Re: [projectvrm] #Backtobasics the VRM principles: two questions

[Doc Searls < >]

Legal is the most difficult one. In The Intention Economy I devoted two chapters (and then some) to the challenge, and probably spent more time on that one issue than on any other.

The story is that freedom of contract is a base principle of civilized life. But, for the last century and a half, so is mass manufacture, distribution and retailing, which require coercive "contracts of adhesion" for scale: to deal in one way with many "end" users or customers.

It might be that we will never move on from this state, which Friedrich Kessler described at canonical length in his 1943 paper, "Contracts of Adhesion: Some Thoughts on Freedom of Contract." Kessler lamented loss of freedoms brought on by adhesive (i.e. standard-form coercive) contracts, and could hardly imagine a future industrial condition where old-fashioned — and preferable — freedom of contract would again prevail.

But then the Internet happened, and we can imagine something better. Here is what I imagined (for some point in the future) on page 9 of the book:

It’s Your Law

These terms, which respect ancient freedom of contract values, are standard ones chosen by you from a list at Customer Commons (Customer Commons.org), which was organized in 2011 and grew out of ProjectVRM at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, with help from the Information Sharing Workgroup. By now, Customer Commons has compiled many choices of standard terms for individuals and organizations—all described in ways that can easily be compared and matched up automatically. As with Creative Commons (on which Customer Commons was modeled), computers, lawyers, and ordinary people can easily read the terms.

This is an end state. It will take years before we have this. In the meantime we need to scaffold up other things that will accomplish some, if not all, of what we would like in the ideal world.

But we do need to work in that direction. I think it is a mistake to settle for the status quo.

IMHO.

Doc

On May 20, 2014, at 6:17 PM, William Heath < "> > wrote:

OK so for me

1. "individual" works better than customer (a point Iain has been making for years).

2. the fourth principle "must be able to assert their own terms of engagement" needs testing a bit. If we leave every user to try to set their own terms then the big corps will always win as they do now. But if VRM means standard individual-friendly agreements so companies can deal in bulk with individuals on terms that suit the individual then we have progress. ("if we're not together, we're nowt" - Rochdate pioneers as per my VRM day t-shirt)

Would something like "must be able to engage on terms accepted by the community as suiting the individual" cover it?


William

On 20 May 2014 15:59, Devon M T Loffreto < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Oh, and btw... on the point of words and structures mattering...

"Employees" are "customers" of job opportunities.

Whereas, indie workers such as "Contractors" are the "Owners" of work output.

The distinction is critical... all the way to the tax man and procedures of value capture and storage... ie customers of opportunity pay the Gov 1st for the opportunity to work, and keep only what is left over... while owners of work output pay the Gov last with what is left after all deductions for producing work have been compensated.

It is the unaccountable roles that people play that create unchecked power in the hands of administrators denying people their personal Sovereignty by designed intent.

Devon

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Devon M T Loffreto < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Well provoked William... I'll take the bait :)

First question is: are these "aspiration statements" or "declarations of fact"?

For me, those pesky details resolve to specific words that have specific meanings and operate in specific legal context which mix together with other specific legal context that have been designed to both protect and leverage their own structures, both for and against interactions with those legal contexts.

Think about the holiday season... envision the front door of that aesthetically pleasing shopping experience known as WalMart... enter VRM point "Customers must be able to assert their own terms of engagement."... uh... has anyone seen video of those doors opening? Those are customers... some of them die just getting in the door. What "terms of engagement" are they going to be asserting?

Sound pessimistic? I agree. The problem is that "customers" is not an empowering construct to find yourself in... it is devoid of effort... in fact it is part of the problem...consider:

A baby is born... enter VRM point "Customers must enter relationships with vendors as independent actors."... at this point we have the government (GRM) and health care forming relationships via parents that construe the data and life of this Individual baby as anything but "independent actors"... in fact it is really the first inappropriate "customer" relationship... and its output manifests in a few disturbing ways... such as "citizens" interacting with their government as "customers" (What? - how did that happen?)... or when you get home from the hospital, within a week you will receive (in America at least) a solicitation in your child's legal name from Gerber Life Insurance (perfectly named for customer interaction)... not to mention that public benefit services like social security #'s start to become data liabilities, and the first point of identity theft due to their lack of use by babies without any independent authority, but who are stood up as data-slaves none the less.

How does the "customer" role serve any functional empowerment outcome?

Enter "Personal Sovereignty"... at its root, this idea is about NEVER being construed as a "customer"... or a dis-empowered structure in the socio-economic system that is preyed upon by default... and instead focusing on shifting the structure to one of personal control and authority.

I shop... but why would I ever do it as a "customer"... a structure devoid of meaning, data integrity or leverage... when I can function as a "market owner" with a deliberate structure that has specific meaning, intent-bearing leverage and the ability to maintain data integrity purposefully? We keep talking about "free is a lie" and "discounts are disingenuous"... but "customers" absolutely LOVE those things and have likely never even considered the points raised in this thread. There is no requirement for any advanced intelligence to be a "customer"...in fact it is the abdication of intelligence that breeds that role. That is how the market greases the wheels.

So for VRM... I again urge us to consider that the very role of "customer" is the root problem preventing any meaningful leverage from existing between Individuals and organizational structures. There is a very real structural shift when we move from that role to one where VRM enables more partnering exchanges and mutually beneficial points of leverage.

Words matter... leverage matters.

Personal Sovereignty is important because it is the manner of inaugurating an Individuals relationship with Society that defines whether we have any personal Sovereignty or are just customers of freedom. It begs the question I raise here asking "Does an administrative system hold a monopoly on the Rights of forming identities with Sovereign authority? This being prompted by one of my favorite sessions at the IIW just ended titled "Self ID" concerning our ability to function as our own identity providers (IDP).

Bottom line is that I take issue with the word "customers"... who I believe will always function as prey in the market through abdication of personal Sovereignty. Note: that doesnt mean we should allow prey to be deliberated disrespected or abused...but... it is not a deliberately empowered role that can care-take that outcome for itself.)

Devon

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM, William Heath < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Before last IIW I looked back at the VRM principles. They are

Project VRM principles

• - Customers must enter relationships with vendors as independent actors.

• - Customers must be the points of integration for their own data.

• - Customers must have control of data they generate and gather. This means they must be able to share data selectively and voluntarily.

• - Customers must be able to assert their own terms of engagement.

• - Customers must be free to express their demands and intentions outside of any one company's control.

I have two questions.

1. Are these 100% spot on? (They seem OK to me but devil is always in the detail)

2. Do we foresee an environment in which some "true VRM" companies are publicly said to conform to these principles, whilst some "faux VRM" companies are called out for VRM-washing, or purporting to put the individual in control when in fact they create a new proprietary dependency? (eg ownyourowndata.com had Ts&Cs saying "any data you enter into our web sute becomes the property of ownyourowndata Inc or similar). How will that work? Will that be indpendent voices? Does someone take up the role of declaring who's in and who's out?

A lot might ride on this. I think we're well into the stage where it's needed. Alan & Liz over at Ctrl-Shift report hopeful new VRM businesses launching at rate of > one per week last year.

William