Trust Over IP — the governance model PDTF follows

PDTF has publicly committed to the Trust Over IP (ToIP) 4-layer governance model. This is the most consequential governance decision in the project — it shapes what we do not need to invent and what we do need to codify.

Why ToIP — and why not DCAM

DCAM (EDM Council's Data Management Capability Assessment Model) assumes a single accountable enterprise governing data inside its walls. That's not OPDA. OPDA is a federated standards body — its "data" is the agreement between many independent organisations on what data means, how to share it verifiably, and who is allowed to issue or rely on what claims.

ToIP was built specifically for that shape: federated trust frameworks. It has an explicit two-stack model at every layer — one technical stack, one governance stack — and PDTF needs both.

The four layers

What each layer needs as a governance document

Orthogonal governance documents

Cutting across all four layers, ToIP-style trust frameworks need a set of cross-cutting governance documents:

What OPDA already has (don't reinvent)

The source/03-standards/trust-framework/docs/ directory already contains:

• governance.md — initial governance document
• plan.md — programme plan
• proposal.md — change-proposal template
• proposal-impact-assessment-form.md — impact assessment template
• change-notification-template.md — non-breaking change notice
• breaking-change-notification-template.md — breaking change notice
• compliance-and-policy-checklist.md — pre-release checklist
• access-specification.md — access spec
• release-version-register.md — version log
• Draft_ Property Data Trust Framework 2 Specification.md — the new spec being readied
• Draft_ PDTF Participant DID Auth OAuth 2 Specification.md — the DID auth pattern

The job isn't to write these from scratch. The job is to:

1. Re-bucket them under the ToIP four layers so each layer has a clear governance doc.
2. Fill the orthogonal gaps (conformance scheme, liability allocation, disputes & redress).
3. Map every document to the UK initiative tier it relates to (MHCLG / DSIT / DPMSG / etc.) so government partners can navigate the framework.

The Open Banking parallel

Worth borrowing patterns from. Open Banking's governance has matured through:

• OBL (Open Banking Limited) — the standards body, separate from regulators
• JROC (Joint Regulatory Oversight Committee) — multi-regulator coordination
• Conformance & certification — annual re-certification, technical conformance suites
• Funding model — cost-recovery through participant fees
• Public consultation for any spec change
• Standards version cadence — predictable release intervals

Raidiam — one of the Sandbox delivery partners — built the Brazil and UK Open Banking infrastructure. They bring the operational patterns into OPDA's Sandbox directly.

Proposed governance document set

The structure I'd propose for source/00-deliverables/governance/:

00-deliverables/governance/
├── 00-context-uk-initiative.md      (links to this docs site)
├── L1-utility-governance.md         ToIP Layer 1
├── L2-secure-communication.md       ToIP Layer 2
├── L3-credential-exchange.md        ToIP Layer 3
├── L4-ecosystem-governance.md       ToIP Layer 4 — biggest doc
├── conformance-and-certification.md cross-cutting
├── change-management.md             cross-cutting (consolidates existing templates)
├── data-quality-framework.md        cross-cutting
├── lifecycle-and-versioning.md      cross-cutting
├── risk-and-liability.md            cross-cutting
├── disputes-and-redress.md          cross-cutting
└── strategic-alignment.md           how this maps to HMLR/DSIT/DIATF/Open Banking

Each document follows the same structure: purpose, scope, what's already in place (citing existing OPDA artefacts), gap analysis, proposed operating model, KPIs.