Trusted Disclosure Agreement

Imagine this instead of an NDA

I’ve always felt weird about signing NDAs (non-disclosure agreements), which have become pretty routine when it comes to employment, viewing documents, even attending meetings. The NDA starts the relationship with an implicit threat. Because basically, the subtext of the request is, “I don’t trust you to hold information in confidence or exercise discretion. Therefore, I need to wield the threat of legal action to compel you to.”

In other words, the NDA outsources trust to the legal system, which is ultimately backed by the state’s monopoly on violence.

Is that the energy we want to bring into our collaborations? Personally, I’d rather not work with someone who trusts me so little that they demand to hold over me a threat of legal action. Nor do I like to enact the ritual of submission that says, “I hereby give you the power to harm me if I break my word.”

What do I hold more sacred: the sanctity of my word, or my fear of harm to my self-interest in the form of legal damages? What do you hold more sacred? What do you prefer as the basis of your relationships?

Of course, there are occasions where there is no trust to begin with, and where we may want to invoke the armed force of the state to enforce our contracts. But as we move past the mentality of separation that sees a world of separate individuals competing to maximize rational self-interest, we need a successor to the NDA.

To be sure, signing an NDA is often a perfunctory formality. Rarely does anyone expect it to be enforced in a court of law. It is a kind of ritual. But rituals have power to reinforce the symbolic systems they rest in. By signing an NDA, we validate and reinforce the legal system it draws on. We establish it as the source of authority. We say, “When we really mean it, we sign a legal document.”

However, when the existing legal system embodies a world-view that we seek to evolve beyond, we feel a contradiction within ourselves. Signing the NDA becomes a tawdry necessity, quite at odds with the ceremonial power of affixing one’s sacred mark to a statement of trust. Within the conventional NDA is something that wants to be reborn at a higher octave. It is a mutual affirmation of trust, an agreement that certain information be held with great care, respect, and discretion.

So, I decided to create an alternative. I will share it with you here. It is a version of what I’m using for a project I have been discussing. I’ve removed some of the specific details, so that anyone can use it as an open-source template for their own agreements. For example, the third paragraph might be rewritten to speak of commercial competitors, political rivals, and so forth.

Trusted Disclosure Agreement

This Agreement aims to be the spiritual and practical successor of the traditional NDA. It applies to all matters pertaining to the _________ Institute, and is written by ___________ on behalf of all who have inspired, encouraged, and guided it. This Agreement will refer to the collective of these beings as “the Institute.”

I, _______________, understand that I will be entrusted with sensitive information that the Institute holds confidential or even sacred, including its founding documents. I understand that the Institute trusts me, trusts my judgment, and trusts my discretion.

I understand that some of the information that will be shared with me may not ready for public view. I understand as well that people who are not aligned with the Institute’s values could use this information to undermine its goals. Most important of all, I understand the necessity for certain material to incubate inside a circle of trust before circulating to those who may not treat it with respect, or who may use it in ways contrary to the intentions of its creators.

Therefore, I agree to share the information in all documents and conversations pertaining to the Institute with great care. I agree to exercise careful discretion regarding how much to share, and whom to share it with. I agree to honor the care with which its authors hold it. I agree to seek guidance from these authors if I am not clear about whether to share something. And when I am clear, I agree to trust my judgment and not hold back from sharing, knowing that I too am trusted.

I understand that this in not a legal document. I understand that I will suffer no legal consequences from violating the agreements and understandings herein. We do not outsource our trust to the legacy legal system and the state monopoly on violence that backs it up. Instead, we pray that we may be worthy of trust ourselves as we become people of our word.

I understand that the Institute will hold my signature with respect and gratitude. Even as I acknowledge any doubts, cynicism, or distrust that I may harbor, toward myself or toward the author of this Agreement, I sign from a place of sincerity and trust.

Signed,

_______________________

* * * * * *

Wouldn’t that feel nicer, to sign something like that than to agree to a state of distrust? Not only does it establish mutual respect from the outset, but it invokes a future in which coercion is no longer the default method to ensure harmony.

There is one more element to this agreement that is not readily apparent from the text. Traditionally, contracts were always signed in the presence of witnesses. This was not only to verify the authenticity of the signatures. It was also because, in less legalistic times, fidelity to contracts relied more on informal social pressure rather than explicit legal penalties. People cared about their reputation. A contract signed privately meant that the word of the signing parties was less in public view. When their agreement was a public event, the community could hold them to it. Not just to punish them if they broke their word, but to remind them of what they agreed to, to encourage them to follow through.

As we seek to rebuild community, we will want to perform ceremonies of agreement that are in community view. Then, the agreement isn’t just between two parties. It is a community function. It can be renegotiated not just at the whim of one or another party, but as a response to shifting circumstances and values that the community recognizes. So ideally, the document I’ve shared should ideally have additional lines for witnesses, and for important matters the signing should be a public ceremony.

My hope is that this document will inspire the reader to create others that can replace legal contracts in various situations. The goal is not to do away with law, not in the near term anyway, but to reclaim some of the social space from its legalistic colonization; to put more of our trust in each other rather than impersonal systems. I’d love to hear of any other examples of publicly witnessed declarations of trust replacing legal agreements. Thank you.