DLT Governance and Technical

interoperability Framework
ITU SG 16/Q22 | DOC 006 | Governance (Meetup Presentation)

Multiledgers Group
July 2020
WORK ITEM PROPOSAL FOR DLT INTEROPERABILITY

Proposal editing | Represented

organizations

ANATEL

BNDES

CAICT

Multiledgders

Onchain
3 continents
Proposal review | Represented
organizations

Alastria

INATBA

LACChain

KUNFUD

2
IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP FOR DLT GOVERNANCE AND TECHNICAL
INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK

Phase 1 – Study and standardization of Phase 2 - Study and standardization of

the governance framework the technical framework

• Set the main goals with the fundamental • Set the technical framework that
principles to align the different technologically supports the goals of
stakeholders. phase 1

• Set the governance model within the

appropriate discussion forums.

• Set the key players for the discussion and

operational forums.

• Set the operational model.

3
INSIGHTS FROM ACADEMIC RESEARCH

“5 Conclusions

Thefundamental goals underlying the Internet architecture has played a key role in
determining the interoperability of the various networks and service types, which together compose the Internet as we
know it today. Interoperability is key to survivability. A number of design principles emerged from the evolution of internet routing in the
1970s and 1980s, which ensured the scalable operation of the Internet over the last three decades.

We believe that a similar design philosophy is needed for interoperable blockchain systems. The
recognition that a blockchain system is an autonomous system is an important starting point that allows notions
such as reachability, referencing of transaction data in ledgers, scalability and other aspects to be understood more meaningfully – beyond
the current notion of throughput (“scale”), which is often the sole measure of performance used with regards to many blockchain systems
today.

interoperability forces a deeper re-thinking into how permissioned and

Furthermore,
permissionless blockchain systems can interoperate without a third party (such as an exchange). A key
aspect is the semantic interoperability at the value level and at the mechanical level.
Interoperability at the mechanical level is necessary for interoperability at the value level but does not guarantee it. The mechanical level
plays a crucial role in providing technological solutions that can help humans in quantifying risk through the use of a more measurable
notion of technical-trust. Human agreements (i.e. legal contracts) must be used at the value level to provide semantically compatible
meanings to the constructs (e.g. coins, tokens) that circulate in the blockchain system.” [ 1 ]

[ 1 ] Thomas Hardjono, Alexander Lipton and Alex

Pentland “Towards an Interoperability Architecture
for Blockchain Autonomous Systems”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 2019,
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8743548

4
USING THE INTERNET AS A REFERENCE FOR DLT INTEOPERABILITY GOVERNANCE
To understand how the Internet is managed today, it
is necessary to know its history. The original
ARPANET (sponsored by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency within the U.S.
Department of Defense) is one of the components
which eventually evolved to become the Internet. [ 1 ]

Between 1984 and 1986 the U.S. National Science

Foundation (NSF) created the NSFNET backbone,
using TCP / IP, to connect their supercomputing
facilities. NSFNET became a general-purpose
research network, a hub to connect the
supercomputing centers to each other and to the
regional research and education networks that
would in turn connect campus networks. The
combined networks became generally known as the
Internet. [ 2 ]

In 1990, the ARPANET was formally terminated. In

1991 the NSF began to relax its restrictions on
commercial use on NSFNET and commercial
network providers began to interconnect. The final
restrictions on carrying commercial traffic ended on
30 April 1995, when the NSF ended its sponsorship of
the NSFNET Backbone Service and the service
ended. [ 3 ] Today almost all Internet infrastructure is
provided and owned by the private sector. Traffic is
exchanged between these networks, at major
interconnection points, in accordance with
established Internet standards and commercial
agreements.
[ 1 ] A History of the ARPANET: The First Decade (Report). Arlington, VA: Bolt, Beranek &
Newman Inc. 1 April 1981.

