Speakers were:-

Frank Fowlie, Ombudsman, International Organization for Migration, Geneva, Switzerland (Chair) ; Colin Rule, CEO, Modria.com Inc; Dan Rainey, Chief of Staff, National Mediation Board, Washington, Irene Sigismondi, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’; Farzaneh Badii, IranResolve; Graham Ross, Vice President (Europe), Modria.com Inc

 Graham’s formal Report on the event and outcomes as submitted to WSIS is as follows:-

Debated Issues:

The role of Online Dispute Resolution (‘ODR’) in creating and delivering
new forms of justice relevant to, and supportive of, the global culture of
the Internet.

The role of ODR in transforming, through improved access, lowered cost
and increased speed, existing justice systems and the Rule of Law.

Quotes:

 ’”In the long term (ODR) will become the dominant way to resolve all bar
the most complex and high-value of disputes” – quoted by Frank Fowlie,
Ombudsman, International Organization for Migration, as attributed to
Richard Susskind, IT Advisor to the Lord Chief Justice in England and
Wales, in his book “Tomorrow’s Lawyers” p102, Oxford University Press
2013 -ISBN-13 978-0199668069.

“Opening communication channels for citizens is at the heart of egovernment and public conflict engagement. With a few exceptions, efforts
that the U.S. Government has made to develop online tools for dispute
resolution and e-government have followed a fundamentally flawed
approach. Each problem has been approached as a unique situation,
calling for development of complicated systems from the ground up by
vendors who have an interest in developing complicated systems and
charging for that complexity. Over the past decade, we (National
Mediation Board, Washington) have built a complex of applications, most
off the shelf with a very few custom functions built for our work, that
operate in all areas of our dispute resolution systems, for less than one of
the big-ticket projects that have failed spent in a week.” – Dan Rainey,
Chief of Staff, National Mediation Board, Washington, USA.

“The growth of consumer power through review sites is welcome but the
unintended consequence of the growth in fake and grossly unfair reviews
is causing real damage not just to genuine traders whose Google and
other ratings may fall as a consequence but , by deterring consumers from
good traders through fake adverse reviews and, through fake positive
reviews, directing consumers to bad traders , damages trust in ecommerce. The recent extension by the EU of its Regulation on ODR to
claims by traders against consumers will enable ODR systems to deiver a
justice system more compatible with the intersts of the community.The
message to those posting reviews should be ‘you are entitled to your own
opinions but not to your own facts’.” – Graham Ross- Vice Pesident
(Europe), Modria.com Inc.

 Main Outcomes of the Session:

1. Connect up the 12th International Forum on ODR being held at McGill
University and the University of Montreal on the 15-18 June 2013 with
the WSIS +10 Plan of Action. A focused discussion can be included and
contributors to the Forum invited to contribute to the development of the
WSIS+10 PoA. (The Forum first met in 2002 at the Palais Des Nations
under the auspices of, and hosted by, the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe. )

2. Encourage the use of low cost ODR via SaaS cloud services, as well as
via off-the-shelf solutions, for public bodies and e-government.

3. Encourage discussion and research into generating new norms for
resolving conflict over consumer reviews that supports a high level of
ethics and standards in e-commerce whilst protecting traders from unjust
and unfair forms of reputation attack.

4. Given the widespread use of mobile phones and tablets in developing
or transition countries with otherwise reduced desktop/laptop use or
access, encourage research and development of ODR services and Apps
for mobile phones.

5. Given that multilingual ODR platforms promote access to forms of
justice that may otherwise be restricted in developing countries, there
needs to be collaboration between different stakeholder groups on equal
footing such as participation in multi stakeholder venues, where ideas for
policy making are created. Joining different initiatives on open and free
multilingual software, thus strengthening the ties with online local and
multilingual content initiatives.

