Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Founders Assembly
Summary record of Open Table 4 (two sittings)
Chair: Robert Nikic, Advisory Council Chair, presiding
Sittings: Asia-Pacific, 06:00 UTC; Europe/Africa/Americas, 16:00 UTC
Attendance and representation: The Assembly register recorded 751 members seated in 49 countries as at 26 May. This is the available attendance count for this record; the register did not disaggregate attendance between the two sittings. Reports filed by that date totalled 1,956, originating in 50 countries.
Agenda: (a) opening and purpose of the Open Table; (b) review of the evidence and pattern-test process; (c) council updates and member accounts; (d) release of the Platform Council draft; (e) pledges and next steps; and (f) date and arrangements for the next session.
Mr. Robert Nikic opened the Asia-Pacific sitting at 06:00 UTC and the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting at 16:00 UTC. He stated that the Open Table was a member discussion and evidence-gathering forum, not a decision-making ballot. The Assembly’s established sequence remained reports, the five-part pattern test, preparation of a draft fix, public consultation, an Assembly ballot and, following adoption, letters to the chief executives able to act. He noted that the purpose of the two sittings was to provide members in different regions with an opportunity to contribute to a shared record.
The Chair recalled that the Assembly had been launched on 10 February 2026 and that its Founders Charter and Rules of Procedure provided the institutional basis for the work. He invited members to distinguish personal experience from conclusions about a whole market practice, to avoid naming their own businesses, and to describe other parties by category rather than by company. He further recalled that members remained anonymous unless they chose to take a public seat. Contributions made at the table would inform council work but would not be treated as verified findings without review.
The Secretariat’s report on participation was noted. As at the date of the meeting, 1,956 reports had been filed from 50 countries. The distribution by council was: Platform, 1,092; Cashflow, 527; Fair Play, 127; Red Tape, 78; Trade, 74; Team, 33; and Resilience, 25. The Chair observed that these figures described reports received, not unique members or confirmed instances of a practice. Members were asked to continue supplying dates, documents and contextual information where possible, and to distinguish first-hand experience from material reported to them by others.
Ms. Aiko Tanaka of Osaka, Japan, speaking in the Asia-Pacific sitting, described the difficulty of understanding a platform account restriction when the notice did not state what conduct was at issue or how a review could be requested. She said that the practical concern was not limited to the initial restriction: a delay in access to earnings could continue after the member had supplied the requested information. She supported a standard that set out a reason, a route to human review and a clear limit for a payout hold. The Chair recorded her contribution as a member account for the Platform Council’s evidence file, not as a finding about any named service.
Mr. Daniel Okafor of Lagos, Nigeria, also speaking in the Asia-Pacific sitting, described the importance of receiving a specific explanation when a listing or account was affected. He said a general notice made it difficult to correct an alleged problem or assess whether the restriction had been applied consistently. He asked that any standard address the usability of the review process as well as the existence of one, including whether a person could understand what information to provide and when a response could be expected. The Platform Council was requested to consider that point when reviewing the text.
Ms. Nur Aisyah Rahman of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, raised a separate concern about fees and changes to operating terms. She stated that advance notice was important where a small seller had already made commitments based on existing terms. She asked the council to consider whether notice and explanation should apply not only to suspensions and removals but also to material fee changes. Her contribution was noted as consistent with the scope of the draft then released, which included fee changes among the events addressed.
Mr. João Pereira of Porto, Portugal, speaking in the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting, described uncertainty about when an invoice could fairly be treated as disputed and what happened while that dispute remained unresolved. He said that small suppliers needed a clear process for identifying the disputed amount and paying any undisputed balance. He asked the Cashflow Council to make sure that a proposed payment-time standard did not leave the supplier without a practical way to challenge a delay. The Chair noted that the Cashflow Council was still gathering and testing evidence; no draft or ballot decision on a payment standard was before the meeting.
Ms. Amara Diallo of Dakar, Senegal, described how a delayed payment could affect a small supplier’s ability to meet immediate obligations. She supported collecting information on actual payment intervals and on the terms communicated to suppliers, rather than relying only on a contractual due date. The Cashflow Council was asked to include, where members could provide it, the invoice date, date of payment, any written agreement and the reason given for delay. The Chair emphasized that the Open Table did not determine whether any particular invoice or dispute was legally due.
Mr. Samuel Mensah of Accra, Ghana, raised the risk of payment instructions being changed through deceptive messages. He said that a small business could face difficulty recovering funds after authorizing a transfer in response to a message that appeared genuine. He supported gathering records of how payment details were verified, how quickly a report could be made and what assistance followed. The Fair Play Council was asked to preserve the distinction between a member’s account of a fraud event and a corroborated pattern. The council had not yet completed its pattern test as at this meeting.
