Summary record of Open Table 1 (two sittings)

Symbol: RC/A/2026/SR.1
Date: 26 February 2026
Document type: Minutes — published summary record
Chair: Robert Nikic, Advisory Council Chair, presiding
Open Table: No. 1, held in two sittings

1. Meeting details

1.The Asia-Pacific sitting took place at 06:00 UTC on 26 February 2026. The Europe/Africa/Americas sitting took place at 16:00 UTC on the same date. Robert Nikic, Advisory Council Chair, presided in both sittings.

2.The membership roll on the date of this record listed 111 members in 37 countries. This is the Assembly-wide membership count, not a separate check-in total for either sitting; the Secretariat did not preserve sitting-specific attendance totals. Contributions summarized below are attributed to members by name and location for the purposes of this record. No member is associated with a named business.

3.Open Table 1 was the first monthly open meeting of the Founders Assembly following its launch on 10 February 2026. The Assembly was operating under its Founding Charter, RC/A/2026/1. The Rules of Procedure had not yet been adopted. The meeting was convened to hear evidence and identify questions for further inquiry, not to decide or endorse standards.

2. Agenda

1. Opening remarks and purpose of the Open Table.

2. Initial reports concerning platform practices and payment delays.

3. Evidence needs in the other council areas: fair play, trade, resilience, red tape and team.

4. Approach to collecting, checking and organizing reports.

5. Actions before the next monthly Open Table.

3. Proceedings

4.The Chair opened the meeting by recalling that Reseated had been established as a global assembly of small-business owners, organized into seven councils. He noted that the Assembly was at the beginning of its work: seven calls for evidence had been issued, and members were being asked to describe recurring practices and their effects rather than to propose findings about individual companies. He emphasized that the accounts presented were to be handled without identifying members’ businesses.

5.The Chair stated that evidence collection was intended to precede any assessment of whether a reported problem was sufficiently widespread or consistent to justify a proposed fix. He invited members to distinguish what they had personally experienced from what they had heard from others, and to identify dates, documents or other material that could help the Secretariat assess a report. No statement made in either sitting was treated as an established finding merely because it was raised at the meeting.

6.Ms. Amina Rahman of Dhaka, Bangladesh, speaking in the Asia-Pacific sitting, described difficulty obtaining a clear explanation after a marketplace listing was removed. She said that the practical problem for a small seller was not only the removal itself, but also uncertainty about what rule was said to have been breached, what information could correct the issue and how long a review might take. She asked that the evidence call distinguish between removal of a listing and suspension of an entire account, since the consequences and available remedies might differ.

7.Mr. Kenji Sato of Osaka, Japan, said that his report concerned a payout delay following a request for additional account information. He noted that a small business may have limited ability to plan payroll or supplier payments when an

expected transfer is held without a stated review period. He recommended that report forms invite members to record the date a hold began, whether notice was given, the explanation provided and the date funds were released, if they were released. The Chair recorded the suggestion for the Secretariat’s evidence-form review.

8.Ms. Litia Vakaloloma of Suva, Fiji, asked that members be able to submit reports without publicly identifying themselves or their businesses. She said that some owners may fear losing access to a service if they complain openly. The Chair confirmed the Assembly’s general approach that members remain anonymous unless they choose a public seat, and noted that evidence should avoid unnecessary personal or commercial identifiers.

9.Mr. Arjun Menon of Kochi, India, raised payment terms between larger buyers and smaller suppliers. He said that a stated payment term did not always capture the time between delivery, invoice submission, acceptance and actual receipt of funds. He recommended that the Cashflow Council’s evidence collection record each stage separately, as well as whether an invoice was disputed and whether the supplier had a written agreement. He did not ask the meeting to adopt a particular payment deadline.

10.Ms. Maria Santos of Cebu City, Philippines, described the importance of preserving dated records of invoices, delivery confirmations and communications about payment. She observed that a supplier might not have a complete file when a delay first arises, and suggested that evidence guidance explain which records are useful without implying that a missing document disproves a member’s account. The Chair asked the Secretariat to include this point when reviewing submission guidance.

11.In the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting, Ms. Inês Ferreira of Porto, Portugal, said that an account restriction could affect a small business’s ability to respond to customers even where the owner believed the underlying issue could be corrected. She supported asking members whether a review was handled by a person, whether the stated reason was specific enough to act upon and whether the process differed across countries. She cautioned that a single account event should not, by itself, be presented as evidence of a general practice.

12.Mr. Kwame Boateng of Accra, Ghana, reported that a late payment could create a chain of practical difficulties for a small supplier, including postponing purchases needed to fulfil later orders. He asked that the Cashflow Council gather evidence about the size and frequency of payment delays and not rely only on the contractual term. He also recommended recording whether the buyer gave a reason for delay and whether the supplier felt able to pursue the matter without risking future work.

