SDG 16.9 calls for the need *to provide legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030.
With 7.5 years left to go, we ask:
Tell us what you think!
I think DPG(Digital Public Good) for or in CRVS makes absolute sense because can create a standard of sorts in the CRVS niche software market. There are a handful of top solutions out there, nevertheless this creates fragmentation and reinvention of the wheel as it were. To illlustrate, for the past 3 decades, there’s been a fragmentation in the standard to power electronic devices, the landfill is witness to the many vendors who attempted to lock-in their users to consume only their power adapters. Last month, the EU mandated that all or most electronic devices MUST be powered by usb-c adapters. This is a huge environmental win for both consumers and the environment. Likewise in CRVS, the business process is already standardized, now we just have to apply that standardization to the software/platform.
To reach critical mass, I think we need to convince those same “various” platform providers, to embrace opencrvs, invest/adopt the project and still protect their bottom line by providing support. Their peace of mind comes by the fact that no nation state will ever implement a solution without technical support, even if we build capacity in-country, that extra layer of assurance from a reputable knowledgeable software company who stands behind a product is needed.
The message should be, we, the open source practitioners will get there, it’s only a matter of time, so either they embrace it and move along with us, or their market segment will disappear slowly.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on this @bzmrgonz ! Indeed, the demand for digital public goods is certainly growing and clearly present in many of the RFPs being issued for digital CRVS solutions. Assuming this move is for the long-term (we hope 
) what then is the role of the SI? I see this as an opportunity for some first starters - differentiating themselves in terms of business analysis, domain knowledge and implementation excellence… What do you think?
Apologies Annina, I don’t come into the forum too often. SI’s will always have their place at the table, they are after all, the real hands on experts. Big players (registry dev shops) are needed because the bureaucracy at state level tends to favor big players over small shops. SI’s can band together and create a bigger and more visible animal for the sake of the bureaucrats.
Annina, on another note, can you point me in the direction of a thread or conversation where you guys have discussed the need to make the registry database immutable? Or how OPENCRVS will deal with trust issues with digital registries? I don’t want to start another thread, if this has been discussed before. Initially I was under the impression that we could lock records by age (ex. after 6 months of creation, it will require 3 individuals to edit a record). But I’m reading that there is such a thing as an immutable database, which treats the registry as a digital ledger. (source: What is an Immutable Database? - Fluree). So, I don’t want to distract you guys, but if you think it’s important, can we discuss this briefly? Can you check with the architect on this approach??