Ms. Beatriz Costa of Maputo, Mozambique, described uncertainty around permits and the repeated need to submit similar information to different offices. She asked the Red Tape Council to consider whether a small-business impact assessment should include the time and cost of completing administrative steps, as well as the formal wording of a rule. The council was continuing evidence collection and had not completed its pattern test. The Chair recorded her request for the council’s consideration without treating it as a policy adopted by the Assembly.
Mr. Arjun Mehta of Ahmedabad, India, spoke about the difficulty of estimating the full cost of importing goods when charges and delivery terms were not clear before commitment. He asked that evidence collection record the point at which a trader first received a reliable estimate of landed cost and whether later changes were explained. The Trade Council was directed to continue collecting cases and to separate issues relating to rule changes from issues concerning the information supplied by intermediaries. The Trade Council had not yet passed its pattern test.
Ms. Elena García of Bogotá, Colombia, described uncertainty about the cost and administrative steps involved in taking on an additional worker. She asked that evidence on employment costs distinguish the first hires from later expansion, and record which payments or registrations were most difficult to forecast. Mr. Peter Mwangi of Nairobi, Kenya, added that small employers needed practical guidance on formal hiring obligations, not only a comparison of headline costs. The Team Council was asked to continue its cost diary and comparison work; its evidence had not yet passed the pattern test.
Ms. Lani Taufua of Apia, Samoa, described the difficulty of reopening after a severe weather event when insurance decisions, temporary finance and continuity support were not available on a predictable timetable. She supported gathering timelines from the date of interruption through reopening, including the time taken to receive decisions and assistance. The Resilience Council was continuing its evidence review. The Chair noted that the council had not completed its pattern test and that corroboration remained outstanding.
The Chair placed the council updates in the context of the Assembly-wide evidence base. He noted that international sources describe micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as a major part of business activity and employment, while definitions and measurement vary between jurisdictions.1 He also noted the International Labour Organization’s estimate that MSMEs account for about 70 per cent of employment worldwide and that about 80 per cent operate in the informal economy.2 He stated that these figures provided context and did not substitute for the Assembly’s five-part assessment of volume, frequency, consistency, spread and corroboration.
The Platform Council’s draft Platform Fairness Standard, RC/PL/2026/L.1, was released on 26 May. The proposed protections concerned written notice, a specific reason, review by a person and a time limit on payout holds before an account suspension, listing removal, payout hold or fee change, with the same protections applying across the countries in which a platform operates. The Chair clarified that the text was a draft and had not been adopted. No public consultation had opened by the time of the meeting, and the Open Table did not amend or approve the draft.
Members discussed the relationship between a proposed Assembly standard and existing legal requirements. The Chair noted that the European Union’s Platform-to-Business Regulation provides for statements of reasons when a platform restricts or suspends a business user, and requires at least 30 days’ notice before terminating the whole service.3 He cautioned that a comparison of legal frameworks should be handled carefully and that the Assembly’s proposed protections were being considered as a common practice standard, not as legal advice or a claim that every jurisdiction had identical obligations.
On pledges, the Secretariat reported that the business pledge programme had opened on 5 May under the Assembly’s Pledge Standards, RC/A/2026/7. The Chair invited members to share the programme with businesses willing to state publicly which practices they would follow. He emphasized that a pledge was voluntary and distinct from adoption of a council standard. No new pledge total was reported at the meeting, and none was entered in this record.
On decisions, the Open Table took no vote and adopted no standard. It confirmed the procedural distinction between a council’s evidence and drafting work, a public consultation, and a later Assembly ballot. The meeting also confirmed that public statements or correspondence with chief executives would follow the applicable process and would not be represented as sent or answered unless the Secretariat recorded those events.
On action items, the Platform Council was asked to review the member comments recorded above against RC/PL/2026/L.1 and prepare for the consultation process; no consultation dates were set at the table. The Cashflow, Fair Play, Red Tape, Trade, Team and Resilience Councils were asked to continue collecting reports relevant to their respective evidence files and to document the five-part pattern test before recommending a draft. The Secretariat was asked to preserve the attendance and report figures as separate measures, consolidate the two sittings’ notes, and circulate this summary record. Members were invited to submit additional evidence through the relevant council channels, with care taken not to identify their own businesses.
The Chair closed by confirming that Open Tables would continue monthly, with two sittings to serve different time zones. The next session was scheduled for June 2026; a specific date and agenda had not been confirmed at this meeting. He thanked the members for their contributions and stated that the next record would distinguish clearly between evidence received, council assessments, draft proposals and decisions taken by ballot.
Sources
United Nations, Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day: https://www.un.org/en/observances/micro-small-medium-businesses-day
International Labour Organization, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises: https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/micro-small-and-medium-enterprises
Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, Article 4: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1150/oj/eng
Notes and sources
Sources
This document has no standing until adopted under the Founders Charter. Reseated Councils is not affiliated with the United Nations.