Text archives Help


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


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Doc Searls < >
  • To: Katherine Warman Kern < >
  • Cc: Mark Lizar < >, ProjectVRM list < >, Iain Henderson < >, frankxr < >, Venessa Miemis < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Re: Open-Open-Open Re: VRM Utopia - The structure - Using Rights and Customer Independance
  • Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 13:44:16 -0400

On May 15, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:

> Mark, your enthusiasm for the "customer federation" idea developed by a VRM
> community is refreshingly not callous and positive.
>
> How about considering an alternative starting point to drafting a charter?
> The reasons are two. First, there is broad consensus here about general
> principles (unfortunately, the intent of my controlled experiment idea is
> misunderstood if it is seen as the opposite, in principle, to open.)
> Secondly, words- like "we do no evil" and "we make the world open and
> connect" - have been said by Google and Facebook. As I point out in this
> post
> http://www.comradity.com/comradity/2011/05/the-new-business-model-passive-aggressive.html
> , words are not as important as actions in today's marketplace
>
> To disrupt the "callous hurdle" and galvanize this community, how about
> starting with a roadmap of action and then composing a charter? I realize
> this sounds like putting the cart before the horse, but here's why. . .
>
> There are many features and benefits referenced here. One wonders what
> comes first and how they are linked to each other.
>
> The actions discussed here tend to be conceived, understandably, from an
> operating point of view (what has to be built first for the other features
> to deliver benefits).
>
> I suggest we put the operating considerations aside temporarily to consider
> first the customer's point of view (as in the customer in the
> "customer-vendor relationship" who is also the primary customer to whom
> this entity will be dedicated).
>
> Let's discuss specifically, what the individual customer will have to
> contribute to enjoy all the benefits, what actions come first vs later, and
> the barriers to taking action.

I just want to put in a word here on behalf of tools that are either the
customer's outright or are under the customers' own control. (And if it's a
service available to the customer, the customer's data and the service should
be substitutable.)

Joe Andrieu's series on User Driven Services are helpful here...
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wvyWkwIgBp_UB3dfa5DqZJM-j-AfGAmPlbFzowGNlKY/edit#>

Also Iain Henderson on Personal Data Ecosystems...
<http://kantarainitiative.org/wordpress/2009/06/iain-henderson-the-personal-data-eco-system/>

and Adriana Lukas' one-pager:
<http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2008/02/vrm-one-pager/>

There are others, but those are three that come to mind at the moment.

