Re: [projectvrm] VRM Utopia - The structure - Using Rights and Customer Independance

[Doc Searls < >]

There is a lot going on in this thread (or these threads) and I'm not sure 
where it's best to jump in, so I'm choosing here, mostly because it's the 
latest in my queue...

On May 11, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Mark Lizar wrote:

> There is currently a great deal of talk about rights and customer strengths 
> at the moment.   A declaration of Customer Independence is great but it is 
> the application of that independence that really matters.  Its the use of 
> the Bill of Rights that will change things. 

We need both. Interdependence requires the independence of both parties. The 
best and healthiest relationships begin and persist between parties that both 
arrive at the table in full strength and sovereignty. 

But for 150 years customers have had neither, and that's the problem, because 
that's the context.

Thus, too much of the way we understand interdependence in the marketplace 
today is within industrial systems that presume subordinate roles for 
customers in respect to vendors. This is one reason the commercial Web has 
perverted client-server into a calf-cow system in which each of us get 
tracking cookies with our milk of html and javascript.

If we start with interdependence, we risk continuing to leverage our 
understanding of relationship in the current defaulted system.

So I stand by my intent to continue with a Declaration of Customer 
Independence, and hope those working on interdependence will frame it in a 
context of independence on both sides. That way "open loyalty" (and other 
worthy concepts) will be based on fully voluntary qualities on both sides.

> We are all here on this list because we know that a change is needed on the 
> bottom line.  The Money Line.   
> 
> The truth is, we as customers have a right to access our data.  The truth 
> is, that we don't get access (beyond our personal details) to our data 
> taken by vendors.  Vendors control aggregation of information about their 
> customers but us customers are blocked at every turn from that advantage.  
> This is never so apparent as Jim points out in advertising media. Even when 
> we pay money we are systematically prevented access to anything but the 
> deceiving over stretching, data stealing advertising industry.  We are only 
> systematically able to access 'just' the personal details of ourselves the 
> customer.   The rest comes in unusable bits.   
> 
> This does not have to be the case.  Legally we  have the right to access 
> our information.  Legally we can wield Freedom Of Information, Data 
> Portability, Subject Access Rights.  We can wield customer power to gain 
> beneficial access to information, what is needed is the combinations of 
> these 'strengths', we need to open up the loyalty.  

Agreed.

> What if VRM develops a charter for VRM business.  So that business can 
> wield a charter of customer strengths, legal policies and assert 
> independence as to directly facilitate change.

We're working on that, in different ways.

> A group effort.  Perhaps what is needed is a group of organisations with 
> the same sort of charter.  A Union perhaps for fourth party organisations 
> that can politically open the Loyalty of Companies for the customers. 

Possibly.

> As for the makeup of what a personal data org that is trustworthy might 
> look like more food for thought inline below. 
> 
> 
> On 11 May 2011, at 14:43, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:
> 
>> But why stop the idea there!  The idea of a co-operative is very valuable, 
>> perhaps what this community needs is a combination of structures? Even 
>> more recently I have been thinking that was is really needed is a customer 
>> union, something powerful enough that access and control of shared vendor 
>> data can actually become a reality. 

I own customerunion.org and some variants, fwiw. I think I also own 
customersunion.org, but can't get into my domain registry at Google Apps 
(which is FUBAR) to check.

Meanwhile, we are creating CustomerCommons.org mostly to deal with terms, on 
the CreativeCommons model.

>>  >> Am I missing something or is the key difference between a cooperative 
>> and a community interest company the issue of caps on dividends?
> 
> Yes I think so.  In a UK CIC  (community interest company) the cap on the 
> salaries and dividends along with regulated transparency balance the 
> financial benefits with the needs of the community as to make an inherently 
> trustworthy company. 
> 
> Interestingly, Belgium has the “corporate co-operative” concept where all 
> companies would “own” the company as a co-operative. This is why SWIFT and 
> SITA are/where Belgian entities. Any surplus would then either go to 
> reserves or be distributed to the co-operative shares, shares could be 
> distributed in proportion of the contribution of each company (a little bit 
> like a building society where the clients are the shareholders). 
> 
> Best Regards / Mark Lizar
> 

No time for more. To sum up for now, I think we need .orgs that are centered 
on individual independence and engagement, and other .orgs that are focused 
on collective efforts. Again, my focus is on the former; and I believe 
without the former the latter risks putting the individual in a weak and 
dependent position. Hence my own reticence about starting there.

Doc