6. Following on from last month’s legislation by the European Parliament
to require ADR entities covering consumer disputes to make their
services accessible and operational online (the Directive on ADR) , and to
facilitate the setting up of an European Commisiosn run website to act as
a signposting venue for all consumer complaints arising in Europe (the
Regulation on ODR), to encourage more such legislation around the world.
However, legislation must allow for the fact that trust is not easy to
generate within the online environment. Digital natives may give less
respect for, and trust in, online justice seeing it as having no greater
relevance to truth and fairness than they may be accustomed to within the
social networking culture, whereas digital immigrants may simply have
generated such fears over threats to privacy and security online that trust
online is compromised by he internet itself.

7. Given that the European Commission has already funded the
development of an online facility to measure public perception of justice,
and user experience, when provided through ODR (www.emcod.net) any
ADR service using online communication tools a well as full ODR services(whether based in Europe or elsewhere) should be notified of, and encouraged to offer to their users to access, the EMCOD tool. 

Emerging Trends Relevant in the Context of the WSIS +10 Process:

1. ODR is encouraging more use of conflict resolution solutions outside of
the jurisdiction bound courts.

2. ODR , in providing resolution solutions outside of court systems, is
removing barriers to cross-border trade and cultural exchange.

3. Governments (eg UK in launch of its GCloud) are moving to more SaaS
solutions to reduce development and implementation cost/delay and, at
same time, give the opportunity of improving e-government experience
through accessible and intuitively designed platforms.

4. As court systems around the world are moving towards increased court
annexed ADR, this will in turn, lead to more court annexed ODR.

 For more information on the Forum go to http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/

Online Arbitration for Consumer Disputes – Take the Survey! 

If you want to have an impact on the design of the first online arbitration platform designed specifically for consumer disputes, please fill out THIS survey designed by a group of students at the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program. 

This project focuses on the development of online consumer arbitration, and how best to create a software that provides all the elements required by law, but also by the end users. How can such a product effectively meet the promise of online arbitration made to consumers (i.e., fair, affordable, etc.)?

When the Supreme Court decided in April 2011 that the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted California state contract law in AT&T Mobility in a five to four decision – thereby reversing the Ninth Circuit decision upholding the California ban on class action waivers – arbitration scholars and commentators expressed their vivid concern for the rights of consumers and employees. The majority opinion written by Justice Scalia found that corporations could prevent consumers from reaching the courts based on pre-dispute arbitration clauses contained in adhesion contracts. Specifically, the majority ultimately argued that Section 2 of the FAA – also known as the “savings clause” – provides that state contract law shall apply to arbitration agreements in a non discriminatory manner, and as the Californian ban on class-action waiver somehow had a disproportionate effect on arbitration agreements, it is preempted by the FAA.

Since this landmark decision, many major corporations dealing with large customer bases (e.g., eBay, PayPal, etc.) have inserted mandatory pre-dispute and binding arbitration. However, the cost structure of these processes makes it unrealistic for any consumer with low-value disputes to file a case against these companies. One of the only realistic solutions is the development of online consumer arbitration. 

This project aims at providing a clear, unbiased answer to this problem, and publish a suggested flow or software design that will overcome the existing barriers to adoption, and offer a product that will gain support both on the consumers’ side, and that of corporations. 

FILL IN THE SURVEY HERE

Modria and CPR online arbitration

The New York Law Journal just posted a new article online written by Beth Trent, and Colin Rule about online arbitration. The article shows perfectly how online arbitration (and ODR in general) is bound to expand its reach in order to make the existing processes more efficient for the ever-demanding end-users. Here is the original content. 

Moving Arbitration Online: The Next Frontier

Every industry has been revolutionized by technology over the last two decades, from finance to medicine to entertainment. Within each of these industries, business functions have similarly been transformed, from workflow process to data storage to knowledge management. As technology has flattened the world, domestic supply chains have become global supply chains, and regional teams have become virtual teams, stretching around the world and reaching into every time zone. Business is inexorably moving into the cloud as they are adopting technologies more quickly in order to keep up with the accelerated pace of commerce.

The way we resolve disputes, however, has not kept up with other business functions. Commercial transactions may circle the globe in milliseconds, but if a problem arises, resolutions are still largely tied to separate geographical jurisdictions and in-person, paper-bound processes. If business is now largely virtual, dispute resolution is still primarily an in-person endeavor.