[ 2 ] NSFNET: A Partnership for High-Speed Networking, Final Report 19877-1995 Archived 10

February 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Karen D. Frazer, Merit Network, Inc., 1995

[ 3 ] "Retiring the NSFNET Backbone Service: Chronicling the End of an Era" Archived 1
January 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Susan R. Harris, Ph.D., and Elise Gerich, ConneXions,
Vol. 10, No. 4, April 1996

5
Work Item proposal to kick off discussions

6
LEARNING FROM THE PAST TO DESIGN THE FUTURE
Fundamental Goals
Interoperability challenges
Interoperability approaches
A historical and pragmatic approach to facilitate understanding and streamline adoption
Internet Interconnected DLT Networks
(1) survivability
?
(2) variety of service types
(3) variety of networks
(4) distributed management of resources
(5) cost effectiveness
(6) ease of attaching hosts (to be defined)
(7) accountability in resource usage
Multiple interests represented by different Multiple interests represented by different
networks and managed by different groups using networks and managed by different groups using
different approaches different approaches
?
(1) Multiple organizations with decentralized
governance for operational and governance
management
(2) Autonomous Systems (AS)
(3) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
(to be defined)
7
GOVERNANCE | MAIN GOALS

Internet Goals (Reference) DLT interoperability Goals

(1) survivability (1) survivability

(2) variety of service types (2) variety of service types
(3) variety of networks (3) variety of networks
(4) distributed management of (4) distributed management of resources
resources (5) cost effectiveness
(5) cost effectiveness (6) ease of attaching hosts
(6) ease of attaching hosts (7) accountability in resource usage
(7) accountability in resource usage (8) on-chain network governance and decision-
making
(9) data parity and integrity
(10) cross-chain asset flow
(11) …

Establishing fundamental goals for interoperability between networks can align multiple stakeholders and key
approaches to be adopted.

All the goals of the internet can be adopted for DLT interoperability, especially those linked to the principles of
network formation.

By adding complementary goals it will be possible to contemplate trust principles related to DLT in addition to the
fundamental scalable operation key points of the internet.

8
GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE MODEL (CRYPTOGRAPHIC CERTIFICATES CHAIN OF TRUST)

Organization chart for assigning names Organization chart for assigning

and numbers to the internet (Reference) cryptographic certificates to DLT Networks

Organizations governed by DLT without centralized

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers organization
(decentralized governance in a centralized organization subordinate to a US State Department)

Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent

organization with organization with organization with organization with organization with
decentralized decentralized decentralized decentralized decentralized
governance governance governance governance governance

Regional Internet Regional Internet Regional Internet Regional Internet Regional Internet
registry (RIR) for registry (RIR) Asia- registry (RIR) for registry (RIR) for registry (RIR) for Regional DLT Regional DLT Regional DLT Regional DLT Regional DLT
Africa Pacific Canada, many Latin America and Europe, the Middle registry (RDR) registry (RDR) registry (RDR) registry (RDR) registry (RDR)
islands in the Caribbean East and parts of
Caribbean and Central Asia
North Atlantic and
the United States

DLT Autonomous DLT Autonomous DLT Autonomous DLT Autonomous DLT Autonomous
Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous
Systems registered Systems registered Systems registered Systems registered Systems registered
Systems registered Systems registered Systems registered Systems registered Systems registered
in Africa in Asia-Pacific in Canada, many in Latin America in Europe, Middle
islands in the and Caribbean East and parts of
Caribbean and Central Asia
North Atlantic and
the United States

9
GOVERNANCE | KEY PLAYERS (CRYPTOGRAPHIC CERTIFICATES CHAIN OF TRUST)

Organizations to implement and Like the Internet, different organizations will be needed to
implement and maintain interoperability between DLT
maintain interoperability of netwoks networks on a global level.

A key point to success will be the representativeness of the

multiple stakeholder in these organizations, such as
governments, the private sector and civil society, in their
Organization chart for assigning cryptographic certificates Governance
Architecture
respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-
to DLT Networks
making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution
and use of the interoperable DLT networks.

