Summary record of the first session of the Platform Council

Document type: Summary record of a session

Chair: Nadia Cherif, Chair of the Platform Council

Record prepared by: Robert Nikic

Session format: Open Tables, held in two sittings: Asia-Pacific, 06:00 UTC; Europe, Africa and the Americas, 16:00 UTC.

Attendance: Three persons, including the chair and two Platform Council members; two countries represented. Attendance is recorded across the two sittings, without assigning a participant to a particular sitting.

Agenda: Opening and purpose; call for evidence on PL-001; review of reports received; member contributions; handling of evidence and next steps.

Summary record

1. The Platform Council held its first session on 12 February 2026 in two Open Table sittings, at 06:00 UTC and 16:00 UTC. The sittings provided separate meeting times for members in different regions. This record summarizes the session as a whole and does not attribute any intervention to a specific sitting where the record does not distinguish between them.

2. Nadia Cherif opened the session and chaired both sittings. He recalled that the Founders Assembly had launched on 10 February and that the Platform Council’s first agenda item was PL-001, the call for evidence issued as RC/PL/2026/1. The session was convened to hear members and clarify what evidence would be useful. It was not a hearing on any named company or an occasion for deciding an individual dispute.

3. The chair noted that the council’s work concerned practices affecting small businesses that use platforms, rather than the conduct of one particular company. Members were invited to describe what happened to them, what effect it had, and what information they had retained. They were also reminded that a member’s business identity was not required for a report to be considered.

4. The chair stated that the call for evidence was at an early stage. The session would collect accounts and identify questions for further evidence; it would not decide whether the reports established a recurring pattern. No draft standard was before the council. No finding, recommendation to a platform, or policy position was adopted at this meeting.

5. At the opening, the chair reviewed the available membership and reporting snapshot. Reseated had 20 members seated in 18 countries, and 10 reports had been filed from 9 countries. The Platform Council had two members from two countries and nine reports from eight countries; the Cashflow Council had one report. These figures were reported as the position available on 12 February 2026.

6. The chair reported that the nine Platform Council submissions concerned two broad situations: funds held, in four reports, and accounts suspended, in five. The median amount at stake was approximately US$4,126. These were aggregate descriptions of reports, not findings about the merits, causes, or outcomes of any individual case.

7. The chair read out the country distribution recorded for the Platform Council’s nine reports: the United States, two; the Netherlands, one; the Philippines, one; Canada, one; the United Kingdom, one; South Africa, one; Colombia, one; and France, one. The distribution showed reports from eight countries. The chair cautioned that the sample was small and that the country counts did not establish that a practice was more or less common in any jurisdiction.

8. The chair also presented the available team-size distribution for Platform Council reports: 67 per cent from businesses described as “just me,” 22 per cent from teams of 2–9, and 11 per cent from teams of 10–49. He noted that the figures were descriptive and that the session would not draw conclusions about all small businesses from this initial set of reports.

9. Elena Brooks, a member from Portland, United States, described the practical importance of being able to understand what had happened when an account was suspended or money was held. She emphasized that a useful report should distinguish what the member directly observed from what the member inferred, and should include dates or communications where available. She did not identify her business.

10. Noor de Vries, a member from Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that accounts of funds being held and accounts being suspended should be recorded separately, even where a member experienced both. She identified the reason given, the timing of any notice, the opportunity to ask for a review, and the duration of a hold as details that could help the council compare reports. She did not identify her business.

11. In response, the chair said that the reporting form and supporting evidence should preserve the sequence of events wherever possible. A member could describe a notice, a request for review, or a payment delay without supplying material that would disclose the member’s business publicly. The chair said that missing information should be recorded as missing, rather than filled by assumption.

12. Members discussed the difference between reporting an event and establishing why it occurred. They agreed that a suspension notice, a payment record, or a platform message might help document an event, but that a document alone would not necessarily explain the decision or establish whether the same practice affected other members. Further reporting would be needed before the council could assess whether accounts were comparable.

13. The chair invited reports about account suspensions, listing removals, payout holds, and fee changes, consistent with the scope of PL-001. Members were asked to provide the relevant sequence and the information available to them, including any explanation received and any subsequent review. The invitation was a request for evidence; it did not imply that every report involved all four types of event.

14. Members considered how the council should handle differences between jurisdictions and platform services. The chair said that reports should specify the country in which the member operated and describe the service involved in general terms. For the purposes of the council’s work, members should not be required to name their own businesses in public accounts, and accounts should not be converted into allegations against a named company during this evidence-gathering stage.

15. The chair referred members to RC/PL/2026/1 as the current call for evidence and asked them to use its scope when submitting further accounts. The council did not amend the call during the session. Members could submit additional information after the meeting; the session did not set a deadline or close evidence gathering.

16. The chair summarized the boundaries of the work at this point. The council had received nine Platform Council reports, but had not yet completed an assessment of consistency, frequency, spread, or corroboration. The aggregate totals were a starting point for inquiry only. No member was asked to treat the totals as proof of a general platform practice.

17. The chair invited members to note whether an account was based on a personal experience or on information received from someone else. Where a member submitted a document, the member should explain its connection to the reported event. Where details could not be supplied, the report could still be received, with the limits clearly recorded. This approach was intended to protect accuracy and avoid overstating what the evidence showed.

18. The chair confirmed that the council’s records would describe practices and aggregate experiences, not publish members’ business names. Members could choose to take a public seat, but anonymity remained the default unless a member chose otherwise. The session did not authorize disclosure of identifying details from a report, nor did it decide how any particular supporting document would be published.

19. During the closing discussion, the chair asked members to continue reporting relevant events and to identify recurring questions that might guide later evidence collection. Members were encouraged to describe both the event and its consequence, including whether access to an account or funds was affected. The council would retain the distinction between a member’s account, corroborating material, and any later assessment by the council.

20. The session concluded that the immediate task was to gather sufficiently clear and comparable accounts. The chair noted that the figures available on 12 February did not support a conclusion about prevalence, cause, or the appropriate remedy. The council would return to the evidence after further reports had been received. No ballot was held, and no text for a standard was drafted or approved.

21. The chair recorded that the next Platform Council Open Table was provisionally scheduled for 12 March 2026, consistent with the Assembly’s monthly Open Table schedule. The date was noted for planning; the Secretariat would circulate meeting details. No agenda for that next session was adopted beyond continuing the evidence-gathering work.

Decisions and conclusions

1. The session confirmed PL-001 as the subject of the Platform Council’s current evidence-gathering work, under the call for evidence RC/PL/2026/1.

2. The council recorded the report and membership figures set out above as the snapshot available on 12 February 2026. The figures were not treated as a finding about prevalence or cause.

3. The chair and members agreed to keep reports of funds held and account suspensions distinguishable in the record, and to note what is directly evidenced, what is reported by a member, and what remains unknown.

4. No substantive policy decision was taken. No standard, recommendation, company-specific finding, or public allegation was adopted.

Action items

Next session

The next Platform Council Open Table was provisionally scheduled for 12 March 2026. The council was expected to continue receiving evidence under PL-001. This summary record was prepared and signed by Nadia Cherif, Chair of the Platform Council.