One might argue that applying technology to the law with e-filing and legal process outsourcing and ABA Tech Show are sufficient to keep up with the speed of commerce. But adopting these types of technologies, which merely enable preexisting processes to work more efficiently, is insufficient.

We believe that the time has come for the law to embrace the transformative power of technology. If the law is to stay relevant to the challenges presented by global and online business, the system must be reinvented to adapt to the new realities of a networked world.

Enter Alternative Dispute Resolution, or ADR. ADR has long promised efficiency as one of its primary benefits. ADR can save time by expediting processes, providing expert neutrals that require less orientation, and cutting back on delaying tactics and endless discovery. Traditionally we have thought about ADR as, literally, an alternative process. There in the name it is clear that ADR is an alternative to the courts. As Harvard Law Professor and conflict resolution scholar Robert H. Mnookin has put it, ADR works “in the shadow of the law,” always acting as an alternative, never the default.

DEFAULT PROCESS FOR NETWORKED WORLD

But the interesting reality is that ADR is a much better fit with the newly networked world than the more traditional models represented by the courts. Paradoxically, as business becomes more global in its effort to increase efficiency and reduce costs, existing offline legal processes tend to become less efficient and more costly. In addition, for the majority of online disputes, the courts are simply not a workable option. The amounts are so low, and the jurisdiction is so confused, that the courts are really irrelevant for most cases that arise online. A new kind of ADR, or ODR (online dispute resolution) as it is being called, offers unique benefits for this new world of cross-border and low value disputes. As Ethan Katsh, director of the Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, has put it, “there is no A in ODR”—so ODR becomes the default process for online disputes. This new reality means that for the first time, a global redress system is being built entirely upon private dispute resolution, instead of relying on the law.

This is not news to many international organizations, who have been wrestling with the challenges presented by cross-border disputes for many years. After endless conferences and academic studies, the clear international consensus is that we need to build new redress systems to handle these new kinds of cases based on dispute resolution system designs. This is the guiding principle behind United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL) Online Dispute Resolution Working Group, which has involved more than 60 countries over four years in devising a global resolution process for consumer disputes. This is also the motivation behind the European Commission’s proposal to create a mandatory ODR process for all European Union member states that will come into effect in 2015. Many of these designs are based on Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which is a global dispute resolution scheme intended to resolve domain name disputes that has been in effect for more than 12 years. For the first time, arbitration is the default resolution process, not an alternative.

In fact, the benefits of dispute resolution match well with the benefits provided by technology, which include cost savings due to reduced travel, and efficient business processes that minimize administrative churn. Why hold five face-to-face meetings when you can instead have two, paired with online meetings to make progress between sessions? Why pay to fly a legal team halfway around the world for a meeting, when you can convene the same meeting via Skype for free? Dispute resolution and technology go hand in hand.

GOING BEYOND EFFICIENCY

But technology introduces new capabilities in dispute resolution that go beyond mere improvements in efficiency. Of course parties can save costs normally associated with travel and in-person meetings. In addition, technology enables asynchronous, text-based processes that can be far more efficient in reaching workable agreements in short periods of time, without burdensome scheduling delays. Online processes can also shorten time to decision by making the information exchange between the parties and neutral much faster. Many agreements can be achieved through automated or algorithmic negotiation processes (sometimes called technology facilitated resolution or TFR) where the computer does much of what a human neutral would normally do to move the parties closer to an agreement. These mechanisms can reduce posturing and create strong incentives for parties to negotiate honestly and in good faith, with an eye on quickly achieving a mutually acceptable resolution.

Technology can also significantly reduce the administrative churn associated with endless document exchange and filing forms. Once an online dispute resolution platform is integrated into a company’s case management or customer relationship management system, a new case can be initiated with a single click. Once the initiate button is pushed, all of the required information is automatically inserted into the case. All the rules, language, and clauses are preselected, so the case can immediately be presented to the respondent. These administrative efficiencies can save many weeks or months of back-and-forth communication in just a single step.

