Governance model
A strategic guide for regulators, policy makers, and media strategists to the trust, authority, and security of the Service List Registry.
The significance of governance
Service discovery is not only a matter of technical standards; it is a critical component of modern media distribution. Media delivery is increasingly fragmented in an era of multiple apps, platforms, devices and displays. The ability to connect audiences reliably with audiovisual media services becomes strategic infrastructure of national and international importance. Without discovery there is no distribution. Without trust, discovery is unreliable. Without governance, trust cannot be sustained.
How does the Service List Registry establish trust?
The Service List Registry or SLR is designed to support a trust model, which can be understood in three dimensions:
- Conventional trust established through recognition, reputation, and reliability.
- Technical trust based on secure protocols, encryption, and system design.
- Institutional trust founded in the legal entity, governance, and oversight.
Anyone could publish a service list as an XML document on the internet and include an attribute to indicate that it is a regulated list. The tools to generate such lists are freely available on the internet for anyone to download.
What matters is whether media users, devices, providers, and regulators consider a service list to be an authoritative trusted source of service information. In other words, what is the provenance of the service list and and services it purports to present? Device manufacturers and retailers in particular need confidence that this information is reliable, ensuring conformance and compliance with national standards and regulations.
By providing a single, secure, well-known internet address for service discovery, backed by robust architecture, strong governance, and a verifiable legal entity, the SLR is established as the canonical root for audiovisual media service discovery.
Trust is fragile. To maintain it, governance must be not only effective but visible. The SLR is committed to:
- Transparency of operation – publishing policies and guidelines openly.
- Stakeholder engagement – working with regulators, broadcasters, and manufacturers.
- Future certification – pursuing recognised standards to reinforce security and quality assurance.
How does the Service List Registry compare with DNS?
Much as the Domain Name System or DNS serves as a single, distributed, authoritative source for resolving web addresses, the SLR supports service discovery for television and video services by providing an authoritative source for audiovisual media service lists. The SLR is also contracted as the exclusive root registry for HbbTV Application Discovery over Broadband.
The analogy with DNS is instructive. Both systems:
- Serve as authoritative roots for discovery.
- Provide globally accessible, resilient, and secure infrastructure.
- Depend on a governance model that balances openness with control.
The differences are equally instructive. DNS manages billions of domain names. The SLR complements this global infrastructure by managing audiovisual media services of national and international significance. While no single organisation owns or operates the internet, audiovisual media services are typically subject to national regulation. This has generally been achieved by licensing the means of distribution, such as radio-frequency spectrum. The SLR provides a straightforward mechanism to achieve compliance with national regulation.
The stakes are not just technical but cultural, protecting prominence, diversity, and national media ecosystems.
Who are the Service List Registry stakeholders and what are their roles?
The SLR serves four main stakeholder groups:
- Users benefit from seamless access to audiovisual media services.
- Devices rely on the registry for trusted service discovery.
- Providers contribute metadata describing their services.
- Regulators and authorities that recommend regulated service lists.
Since it is aligned to the interests of all stakeholders, and not operated on behalf of any one stakeholder organisation, the SLR acts as a neutral facilitator.
What is the legal status of the Service List Registry?
Service List Registry LImited is the incorporated company that operates the registry. It operates independently but engages with international bodies responsible for technical standards such as DVB and HbbTV, as well as with national media and communications regulators.
What governance mechanisms does the Service List Registry apply?
Like a domain name registry, the SLR requires rules about who may register, modify, or remove entries, and under what conditions. Registrants are validated and pay registry fees. Out-of-band checks confirm the credentials of organisations and individuals and enforce the records to which they have access.
Formal dispute resolution mechanisms will be defined, following principles similar to domain name arbitration. The Service List Registry is committed to being open, equitable, accessible, available, and transparent. It is developing policies to ensure fairness, neutrality, and good governance as the platform matures.
How are services managed through the Service List Registry?
Data security and integrity are enforced through role-based access control, with granular permissions defining who can add, edit, or delete data. The identity of registrants is validated, and individual named users have access to maintain their own records. Consumers have read-only access to the data, enforced through both policy and architecture.
How are security and resilience ensured in the Service List Registry?
The SLR builds on the shared responsibility model of the AWS platform, combining cloud-level protections with application-level safeguards:
- Secure connections – all interactions, public or private, are encrypted end-to-end with enforced HTTPS.
- eparation of concerns – public read access is strictly segregated from update mechanisms.
- Granular entitlements – write access is controlled through roles and authorisations.
- Auditability – all changes are logged and attributable to verified entities.
This combination mirrors best practice in the domain name world, where operational separation, encryption, and audit trails are central to maintaining trust.
What ensures the long-term sustainability of the Service List Registry?
The success of the SLR depends on its long-term viability. Consumer electronics manufacturers need confidence that the discovery mechanisms embedded in their devices will remain reliable and interoperable for years to come.
The Service List Registry model is simple: stakeholders contribute to shared infrastructure that protects their collective interests.
- Economies of scale – one registry serving many participants is more efficient than multiple separate alternatives.
- Network effects – the more providers and devices use the SLR, the more valuable it becomes.
- Future-proofing – by adhering to open standards, the registry avoids vendor lock-in and preserves flexibility.
The funding model is based on cost recovery, ensuring that fees cover the expense of managing and operating the infrastructure.
Like a bank, the SLR operates in a competitive market. Its credibility, and ultimately its viability, depend on good governance and trust, supported by a shared understanding of its security and reliability.
Conclusion
The Service List Registry is building a trusted foundation by combining legal authority, secure architecture, role-based access, and stakeholder engagement. It is early in the journey, and governance mechanisms will continue to evolve, but the direction is clear.
For media devices, providers, and regulators, the Service List Registry represents not just a technical platform but a shared strategic asset: an authoritative, trusted, and secure root for audiovisual service discovery, much as DNS is for the internet. Participation in the Service List Registry is therefore both a safeguard and an opportunity. It is a way to preserve diversity, ensure compliance, and strengthen national and international media ecosystems.