The Table, No. 28: From adopted standard to CEO desks

From the Secretariat

Dear members and partners,

This week marked a change in the work of the Platform Council. The Assembly adopted the Platform Fairness Standard last week; on 20 August, Reseated sent it to the chief executives of seven companies whose services are widely used by small businesses. The letters begin a new stage: putting a member-tested proposal before the people with authority to adopt it.

Sending a standard is not the same as securing a change. Our role is to make the evidence, the proposed practice and the request clear, then keep an accurate record of what happens next. Alongside that work, councils continued to review evidence on recall speed, tariff and landed-cost shocks, and other operating conditions. This digest records what was on the table as of Friday, 21 August.

In solidarity,
The Founding Secretariat

The week at the table

The principal development this week was the transmission of the Platform Fairness Standard, adopted by the Assembly on 13 August, to seven chief executives. The letters, dated 20 August, are addressed to Andy Jassy of Amazon, Tobias Lütke of Shopify, Enrique Lores of PayPal, Jack Dorsey of Block, Jamie Iannone of eBay, Kruti Patel Goyal of Etsy, and John Ternus of Apple. Each letter transmits the same adopted standard; the addressees are the executive seats that Reseated is asking to consider adopting it.

The standard followed a defined process. Platform Council reports were reviewed against the five-part pattern test: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. A draft was then opened for public consultation from 2 June to 2 July, receiving 487 comments. The revised proposal went to the Assembly, where it passed on 13 August with 86.4 per cent voting yes and 58 per cent turnout. The letters now carry that decision to the companies. They do not imply that any company has agreed to the standard, and no reply is recorded in this digest.

Other documents issued this week show the range of council work. The Trade Council’s interim pattern review, RC/TR/2026/N.1, dated 18 August, concerns tariff and landed-cost shocks for small importers. The Fair Play Council issued an open letter to small-business banking teams on recall speed on 19 August. Summary records were also issued for the seventh sessions of the Fair Play, Trade and Resilience Councils, as well as the sixth Fellows roundtable. These records preserve the work of the sessions; they are not substitutes for adopted standards or Assembly decisions.

For the Platform Council, the next task is to maintain a reliable seat-by-seat record. Reseated tracks whether a proposed seat has received a letter, whether delivery is confirmed, and whether a reply or signature follows. That distinction matters: a sent letter is an action by Reseated, not an outcome on the recipient’s side.

By the numbers

As of 21 August, Reseated had 1,379 seated members in 49 countries. Members had filed 4,115 reports from 50 countries. The difference between the country counts reflects the separate measures: where members are seated and where reports were filed.

Reports by council were:

• Platform: 1,771
• Cashflow: 1,091
• Fair Play: 454
• Trade: 304
• Red Tape: 216
• Resilience: 167
• Team: 112

Together, those council totals equal 4,115 reports. They describe the evidence received to date; they do not, by themselves, establish that every reported experience is widespread or that a proposed remedy has been accepted. Each issue still has to pass through review, consultation and, where appropriate, an Assembly ballot.

The figures also explain why the process takes more than collecting individual accounts. A report can identify a problem worth examining. The pattern test asks whether evidence shows meaningful volume, recurrence, consistency, spread and corroboration. Councils then work on a proposed practice that can be consulted on and decided by members. Keeping those stages distinct helps protect both the credibility of the evidence and the legitimacy of the final request.

From the table

One anonymized Platform Council account concerned a small seller using a large marketplace. The seller described making stock and staffing decisions around the platform’s published information, then finding that an important operating condition had changed without enough practical notice to adjust. The immediate consequence was not simply frustration: goods had already been prepared, time had already been committed, and the seller had fewer options for recovering the cost.

The account did not name the seller’s business or the marketplace. It did not ask the Assembly to treat one experience as proof of a general practice. Instead, it supplied a concrete sequence for reviewers to examine: what the seller understood the conditions to be, what changed, when the change became visible, and what choices remained. Other reports can then be compared against that sequence for consistency and spread.

That is why member accounts and standards serve different purposes. The account gives the human and operational detail; the pattern review tests whether similar conditions recur across businesses. A standard, if adopted, must state a practice clearly enough to be considered by a platform and assessed by the members who will live with its effects. The Platform Fairness Standard represents the Assembly’s decision after that process, not a claim that every member has the same experience.

Members who share evidence can help by describing the sequence as precisely as they can: the point at which a condition was communicated, the time available to respond, the costs or choices affected, and any records that support the account. Names of businesses are not needed for public reporting, and members remain anonymous unless they choose a public seat.

Coming up

The next dated milestone in the current calendar is the opening of the Cashflow Council’s CF-001 public consultation on 25 August. Members and other contributors will be able to review the draft and submit comments during the consultation period. The purpose is to test the proposed fix against experience beyond the initial reports, identify gaps and improve the text before an Assembly ballot is considered.

The consultation follows the same basic sequence Reseated uses for each issue: evidence first, a five-part pattern test, a draft response, public comment and then a decision by ballot. Contributors should distinguish between describing an experience and endorsing a particular remedy; both kinds of feedback can help the council understand whether the draft is clear, workable and responsive to the reports.

Meanwhile, the Platform Council’s adopted standard has moved into the CEO-seat tracking stage. The letters were sent on 20 August, and the Secretariat will record delivery, replies and any decision to sign without treating silence as agreement. Trade Council review of tariff and landed-cost shocks also continues. The interim note is a pattern-review document, not an adopted Trade standard.

Open Table sittings continue monthly. They provide space for members to compare the practical details behind reports and for people new to the process to understand how evidence moves through the councils. Notices for the next sitting and consultation instructions will be shared through Reseated’s usual channels.

One thing you can do

Before sending a report or consultation comment, write down one specific instance in sequence: what you expected, what happened instead, when you learned of it, and what it cost you in money, time or available choices. Include supporting records where you can, while removing information that could identify your business if you do not want it made public.

For CF-001, read the draft when the consultation opens on 25 August and comment on the proposed practice as well as the problem. Is the requested change clear? Could a small business tell whether it had been followed? Is an important circumstance missing? Those practical questions help turn shared evidence into a proposal that can be understood, tested and acted on.