We believe that online tools will soon be an important component of many companies’ management of their litigation portfolios. Because disputes can be handled at lower expense, many cases that cost more to resolve than the amount at issue can now be resolved fairly and economically through expedited online arbitration processes. Low dollar value litigations can be directed to these expedited processes for definitive resolution, as opposed to settling for financial reasons regardless of their merit and creating an incentive for further complaints.

{…} (Read more on the New York Law Journal website, available HERE.)

Prof. Richard Susskind

Susskind attacks CJC for dismissing online dispute resolution

IT expert warns of ‘inevitable move’ away from sole practices and small firms 

Professor Richard Susskind, the Lord Chief Justice’s IT adviser, has attacked the Civil Justice Council for “failing to even look into” the potential of online dispute resolution schemes.

Speaking at the Westminster Legal Policy Forum this morning, Susskind said while many judges were outstanding, they were let down by “antediluvian” court processes.

“We have to think whether, when dealing with disputes, we need to physically converge in courts,” he said.

“We should at least be exploring the use of technology in dispute resolution.”

He gave as an example of “irrational rejectionism” the Civil Justice Council’s failure to agree with him that it should “even look into the potential” of online dispute resolution.

Susskind said that of the millions of disputes arising out of transactions on ebay, only a tiny number were not resolved through online dispute resolution. He mentioned California-based online dispute resolution site Modria as one example of what could be done.

The professor said that legal aid needed to be rethought and neither side in the debate had a “plausible alternative narrative”.

Susskind went on: “We need to stop fixating on costs and pricing as if that’s what it’s all about.

“If you want to reduce spending on legal aid by 30 to 50 per cent, the same kind of savings that general counsel are looking for, the way you work has to be revisited. It’s not about pricing differently, it’s about working differently.”

Susskind questioned whether sole practices, which currently made around 40 per cent of law firms, could make the changes which the new legal services market demanded.

“How on earth, if you’re working on your own, can you make the necessary economies of scale or savings from technology?” he asked. “It’s like asking someone to change a wheel in a moving car.

“You need more than one or two people, because of the emotional effect and sheer time involved in changing the way you practice while continuing to run.”

The professor predicted an “inevitable move” towards larger law firms.

He admitted to being a “huge fan” of ABSs and though he did not expect change “overnight” as a result of their arrival, he predicted a “major and positive” transformation of the market in 10 years’ time.

“Innovation is coming from the new players in the market,” he said. “The rest are trying to squeeze out as much as they can from the existing business model.”

Later, in the panel debate that followed, Steve Brooker, legal services consumer panel manager, cautioned that although legal websites offered new opportunities to widen access to justice, they should be seen as “a complement not a substitute” for conventional legal services.

He said websites carried new risks for consumers over issues such as privacy, complex pricing and system failure.

Brooker added that only around one per cent of legal consumers were using comparison websites, which could make it quicker and easier to make choices.

“Websites like tripadvisor help build reputations rather than destroy them,” he added.

(Reblog. Original source Solicitors Journal, available at: http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/node/15740)

Although the capability for ODR has existed for years, the legal and technology communities are only beginning to bridge the gap between potential and actual use of ODR.  There are many open questions.  How will the promise of ODR to resolve disputes efficiently and fairly be realized?  How will ODR affect the practice of law?  What are the specific applications where ODR has provided and will provide the most benefit?  Is regulation of ODR needed at the national, transnational, or international levels?

Panel 1:  The Impact of ODR on the Practice of Law

• Ron Dolin, Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law School
• Richard S. Granat, Director, Center for Law Practice Technology and CEO/Founder, LawMediaLabs, Inc.
• Ayelet Sela, JSD Candidate, Stanford Law School

Moderator: Nicholas Crews, JD Candidate, Stanford Law School

Panel 2:  The Technology of ODR

• James Ring, CEO, Fair Outcomes, Inc.
• Loic Coutelier, Director of Arbitration and Product Manager, Modria.com
• Jin Ho Verdonschot, Justice Sector Advisor, The Netherlands

Moderator:  Roland Vogl, Lecturer in Law and Executive Director, Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology

Panel 3: ODR in the International Arena

• Colin Rule, CEO, Modria.com
• Vikki M. Rogers, Director, Institute of International Commercial Law, Pace Law School
• Amy J. Schmitz, Professor of Law, University of Colorado School of Law

Moderator:  Janet Martinez, Senior Lecturer in Law and Director, Gould Negotiation & Mediation Program, Stanford Law School

http://www.law.stanford.edu/event/2013/04/12/conference-on-online-dispute-resolution

Check out Modria’s presentation at the 2013 Launch Festival (festival.launch.co) and the comments and questions from the distinguished panel of judges.

