possibly, maybe yes, maybe not, but what's also clear that payments are key, key parts of most wallet ecosystems in interaction and digital interactions. And there's a renewed impetus for the, even all the work on the digital era. I did mention the fact that, back here, where is this? Oh, no, I'm sorry. Oh, it's here. Okay, yeah, I'll come to that in a minute. But, and, you know, at a wider level, there is a clear recognition that digital interaction that can combine, I would say, core ID attributes, status and professional attributes like diploma, licenses, or eligibility credentials can open, you know, new and payment attributes can open a new way to be quite transformational for customer interaction and customer experience. So we'll see how far it goes. On the payment use case, I was saying that very recent digital year draft proposal makes quite a few references to digital identity wallet for CBDC interactions. You know, I've copied a few of the mentions of the digital identity wallet in the recital and substantive provisions. Again, you know, it's clearly is recognized for, you know, the digital identity wallet will clearly be recognized for interactions on digital years. We'll see, again, it's still early days, but, you know, we'll see how things will turn out. But the, I would say, certainly the digital identity wallet is on the radar screen of the European sell bank when it comes to the digital year. When you're looking at the payment case, of course, you know, the ability to store and communicate personal identifiable information and electronically tested attributes to rely on quality is very important. You have to be able to use, to comply with strong customer authentication requirement. As you probably know, I don't quite know what the situation is in the US, but in Europe, this is an absolute payment requirement. So, and the fact that the wallet will have to be accepted by all payment service providers, including all banks, as a matter of fact, is important. Anyway, so that's where we are now. Now, the question is whether this is fit for payment purposes so far. Again, there are two payment interactions. You have zero trust by default. So mutual authentication is required simply for four prevention purposes. It's currently not defined in the ARF. I think it will be, but it's probably going to rely on, I would say, S509 certificates, but we'll see how that will work out. Then you need to ensure legal irrevocability of payment instructions. And you need to ensure that, if you have a payer with a wallet and a payee with a wallet, you need to make sure that they're both fully committed legally. And that also implies having an audit trail of the payment messages that can be archived and that can be presented in court proceedings. And as mentioned, you need to have strong user authentication in line with the European regulation on payments. But it's currently not obvious at all that these requirements can be met with a current set of quantitative specifications. This is my private view, of course, but I do think that the ISO 180135 specification is standard, is privacy invasive. I hope you do not disagree with me, but I think the W3C verifiable credential specifications are not designed to deal with mutual commitments. They do not also readily support offline interactions. And the REST API request responses are not tailored to meet audit trail requirements. So these are technical issues. It's work in progress. It's denying if there is a lot of work to be done. We'll see if the ambition, the considerable ambition of the digital identity wallet will translate into meaningful reality. There's a little bit of doubt about that, but we'll see. Anyway, it's not the end of the story. We're not even midway through the process. So we'll see what happens. Any, before I moved to the next, in fact, time is running out. I can see maybe I should stop here. Is there any comments, any suggestion, any questions, or is that all clear? I would say no questions currently. So if you have like a quick summary or anything, I think that would be. Yeah, I think, I mean, I think it's really here. I think that's probably the best. Give you a, that's might give you the best view of, you know, the EIS-2 initiative. Again, a lot of the, basically the next steps, within a few weeks, I think we're going to see the final, final version of the EIS regulation, the one that will reach the value books. We will also see an updated version of the architecture reference document, and that will probably include provision on mutual authentication and give more clarity on the choice of technologies that are going to be used. There is going to be work done, there's work done on the, I would say, prototype implementation of the wallet. And the LSPs will start to get into real motion currently, you know, on the LSP side, the consortia has been informed. They made an offer, they've been accepted, they've negotiated a contract with the European Commission, but they haven't really started work. They need to have the workable prototype wallet to do that. So they're waiting for the reference implementation side and then more clarity on the error side as well. I think that's what we can say. It's an exciting project. It's certainly very ambitious, no doubt. And we'll see what happens. Maybe I have to be given another opportunity to present it in 12 months time. Absolutely, no, I think it's exactly what you said. It's ambitious, but it is exciting. And yeah, if there's more updates in another year, we'd love to have you back. Well, yeah, I think we'll throw it out to questions one more time, but I think if there are still none, we appreciate you coming to