Doc

> Then let's consider how each feature and benefit will relate to motivating
> those actions. For example, some features and benefits are more important
> to:
> - reassuring
> - maintaining participation
> - differentiating from other choices
> - peaking curiosity to learn more
> - compelling each action necessary for an individual to enjoy the defining
> promise of this community.
>
> This process will set priorities that may not be the same as thinking about
> them from strictly an operating point of view. But since the result starts
> from the customer's perspective, it will be aligned with the fundamental
> principle behind VRM.
>
> Best,
>
> Katherine Warman Kern
> www.comradity.com
> @comradity
> 203-918-2617
>
> On May 14, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Mark Lizar
> < >
> wrote:
>
>> (note: Pls Excuse the gigantic email. Instead of replying to everyone
>> separately I have combined it all into one response)
>>
>> Venessa - Yes, the process and the right bridges as to be able to provide
>> individuals with the tools they can use to control and aggregate their own
>> data, systematically, in an ultra-usable fashion in a way that really
>> makes sense.
>>
>> Right now we are becoming very dependant on the (supposedly) free data
>> services we are becoming addicted too. The cost is the loss of the
>> personal information power and of the self determined data use for the
>> individual.
>>
>> The VRM threads on this list are very inspiring for me (as you can tell).
>> At the risk of coming across a bit too gregarious instead of what
>> Katherine suggests (a controlled experimental environment) I am suggesting
>> the opposite.
>>
>> I agree, the process needs to be provided. Bridges need to be built. The
>> bottom line needs to be changed. To me it is very clear we are at the
>> tipping point as Iain's Mydex document suggests. The customer is now
>> becoming aware that they dont have control over their data and that this
>> is important for many reasons. So where are the tools to use the
>> strengths of the customer? How are these tools going to work together?
>>
>> Maybe we need to think bigger? The internet is a global environment paid
>> for in a large part by customers data. How can we use this global
>> environment and aggregate the customers strength and data for themselves?
>> (independence)
>>
>> Expanding The Structure
>>
>> Mydex and a personal data store alone is not a proportional response to
>> the task at hand. We need companies like Mydex to interoperate to provide
>> structure for customer strength.
>>
>> Perhaps instead of developing a commons we should brainstorm about what
>> infrastructure is needed to proverbially fight fire with fire?
>>
>> What would it take to develop interdependence? As Doc explains
>> "Interdependence requires the independence of both parties." In this
>> regard, does the customer not first need a point of Independence to be
>> able to be interdependent? Are we now in danger of loosing our
>> independence (and self determination) as customers wholesale!!
>>
>> To be interdependant first one must have some sort of independance. Mydex
>> is a bastion developing this interdependence. But Mydex alone is not
>> enough and a data store is but a vehicle.
>>
>> In line with the theme of imagining what a VRM Utopia should be: Maybe we
>> should consider how to combine the customer strengths from across the
>> Internet?
>>
>> Lets build bridges and join together the best bits from community
>> organisations like Mydex, creating a charter that bonds VRM companies and
>> co-operatives from around the world into One Customer Union. But why stop
>> there? Lets call it a super customer infrastructure and create a
>> structure specifically to suit what we are trying to accomplish as a
>> community (which is VRM). I think we would all agree that what we are
>> striving for would start at the point of Vendor Relationship Management
>> but that what we are discussing means much, much, more!
>>
>> Perhaps we should put all of the customer strenghts from all over the
>> world into one community, so that if an individual goes into any busines
>> online or off anywhere they can produce a VRM card representing this
>> combined strength. Lets create an effort to line up the international
>> policy community, the international customer community, the international
>> technical community and with it the ability to wield the combined power of
>> these organisation as to provide some real strength to the customer. At
>> the end of the day the lure of VRM for me is the customer mass. Its these
>> technical tools and the magnanimous type of social backing VRM inspires
>> which is needed to provide the customer with data independence.
>>
>> Maybe the VRM Crew should lead the charge on a charter and talk to ISOC
>> and the OECD and make the case that a business community organisation need
>> to be fundamentally backed and supported. Customers need to be able to
>> apply their basic strengths in a global way that is suitable for the
>> information age environment. Should we lobby to include all these powers
>> and protections that are dispersed across the internet? Either way - for
>> Internet scale problems I think we need Internet scale community and
>> solutions.
>>
>> The OECD recognizes this in its recent report on the THE EVOLVING PRIVACY
>> LANDSCAPE: 30 YEARS AFTER THE OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINES. The OECD privacy
>> guidelines being arguably the one most powerful document for providing
>> customer strengths to ever be drafted (so far). Enterprise, the OECD
>> explains, "are not always able, or willing, to tailor their service
>> offerings to meet the specific needs of smaller jurisdictions or
>> individuals. Individuals expect privacy protection wherever they are."
>> (OECD, 2011)
>>
>> As Frank explains:
>> Having built a system that does this and not experienced broad adoption my
>> realization is that the key is not technology, or philosophy. The
>> challenge is building broad awareness and growing the business in the face
>> of so many chicken-egg interdependencies.
>>
>> As a community we can overcome these interdependencies.
>>
>> VRM inherently suggest the application of data tools to provide
>> fundamental privacy protection. The personal data store is an
>> infrastructure to design trust, its bigger than privacy its independence,
>> its the ability to TRUST.
>>
>> Trust is one of the dimensions of the framework to measure the progress of
>> societies proposed by the OECD Global Project. In this framework, trust is
>> considered as a key input into human well-being because it indicates the
>> willingness of individuals to co-operate with others. As underlined in
>> this paper trust has emerged as one of the best available measures of
