The Table, No. 6: Rules for a Shared Table

Friday, 20 March 2026

A note from the Secretariat

This week, the Founders Assembly adopted its Rules of Procedure. That is a practical milestone: a growing assembly needs a shared way to conduct its work, consider proposals and record decisions. The rules do not replace the evidence that brings members to the table. They help make sure that evidence can be heard and that decisions can be followed.

Alongside the ballot, councils met, Fellows held their first roundtable, and members filed evidence submissions. These are different kinds of work, but they belong to the same process: listen carefully, describe recurring problems, and make the next step visible. This digest records what happened in the week ending today.

The week at the table

On 19 March, the Founders Assembly adopted the Rules of Procedure, document RC/A/2026/2. The ballot is the week’s lead story because it establishes the common procedural framework for the Assembly’s work. The document was adopted by ballot; the Secretariat will use the adopted text as the reference point for the Assembly’s proceedings. Members can consult the rules under their document symbol rather than relying on a second-hand summary.

The week also brought several different kinds of council work into view. The Cashflow Council, Fair Play Council and Trade Council each published a summary record of its second session: RC/CF/2026/SR.2, RC/FP/2026/SR.2 and RC/TR/2026/SR.2. Those records are the formal accounts of the sessions. The Platform Council published an open letter, “To every seller who got the email at 2 a.m.” (RC/PL/2026/20). The Red Tape Council addressed mayors and city executives with an open letter asking them to publish their permit times (RC/RT/2026/20).

On 20 March, the Fellows’ first roundtable was recorded as RC/A/2026/FR.1. Four evidence submissions were also entered this week: the Platform submission, “Seller notices and the cost of uncertainty” (RC/PL/2026/S.1); the Cashflow submission, “Payment timing and small-business planning” (RC/CF/2026/S.1); the Fair Play submission, “Consistent treatment in commercial disputes” (RC/FP/2026/S.1); and the Team submission, “Keeping a small team in the work” (RC/TM/2026/S.1). Their inclusion in the record is not a finding or an adopted position. It makes the submissions identifiable and available for council consideration.

Together, this week’s documents show the Assembly’s work in several forms: rules adopted by members, meeting records, public letters and evidence placed on the record. Each has a different purpose. None should be mistaken for a final standard or for a decision by a company or public authority.

By the numbers

As of 20 March, Reseated has 254 members seated in 46 countries. Members have filed 539 reports from 49 countries. The reports by council are: Platform, 358; Cashflow, 131; Fair Play, 21; Red Tape, 16; Trade, 8; and Team, 5.

Those are two different measures. The member count describes people seated in the Assembly; the report count describes submissions received. Reports have come from more countries than the current membership, and the largest share of reports is in the Platform and Cashflow councils. The counts tell us where evidence has accumulated. By themselves, they do not establish that any individual report is representative, or settle whether a practice meets a pattern test.

That distinction matters. Reseated’s work is not to turn a single account into a verdict. Reports are considered together, tested for Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration, and only then can a council move toward a draft fix and consultation. The numbers are a useful measure of participation, not a substitute for that process.

From the table

A member’s account, retold without identifying details: an order was accepted, the goods were prepared, and the member set aside time to fulfil it. Then an automated message arrived in the early hours asking for an account action. The message did not explain, in plain terms, what had changed or how long the account review might take. By morning, the member was trying to work out whether to ship, wait, or contact support—while also managing the day’s other orders.

The difficult part was not simply receiving an email at an inconvenient hour. It was having to make a time-sensitive business decision without enough information to judge the consequences. Shipping could mean accepting a risk; waiting could mean missing a deadline. The member wanted a clear notice, a usable explanation of the next step, and a way to understand what would happen to orders already in progress.

This is one account, not a finding about every seller or every platform. It helps explain why the Platform Council’s open letter is addressed to sellers who have received an overnight email, and why reports need specifics: what the notice said, when it arrived, what action was requested, and what happened next. Members can share those details without naming their business. They should not name a company in an accusation; the Assembly’s job is to identify practices and test whether accounts show a consistent pattern.

Coming up

The next steps remain evidence-led. The council records and submissions published this week can inform continuing discussion, while members and councils continue to distinguish an individual experience from a pattern that meets the five-part test.

Open Tables are held monthly, with sittings designed for members in different regions. Members can find the next sitting’s date and joining details in a Secretariat notice. Members who cannot attend can still follow the document record and share evidence through the appropriate council route.

On the wider policy calendar, the UK government’s late-payment consultation response is dated 24 March. That is an upcoming public-policy date, not a Reseated decision. Members following cashflow issues may wish to read the government material when it becomes available and compare its scope with the experiences they have reported to the Cashflow Council. Any Reseated position would need to be established through the Assembly’s own process.

One thing you can do

If you have reported a problem, add one concrete detail that helps another reader understand what happened: the date, the notice or term involved, the step you took, or the practical consequence for your work. Keep the account specific, remove your business name, and avoid naming a company in an accusation. A clear detail can make a report easier to compare with others without asking anyone to disclose more than they choose.

If you have not reported an experience, consider whether a practice has affected your ability to plan, get paid, reach customers, or manage a team. Describe the practice rather than guessing at intent. Evidence is most useful when it is careful, comparable and safe to share.