talk to us today. Thank you. Can I ask you a question though? I gather the hyper ledger, can you clarify what's the difference between the hyper ledger identity, special interest group and the previous group managed by VP? Is it more or less the same or is it a different one? I'm unfamiliar, unfortunately, with the previous group managed by VP. So I know that we were combined at some point, but I was not part of that conversation, unfortunately. All right, okay. So sorry about that. No problem. All right. Okay, well, listen, all right. If you're interested in the presentation, I'm happy to give you the link to the document so you can take a closer look at it later. No, that would be awesome. I would appreciate that. Okay, perfect. Very good. Well, yeah, that's it for going. Hi guys, I don't know if you can hear me. Yeah. Yeah, okay guys, my name is Jair O'Romo. I'm going to go directly to the question. I was working in the past or I've been working during the last couple of years for trade finance, blockchain, trade finance, one of the initiatives. As you know, trade finance is one of the industries that needs more these days, digitalization, standardization, those type of things. Identity is incredibly important at an individual level, but it's also important at a company level who is buying what, who is sending what and who is responsible of what. There was a couple of initiatives of, there was an initiative to implement a global legal entity or legal entity identifier promoted or supported by the G7 called GLIF. That initiative I was doing some type of analysis around, it was an initiative for to, to create an identifier that every single country from the G7 and now there are more countries we're going to implement to introduce at a global level to do exactly that, to identify, to have a global identifier for companies more than for individuals. Do you know anything about this initiative? Do you know anything about this initiative? Do you know anything about this initiative? I, I've heard of them to be honest, but I'm not, I'm not really involved. I think I should have mentioned earlier that the, I hope it's clear from my presentation though, I should have mentioned earlier that the digital identity wallet is primarily designed to be used by an individual. So not, no, not a legal entity per se. So here the individual can produce electronically tested attributes and these can be, for example, authority to act on behalf of a legal entity that know that. But effectively here, you're really talking about digital identity and service primarily to be used by individuals, maybe in a professional capacity, but primarily for individuals. What you're referring to is a, is a purely an initiative that's been going on for many years in fact, to define a common registration scheme for all legal entities. I've heard of it, I've heard of it repeatedly, but I'm not involved in that effort. I'm not really part of it. It's different. So I really cannot talk meaningfully about it, I'm afraid. Okay, another quick, quick question. Then if we are, oh, this wallet we are talking about, could we prepare in terms of technology, in terms of infrastructure to be able to cover in the future as a second phase or as a next stage for these legal or enterprises identities or identifiers? Yeah, I mean, there's, what I can say is that there's always in the background, you know, let me put it this way, the primary effort is clearly individuals, okay? Now, people are saying, yes, but individuals they act in, they can act on behalf of the legal entity that is seen as effectively an individual in acting in a defined capacity with a defined authorization or authority credential acting to able being able to, for example, to activate a company's account, for example. It's a set of, it's a subset of, it's seen as a subset of use cases that are considered by the EIS to initiate. So that will come. What I think you're unlikely to see though is a wallet that is a pure company wallet that has no individual's name to it, so to speak. Okay, okay, understood. Just to jump in, I think what you're referring to, Mr. Romo is the Gleaf, the global legal entity identity foundation. I posted in the chat, and then the identifier is the legal entity identifier, and then the company credentials will be the virtual legal entity identifier. And I agree with your assessment, Mr. Romo, that the EIS is more toward individuals and the LEI is more toward individuals. It's very clear that EIS is geared towards individuals because in fact, really talking about here, yes, you do have PID providers at the core of the EIS project, you have PID providers who are providing core identity attributes to an individual. And then, so that's the key, quite a fundamental structural building block. On top of that, you can have that individual authorized to act on behalf of the company. There is no question about that, but it's seen as another layer of authority or given to one individual. So it's not purely a tool for legal entities that have no connection with any individual. I mean, that's very clear. Right. Well, assuming that both of them succeed, they'll probably be bridge credentials and all that stuff in the future. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm pretty sure that- Because the LEI adopts it. The LEI adopts it. There's companies, and then they have individual work forum, but the credentials are all company-focused. Yeah. Yep, yep. Thanks, guys. Thanks for defining, thanks. Thanks, Ryan. Thank you for your presentation. Thanks, Charles. Okay, well, nice interacting with you guys. I think it's a one-hour talk anyway, so we're done. All right, good. Have a good day.