>> social capital and the evidence in this paper shows that trust displays
>> close associations with a number of other dimensions of social progress.
>> (Morrone, Tortoraneli, et al, 2009:p.31) HOW GOOD IS TRUST? MEASURING
>> TRUST AND ITS ROLE FOR THE PROGRESS OF SOCIETIES
>>
>> VRM (as Doc has taken pains to explain to big corporate business) is about
>> the customer dimensions of social progress.
>>
>> ISOC (the Internet Society) has been building this technical
>> infrastructure with global chapters for a long time(since 1992). This year
>> they have more than 80 Chapters with over 28,000 members. ISOC also has
>> a 30+ million budget for 2011. (ISOC) ISOC represents the proverbial good
>> guys and VRM should very much consider aligning with an organisation(s)
>> such as this.
>>
>> So, what might this look like?
>>
>> What if we conspire to put together a workshop of the solutions we come up
>> with asking some of the best from Harvard and Stanford etc to participate.
>> We should be talking to the most genius people like Acquisti et al who
>> reports that it is evident why Regulators favour notice legislation, as
>> notification can “transform [private] information about firm practices
>> into publicly-known information as well as alter practices within the
>> firm” (Schwartz and Janger, 2007 in Romanosky, S. Telang, R. Acquisti,
>> 2008)
>>
>> In this regard, my hat is off to Iain and Mydex for pioneering practical
>> infrastructure and properly addressing some of the power dynamics of the
>> customer with the UK government, making real change happen.. :-)
>>
>> Critically, what I am trying to say is, Vendors need to be given notice
>> from a more fundamental level. Customers are the ones that have to give
>> it to them. There are alot of noticed based regulations and rules around
>> the world that a VRM community can have at its disposal to develop for
>> customers to use. At the end of the day its about the customer Using the
>> Rights and the Strengths to be independent (to give notice to vendors) so
>> that Interdependence is possible. (as Doc suggests)
>>
>> So what can I do? I can do what we all can do and that is contribute to
>> and support a bottom line that starts managing the vendor at the point of
>> transaction.
>>
>> I would like to contribute/pledge Open Loyalty to the metaporical concept
>> of this 'Customer Union" (whatever structure it turns out to be) I would
>> like to demonstrate that open receipts/digital copies of transactions is
>> a primary and powerful application to facilitate Open Loyalty. What I
>> (or any one of us, as Frank explains) is unable to do, is provide a
>> solution and infrastructure to the scale that brings in the resources and
>> investment needed to get a powerful message out there, on the Internet
>> scale that is needed. This is something we all would have to team up to
>> do. In this regard, I am only providing one suggestion as a way forward,
>> but we all have suggestions and something to contribute to this. That is
>> why we are here. My fundamental point is that the VRM community needs to
>> agree a focus to get behind and we need to drive that focus until enabled
>> customers are able to flex the muscle of what is VRM.
>>
>> My suggestion is that VRM focuses on the point of transaction to open the
>> what has been called the silo's of Vendors. So as to Open Loyalty and
>> manage the vendor when we give them our money or data. (the only time
>> customers have Vendors undivided attention)
>>
>> But, we dont have to stop there we could use Open Loyalty to do a lot more
>> opening. We could move on to open social reputation of vendors through
>> open analysis of advertising practices. Or opening the privacy notices
>> that are not really privacy notices. Or even more powerfully we could
>> open consent so that we can withdraw it any time. (consent should be the
>> Vendor's bank account with the customer. e.g. Open Loyalty). We could
>> even open identity so that a customer could use their yahoo id and their
>> 10 year Starbucks loyalty as to create identifiers that are useful to
>> customers, customer driven, and appropriately pseudonymous. (but i digress)
>>
>> I believe the best we can do as a community is help the customers to say
>> open, open, open, by putting together all of our tools and tricks as a
>> conglomerate.
>>
>> Critically, loyalty and customer protection needs to be raised to the top
>> of the international policy list and soon. Personally I think the stakes
>> are about to start doubling and tripling. VRM needs to stand up and say
>> that these customer strengths need Internet scale facilitation to make
>> real change happen.
>>
>> When it comes down to finally deciding the structure lets devise the
>> method to incorporate companies and communities as members and aggregate
>> all of the customer strengths. Why not create a Charter and call it a
>> Union for the extra privacy protections? Why not be a co-operative? Why
>> not put our data in a CIC? Why not harness the distributed might of the
>> customers? We just need what federations need an organised single minded
>> collective. We already have the talent and the tools. Lets fix the
>> machine!! Lets enable the customer federation.
>>
>> So I contribute the idea of being aggressive with openness and offer Open
>> Loyalty (its IP, code, my volunteer time and deep understanding of notice
>> and consent processes) as a rally point for a VRM Utopia. Suggesting but
>> one method to apply in hopes it will inspire many more. Bottom line I
>> strongly encourage VRM to act as a community. (comercially, socially, and
>> technically)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Mark Lizar
>> (P.S. Seems very fitting that I am sitting on Karl Marx Strauss. in Berlin
>> as I finish editing this post to the list.)
>>
>> On 12 May 2011, at 00:24, Venessa Miemis wrote:
>>
>>> What i took away from that post, mark, was not only painting the picture
>>> for the customer of why they should have the right to be empowered by
>>> their data, but also painting the picture for the vendor of why it's not
>>> only the "right" thing to do, but profitable.
>>>
>>> the story that hasn't been told is how vendors make the transition to a
>>> more viable, sustainable, and healthy relationship with customers, and
>>> how VRM fits into the big picture reformation of ethical markets.
>>>
>>> maybe i misinterpreted, but it totally makes sense to not just explain
>>> the reason this should happen, but to also describe the process of
>>> building the bridges between here and there.
>>>
>>> - venessa
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Mark Lizar
>>> < >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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. 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

§