This is what they had to say about Modria:

• Brian Alvey, CEO of Crowdfusion: “fantastic credibility“.
• Steve Chen, Angel investor: “Modria, my favorite, by far. Great team. Great background.“
• Harvey Allison, President of Attractor Investment Management Inc., chose Modria as his favorite company.
• Marc Pesce, CEO of Moores Cloud: “Modria is dispute resolution as a service, and it is the gold standard.“
• Adeo Rossi, the Founder Institute: “That’s the type of things investors get a hard-on for.“

PRESS RELEASE (source: Europa.eu, Rapid Press Release)

A step forward for EU consumers: Commissioner Tonio Borg welcomes adoption of Out-of-court Dispute Resolution

Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, Tonio Borg, welcomed the vote of the European Parliament on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution (ADR-ODR) today. This vote confirms the agreement on the two proposals put forward by the European Commission in 2011.

Tonio Borg said: “Today, the European Parliament confirmed its agreement on two key proposals for boosting growth in the Single Market and strengthening the Digital economy. ADR and ODR are a win-win for consumers, who will be able to resolve their disputes out-of-court in a simple, fast and low-cost manner, and also for traders who will be able to keep good relations with customers and avoid litigation costs. It must be stressed that the EU institutions achieved a fast agreement which will significantly improve everyday life for consumers across Europe“.

He also added: “I want to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteurs of the two proposals at the European Parliament, Louis Grech and Róża Thun, for their commitment to reach an agreement. I am also grateful to the Member States and the Presidencies of the Council for their intensive work on these files. This is a truly inter-institutional achievement to boost consumers’ and traders’ confidence in the internal market and its digital dimension.“

The rules on ADR will ensure that consumers can turn to quality alternative dispute resolution entities for all kinds of contractual disputes that they have with traders; no matter what they purchased and whether they purchased it online or offline, domestically or across borders.

According to the ODR Regulation, an EU-wide online platform will be set up for handling consumer disputes that arise from online transactions. The platform will link all the national alternative dispute resolution entities and operate in all official EU languages.

Raising consumers’ awareness is another pillar of this legislation, as traders will need to provide consumers with adequate information on ADR and ODR.

Member States will have two years to implement the ADR/ODR rules. The ODR platform will be operational at the end of 2015.

For more information: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm

Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-192_en.htm?locale=en

Ebay and private justice systems

Ebay is a private justice system that is a combination online marketplace and legal culture, all in one.  It is built on one contract that binds every member of the marketplace to the same norms.  They solve over 60 million disputes every year.  This model can be used all over the world to build more markets, social networks, and various types of trusted online communities to connect people anywhere to people everywhere.

Resolving problems in high-conflict areas 

In terms of a failed state, a disaster, war and violence or just plain poverty, it is possible to use communications technology to let people develop and accept a set of rules for commerce and integrate them into a private fairness system.  The norms of these communities are the law which is the foundation upon which they operate.  By creating opportunities for folks in other parts of the world to access opportunity based on legally binding relationships, they have access to private fairness that is not accessible from their own laws.

Access to conflict avoidance systems for developing countries

As has been shown in Africa, for example, people there figure out the technology quickly and use it entrepreneurially. They have shown desire for new and accessible types of fairness frameworks. With business and legal training, they can create the communities they need themselves.  But these trusted online communities need a conflict avoidance system and a dispute resolution mechanism to support their operation. Online dispute resolution is a solid way to avoid prohibitively expensive dispute resolution by access to sovereign legal systems. This is one area in which online dispute resolution will gain global acceptance and market share in the coming years.

Learn more about how Modria is creating fairness systems online.

Learn More