identification, authentication and authorisation of parties

[monkeypants]

in #7, #8, #9 and #10 we discuss potential roles for members of the regulated community to interact with the ICL, under the control and regulatory authority of the nation in which those identities exist. If any of those roles are actually required, then authentication and authorisation of those parties must occur within the jurisdiction where those parties exist. In other words, it's the jurisdiction's business.

It seems that the ICL will need to support the concept of "identification scheme", where each identification scheme belongs to and is controlled by a jurisdiction. A jurisdiction may have one or many identification scheme, but in absence of a global identification scheme, if a jurisdiction is going to allow exporters, importers, agents or delegated authorities to interact with the ledger, they the jurisdiction will also need to be responsible for the authentication and authorisation mechanism used by those parties for those transactions. And this implies the identification scheme is also within their jurisdiction.

I don't think it's the case that the authentication and access control mechanism needs to be (or even should be) implemented at by the ICL itself. The most obvious scenario is a blockchain identities are node operators, and authentication and access control to specific transactions is managed by the node operators. Is there another way to do this?