Governance over these participations will be fundamental to

manage expectations and actions to accommodate the
principles of transparency, equity and accountability.
Organizations governed by DLT without centralized
organization
DLT can play an important role as a governance management
tool between these different parties by automating predefined
relationships with distributed trust.

Research
Featured here are the key players needed for the
Engineering cryptographic chain of trust, responsible for identifying the
Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent
organization with
decentralized
organization with
decentralized
organization with
decentralized
organization with
decentralized
organization with
decentralized
different DLT Autonomous Systems and creating transparency
governance governance governance governance governance for their operational models.

A governance model can accommodate the representation of

Regional DLT Regional DLT Regional DLT Regional DLT Regional DLT different regional stakeholders within these organizations,
registry (RDR) registry (RBDR) registry (RBDR) registry (RBDR) registry (RBDR)
providing coordinated participation by the parties.

This decentralized structure should mitigate possible conflicts

with predefined forms of agreement between regional
organizations and their local stakeholders.
Policies

10
GOVERNANCE | OPERATIONAL MODEL (CRYPTOGRAPHIC CERTIFICATES CHAIN OF TRUST)

Organization chart for

assigning cryptographic Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent
certificates to DLT organization with organization with organization with organization with organization with
decentralized decentralized decentralized decentralized decentralized
Networks governance governance governance governance governance

Cluster of Hardware Security

Module (HSM) controlled by
DLT with decentralized
supervision by each
organization

Independent organizations managed by Smart Contracts for automated issuance of certificates (mechanical level), along with possible human
intervention (value level), through the pre-established consensus among the organizations.

Enabling a cryptographic chain of trust between different DLT networks, based on decentralized cluster of Hardware Security Module (HSM),
to allow interoperability and acceptance of certificate, improving trust between networks while maintaining their autonomies.

This autonomy ensures that each network determines its own approach to technology and governance, giving flexibility to its operations and
purposes.

Business trust and legal frameworks can be established taking into account the different aspects and purposes for each autonomous DLT
network.

Note: Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) methods can also be developed for identifiers registered in federated or centralized identity
management systems. This creates an interoperability bridge between the worlds of centralized, federated, and decentralized identifiers [ 1 ].

[ 1 ] Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs)

v1.0 https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-
did-core-20200305/

11
Meetups proposal to enrich discussions
(working in progress)

12
ITU SG16/Q22 GROUP | INTEROPERABILITY MEETUPS

DLT Governance and Technical

interoperability Framework | Work Item
Proposal

Network Interoperability Government

Interoperability
Kick off Meetup
perspectives technology perspectives ?
Meetup Meetup Meetup

Series of open meetups with call to action for collaborative engagement

13
Call to action for suggestions

Questions to be answered for Questions to be answered for

phase 1 phase 2

A. Main goals (with the A. Technical framework

fundamental principles to align (technologically supports the
the different stakeholders) goals of phase 1)

B. Governance model (within the

appropriate discussion forums)

C. key players (operational

forums)

D. Operational model

Please send your suggestions to tsbsg16@itu.int so that the editors can

evaluate the content for the work item proposal

14
Disclaimer Any questions?
This presentation contains the view on a particular subject exposed by You can find us at contact@multiledgers.com
Multiledgers, the opinions of third parties mentioned in this document
are entirely their responsibility. multiledgers.com
All the considerations contained in this document which are not
present in the proposal of the New Work Item on DLT Governance and Multiledgers Group
Technical Interoperability Framework (submitted in March 2020) are
USA | 16192 Coastal Hwy Lewes, DE 19958
the exclusive opinion of Multiledgers and still need an appropriate
evaluation to eventually become effective. + 1 302 444 8040

This presentation is not intended to serve as any kind of Brazil | Av. Rio Branco, 26 – Centro, Rio de Janeiro RJ 20040-001
standardization at this time and its statements are still in the process
+ 55 21 3090 2033
of initial discussion.

15