13.Ms. Thandiwe Mokoena of Durban, South Africa, asked the Assembly to consider how small businesses could report suspected payment fraud without exposing sensitive customer or transaction information. She proposed that the Fair Play Council’s evidence call distinguish the route by which a fraudulent instruction was received from the way a payment was authorized and processed. The Chair noted the proposal as an evidence-design question; the meeting did not draw conclusions about the responsibility of any financial institution or payment provider.

14.Mr. Lucas Ferreira of São Paulo, Brazil, spoke about the difficulty of estimating the final cost of a small cross-border shipment when charges were communicated at different stages by different service providers. He suggested recording the initial estimate, the charges ultimately billed and when those amounts became known. He said this would help the Trade Council assess whether a problem concerned tariffs, information supplied by an intermediary or another part of the transaction. The Chair noted that the Trade Council was at the evidence-gathering stage.

15.Ms. Zanele Dlamini of Gqeberha, South Africa, raised the effect of a disruption on an owner’s ability to reopen promptly. She recommended that resilience reports record the type and date of disruption, the time taken to receive an insurance decision or other support, and the practical steps required to resume trading. She stressed that outcomes may differ according to the size and location of a business. The Chair noted the account as a proposal for the Resilience Council’s evidence work, not as a general finding.

16.Mr. Mateo Rojas of Bogotá, Colombia, said that owners can find it difficult to understand which office or digital service is responsible for a permit or registration step. He proposed collecting the number of steps, the time spent

waiting and whether the applicant received an explanation when a process stalled. He cautioned that a long processing time alone might not explain the cause of delay. The Chair recorded his suggestion for the Red Tape Council.

17.Ms. Grace Njeri of Nairobi, Kenya, raised the costs and administrative work that can accompany a first formal hire. She suggested that evidence on hiring should record both direct employment costs and the time required to register, report and comply with payroll obligations. She said the effect on a very small employer may differ from the effect on a larger firm. The Chair noted this as an initial question for the Team Council’s evidence call and made no assessment of any national system.

18.In both sittings, members supported keeping reports concrete and comparable while leaving room for contextual detail. Participants emphasized that a report should identify the practice experienced, its timing, the relevant communications where available and the practical effect on the business, without naming a member’s business in public materials. The Chair stated that the Secretariat would review these suggestions alongside the seven calls for evidence.

4. Evidence and membership position

19.The internal register as of 26 February 2026 recorded 179 reports from 35 countries. The council breakdown was: Platform, 135; Cashflow, 40; Red Tape, 3; and Trade, 1. These figures describe reports received by that date, not findings of fact or the number of businesses affected. The meeting did not add or revise the register totals.

20.Members noted the importance of keeping the evidence process proportionate for small businesses. The Assembly’s work concerns a substantial part of economic activity: micro, small and medium-sized enterprises account for approximately 90 per cent of businesses, 60–70 per cent of employment and about half of GDP worldwide.¹ Participants did not treat these global estimates as proof of any individual council concern.

21.The Chair reminded participants that many MSMEs operate in the informal economy, and that evidence collection should be accessible to owners with limited administrative capacity.² Members were invited to provide the information they could reasonably obtain; no participant was asked to disclose confidential customer, employee or business records in an open session.

5. Decisions and conclusions

22.The Open Table made no ballot decision and adopted no council standard, recommendation or formal finding. It was an evidence-gathering meeting held under the Founding Charter. The seven calls for evidence remained open for their respective council work.

23.The meeting recorded the following procedural conclusions for the Secretariat’s follow-up: evidence guidance should encourage dated and specific accounts; report forms should make room for the stages and duration of an event; members should be able to avoid unnecessary identifying detail; and a report should not be described as a verified pattern solely because it has been submitted. These conclusions are guidance for the evidence process and do not alter the Charter or establish a binding procedure.

24.The meeting further recorded that the councils should continue to describe practices and recurring issues, rather than make unsupported allegations about individual companies. Where members refer to an organization in a public account, the general descriptions used by the Assembly—such as “a large marketplace,” “a national retail chain” or “a payment provider”—are to be preferred unless a public seat or another authorized process requires identification.

6. Action items

7. Next session and certification

25.The next Open Table was scheduled for 26 March 2026, with the usual two sittings: Asia-Pacific at 06:00 UTC and Europe/Africa/Americas at 16:00 UTC. The Secretariat was to circulate any agenda and participation details through Assembly channels.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. United Nations — Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day
2. International Labour Organization — Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises