Communiqué on the ODR and Consumers Colloquium
Vancouver, BC, Canada
November 2-3, 2010

Prepared by Doug Leigh, Ph.D. (Pepperdine University) and Colin Rule (eBay/PayPal)

I. Introduction

eCommerce has grown rapidly, riding the expansion of information and communications technology around the world, and transforming the way goods are bought and sold. Businesses and consumers have more choices than ever before, as every seller is just a click away, no matter where either may physically reside in the world. However, regardless of whether they are transacting face-to-face or online, it is inevitable that some of those transactions will generate disagreements. It therefore stands to reason that as eCommerce expands, so too will the number of problems people experience with online transactions.

Unfortunately, the systems buyers and sellers rely on in face-to-face transactions to resolve transaction problems are almost entirely unavailable in online purchases. The few systems that do exist are too tied to geography, too expensive, or too complex for the type of low-value, high-volume transactions that eCommerce enables, be they domestic or international.

The solution is Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). Over the past ten years many groups around the world have come to the same conclusion: reliable, trustworthy redress systems for eCommerce transactions are essential, and ODR is the best method of providing such systems.

There are several examples of global ODR systems that have achieved scale and effectiveness over the past decade. Non-governmental organizations, for example, have created regional systems that have helped to establish confidence in eCommerce. Despite such achievements no global, coordinated redress system has yet emerged, and systems that have hitherto been posed are inconsistent in design and execution. Further complicating matters, awareness among consumers is low and enforcement of outcomes delivered by existing systems is sporadic.

The inadequacy of these systems is a major reason why cross-border eCommerce has plateaued in recent years. Consumers and sellers are unsure whether they can trust one another across borders, because if a problem arises with the transaction, no global redress system exists to help get the problem corrected.

These issues have been thoroughly discussed in various ODR forums over the years, but in the past ten months, there have been a series of breakthroughs accomplished through various international conversations.

The United States has put forward a proposal at the Organization of American States (OAS) advancing a design for a global ODR system for low-value eCommerce disputes. That same proposal was presented just a few months later at a United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) conference in Vienna. In accordance with the conclusions reached at the conference, UNCITRAL has created an ODR Working Group to focus exclusively on this question and to craft recommendations that can be taken back to the full General Assembly. This represents a major development in the effort to build a global ODR system, since it is the first time a body with representation from every sovereign nation in the world has so seriously tackled this complex subject.

In preparation for the first meeting of the UNCITRAL ODR Working Group in December 2010, an international group of experts in international law, commercial arbitration, dispute resolution, systems design, and consumer protection convened in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada on November 2-3, 2010. Over these two days, the group considered unresolved issues raised by the proposal for a global ODR system and developed possible solutions. Key questions to be answered were vetted by smaller breakout groups which drafted preliminary answers to move the discussion forward. Discussions at the colloquium broached topics likely to be focused on at UNCITRAL, including complex questions of jurisdiction, consumer protection, applicable law, and the role of the UN and individual state governments. Also explored were complex questions of system architecture, funding, enforcement, transparency, system quality, and delivery systems.

This communiqué distills the output of the experts’ deliberations at the Vancouver colloquium. All submitted presentations and papers are available in their entirety on the conference website (http://www.odrandconsumers2010.org). While the depth of discussions obviously resulted in many subtleties which cannot be represented here, this document serves as the definitive record of the Vancouver gathering. It is organized chronologically, hewing closely to the agenda of the meeting. Please note that this is not a consensus document; the various attendees to the conference were not asked to approve this document or attest to its accuracy. It is merely an attempt by the conference rapporteurs to memorialize the discussion and reproduce it on the record, so that it can contribute to future conversations on this vitally important topic.

II. November 2, 2010

OPENING REMARKS

After discussing Online Dispute Resolution’s (ODR) 14-year history, the aim of the colloquium was clarified as designing a global system for resolving disputes concerning low-value, high-volume, cross-border online transactions. Following this, the key questions to be answered concerning a model for such a system were presented.

PROVIDING A CONTEXT: ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR ELECTRONIC AND MOBILE COMMERCE

At present, two primary proposals are being advanced: one by Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay, and the other by the United States of America. The prior assumes that low-value, high-volume disputes will be resolved in domestic courts, with the law of the consumer’s residence governing the transaction. The latter proposal is presented as a global, cross-border, online dispute resolution system. Against this backdrop, the development of an ODR Working Group was supported at the 43rd general meeting of UNCITRAL. The purposes of this colloquium were to consider substantive and procedural rules, the process of approval for providers, and enforcement mechanisms of the regime in advance of the new Working Group’s inaugural December 2010 meeting.

Substantive questions introduced at the colloquium included what the lingua franca of the ODR regime should be, the means by which existing global ODR systems could be incorporated into the new system, and how the new system could ensure efficient remedies. The primary topics considered, organized from easiest to hardest, were summarized as Procedural Rules, Approval of Providers, Substantive Rules, and Enforcement. Also discussed were the questions of whether or not the system should be developed as an inter¬governmental undertaking or a quasi public-private one, as well as how the system is to be developed, hosted and financed.

ADMINISTERING A GLOBAL EXTRAJUDICIAL SYSTEM

eCommerce often crosses multiple jurisdictions, making any disputes that arise enormously difficult for courts to adjudicate. When coupled with the expense of litigation and the difficulty of enforcing foreign judgments, attaining redress in low-value eCommerce disputes has proven even more problematic. An ODR regime stands to facilitate merchants’ expansion into the global marketplace while at the same time increasing consumer confidence in cross-border online trade.

It is anticipated that such a system would involve a global administrator to serve as clearinghouse for processing claims electronically, as well as national administrators to monitor progress and enforce awards within each participating country. Merchants will voluntary opt-in to the system at launch. ODR providers will apply to participate and, if they are found to meet certain standards, will be approved and monitored for continuing quality by each national administrator (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Global Trans-National ODR Model for High-Volume, Low Value Online Disputes

Under such a system, after a consumer initiates a claim, a diagnostic process would begin during which the disputants would file information supporting their position. If parties were not able to reach a settlement on their own, negotiation would be facilitated by an automated system or a live mediator. If this facilitated negotiation did not yield a settlement, the dispute would be arbitrated and the national administrators informed of the decision so as to enforce the award. The specific means for this enforcement, however, has yet to be determined, but one option would be for escalating means of enforcement to be deployed, providing continuous pressure on sellers to abide by outcomes delivered by the process.

Non-binding “soft law” may be one means of instituting such a system quickly, without requiring the long cycles often required to institutionalize formal “hard law.” Parliamentary enactment would not be required, permitting instead a common frame of reference among the member states. In addition, while voluntary, such an approach would be immediately biding for member states and applicable to transactions between merchants and consumers.

As one of the longest and most successful ODR soft laws, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the primary means of arbitrating domestic and cross-border trademark disputes related to domain names. Administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which maintains a contract with all registries and registrars, UDRP complaints are currently resolved by four ODR providers. With over 20,000 cases filed since its inceptions, the UDRP is seen as one possible model for crafting a global system for resolving disputes concerning low-value, high-volume, cross-border online transactions.

Unlike the UDRP, ECODIR – another possible ODR model – is a voluntary system that is free to consumers and merchants alike. Funded by the European Commission and Irish Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, ECODIR begins with party-to-party negotiation and allows for escalation to a mediator who reviews scenarios and suggests solutions. While it has run for almost a decade, the ECODIR system has never experienced a substantial caseload.

KEYNOTE: HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE FRANCES KITELEY

Madame Justice Kitely observed that multi-issue, multi-party, and multi-jurisdiction disputes are increasingly the norm in business law and family law, as well as wrongful dismissal and probate cases. Nevertheless, most judicial systems exist in a system of jurisprudence that is resistant to change. Whereas courts have historically been a venue of first resort, alternative dispute resolution has rendered them a venue of last resort. ODR may be able to enhance justice in traditional courtrooms.

SYSTEM DESIGN FOR REGIONAL AND GLOBAL REDRESS

The practice of designing processes to prevent, manage or resolve disputes is known as Dispute Systems Design. As applied to global system for resolving disputes concerning low-value, high-volume, cross-border online transactions, this practice involves considering the system’s goals, structure and process options, stakeholders, and resources, as well as measures of its success and accountability. The design of an ODR regime can be enhanced through applying global standards to local conditions. Such “glocalization” stands to balance the integrating forces of globalization (a world that is more global, more interconnected, with cultural boundaries that are more permeated, and transcended by complex processes of socio¬legal and political changes) as well as its fragmenting ones (a world that is more divided, more partitioned, with cultural boundaries that are being re-established, and re-invented by complex processes of socio-legal and political changes).

One example of a localized approach to handling cross-border disputes is ICA-Net, which serves southern-and eastern-Asia. Developed from an open-source social networking platform, the system allows for communication both between and among stakeholders. Originally proposed in 2007, the project ran as a two-year pilot and is currently exploring broader implementation. This is being accomplished through cooperation with member states and among complaint handling organizations, enforcement authorities, ADR providers, more public recognition, and governmental agencies.

BUSINESS, CONSUMER, GOVERNMENT AND PROVIDER PERSPECTIVES

Four eCommerce ODR technologies were shared at the colloquium. The first of these, Smartsettle, aims to overcome the problems common to many negotiations: heavy outlays of time and money, leaving substantial value on the table, damaged relationships, and weaker parties being disadvantaged. Through an automated visual blind bidding process disputants are able to structure a range of acceptable monetary settlements, with the platform creating a deal if the petitioner’s and respondent’s ranges overlap.

The second technology discussed, Juripax, serves as a system for resolving employment, divorce, small claims, e-commerce, and personal injury disputes. Operating in multi-lingual environment, the company offers cross-cultural competency in English, German and Dutch, as well as online training for mediators. Presently, the system provides both “3rd party” human mediation as well as “4th party” automated negotiation facilitation. ICA-Net, introduced earlier, provides a secure environment for multiple parties to collaborate in the resolution of disputes. Case-related materials can be shared and discussed among national consumer protection liaisons, members assigned to communicate or handle a complaint, and other concerned individuals. Communications can be made in case rooms which are open to all these parties, or via private communications with the consumer protection liaisons.

The Instituto Latinoamericano de Comercio Electrónico (Latin American eCommerce Institute) serves a population of 547 million Latin Americans across 11 networks. Through its regional ODR program the institute promotes cooperation, disseminates best practices, assists providers, educates constituents, and provides central administration for its network. Given its understanding of both consumers’ and merchants’ perspectives, the institute may be well-positioned to help identify domestic and regional requirements to the development of a global ODR regime.

III. November 3, 2010

GLOBAL ODR SYSTEM: MODEL PRESENTED

The second day of the colloquium began with a detailed explanation of the US ODR system design that has been submitted to the OAS. As discussed under the “Administering a Global Extrajudicial System” section of this communiqué, the regime is designed so as to be sufficiently robust to handle millions of claims annually. Enforcement of awards might occur via a number of means. The ODR provider – which would be reimbursed for their services after a case is closed – could follow up with the prevailing party to determine if the settlement has been paid. If not, various forms of enforcement could be utilized to urge compliance from the seller (see the summary of the enforcement group’s report under “Break-Out Session #2,” below, for more details.)

BREAK-OUT SESSION #1: STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

During the various breakout sessions, the attendees considered various issues and questions as posed by the facilitators. Attendees were able to select which group interested them in each round of discussions, so the participants in the breakout representing consumers’ interests (for example) were not necessarily consumer advocates, but simply attendees who self-selected into that particular group.

In the first round, each breakout group considered the interests of one of four stakeholders. The breakout group representing business interests reported that the ability to increase sales and reduce costs is an essential requirement of the regime. The group felt that fees for participation, if any, should be minimal and that trustmarks for participating merchants could help incentivize this stakeholder group. A global system for the resolution of cross-border eCommerce disputes was deemed as preferable to an interconnected regional system. A topic the group identified as important for further discussion concerned the definition of what constitutes “a business” in an environment in which the distinction between merchant and consumer is often blurred, resellers abound, and transactions may be completed only partially online.

A consumer breakout group related that neutral evaluations of claims in consumers’ language of choice are necessary components of the system, as are efficiency and having the system be free-of-charge to consumers. It reported that consumers should have the ability to opt-in to the system at the time of dispute rather than being bound to it at the point of sale, and that rulings should to be final and binding. Topics the group identified as being important for further discussion concerned the consumers’ opt-in process and the means by which multi¬lingual disputes could be handled. The group representing payment providers’ interests reported incentives to participate in a global ODR regime as including the potential to generate a new profit center, while increasing cross-border sales and reducing liability, chargebacks and complaint caseloads. On the other hand, it also related that disincentives to participation might involve perceived loss of control over the process, a lack of clarity regarding merchants’ incentives for participation, and possible abuse by buyers. The group felt that a means by which to favor private enforcement over arbitration awards was a topic important for further discussion.

The breakout group representing governments’ interests related that the role of states should be in the provision of procedural rules for ODR providers as well as substantive procedural rules, and in the development of enforcement plans. It felt the global administrator should be responsible for day-to-day matters concerning providers and fees, and suggested that some states may elect to outsource the national administration while others may elect to use a public governing agency. The states themselves, the group asserted, should bear the initial expense of creating the national administration, but that once launched the system should be self-financing, with fees paid by businesses.

KEYNOTE: PETER FOGH KNUDSEN

Set up by the European Commission to increase cross-border trade within the EU, the European Consumer Centers Network (ECC-Net) consists of 29 centers in the European Union, Norway and Iceland. Financed by the European Commission and members states, and staffed by individuals trained in law, the network seeks to increase consumer confidence in its internal market. Mr. Knudsen explained that 40,000 to 60,000 complaints and information requests are typically addressed each year, and that eCommerce complaints outstrip on-premise and non¬eCommerce distance sales on an order of 2:1. Approximately half of the complaints the ECC-Net oversee are resolved through mediation. The majority of those that are not resolved are due to due to lack of agreement from merchants. While it does not have any legal power, the network offers legal and practical advice to consumers via national centers in the consumer’s language of preference.

BREAK-OUT SESSION #2: SYSTEMS DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

In the second round, five breakout groups considered the design of the ODR regime and its implementation. The first addressed ODR providers and the standards by which they would operate. It reified those standards advocated by the European Commission: independence, transparency, adversarial principle, effectiveness, legality, liberty, representation and data security. The group felt that ODR providers and national consumer protection authorities must be able to share data so that claims may be forwarded to the prior and results reported to the latter for public dissemination. Varied possibilities for promoting innovation were proposed, including allowing some access to source code, prohibiting competitors from the non-profit arena, or encouraging the licensing of patented intellectual property.

The breakout group addressing the processes by which the regime would operate should include accessible technology, access to justice, and the promotion of e-commerce. It concurred that processes to be enacted should ensure efficiency and effectiveness, create satisfaction with the results it produces, be consistent with legal norms regarding justice, respect cultural differences, and operate with transparency and independence.

The breakout group considering the enforcement of awards offered that it is neither realistic to assume that sellers will voluntarily comply with settlement agreements nor that public enforcement will be adequate. Group members also agreed that there is no viable means for ensuring enforcement given the possibility of business collapse and susceptibility to fraud. The group also stressed that the seat of arbitration should be at the same place in which enforcement would occur. The group discussed a stair-step approach to enforcement, using more voluntary methods at first and escalating to more aggressive forms as necessary. When public involvement is necessitated, the global and national administrators could press for enforcement. Alternately, an administrator could coordinate with the local consumer protection agencies, or may press for chargeback from the payment intermediary. Another option could involve making an award enforceable via the courts by having decisions ratified by arbitration board. A provisional credit could also be debited from the respondent upon initiation of the ODR process, or the terms of use of the system could specify that decisions are binding as a contract. Yet other means of enforcement – such as the placement of negative reviews on public websites, shutting down domain names or server connectivity, or depreciating results in prominent search engines – were also discussed. A legislation breakout group contended that the inflexibility of international treaty concerning an ODR regime would be unhelpful at the moment, and that a pilot project employing a model law or guiding principle from UNICTRAL would be more apropos. In the meantime, it asserted that a soft law harmonizing instrument should be pursued that operates independently of local laws and at the same time allows for the resolution of extra-jurisdictional disputes as no such system currently exists.

The breakout group tasked with exploring regional concerns expressed several requirements for addressing idiosyncrasies from state to state. First, it asserted that a consumer redress model such as that proposed by the US to the OAS is necessary. It also stressed the importance of attending to the unique requirements of local consumers and businesses, as well as the attenuating global standards to local conditions. This, the group emphasized, requires cooperation between and among states. Additional requirements include ensuring that the system is accessible in local languages and that harmonization is not achieved at the expense of local norms.

IV. Conclusions

NEXT STEPS

It was evident from the two-day gathering that this meeting represented the beginning of a conversation, not its end. Many complex challenges were surfaced, and the various breakout groups made great progress in defining the problems and devising promising approaches for addressing them. At the same time, the construction of concrete implementation plans at the Vancouver colloquium was made unrealistic, due largely to the extent to which the broader context for the system is presently undefined. Many of the participants noted their intention to attend the UNCITRAL Working Group meeting in December 2010, and it was made clear that the conclusions of the Vancouver colloquium would be shared there. It was also clear that additional meetings like the colloquium – with a focus on the specifics of system administration, design, and execution – should likely continue in parallel to the UNCITRAL Working Group meetings as the latter are more likely to focus on legal or political questions. Garnering input from a variety of constituents, including representatives from developing and least developed countries, will be an important aspect of this work.

The Vancouver colloquium built on progress achieved at earlier meetings in Buenos Aires, Argentina (in conjunction with the 9th annual International Forum on ODR) and Stanford Law School. In much the same way, upcoming ODR meetings (such as the 10th annual International Forum on ODR in Chennai, India) would build upon progress achieved in Vancouver and Vienna. Operating in a constantly changing environment, the ODR system envisioned will most likely be sufficiently complex such that very few questions will ever be answered permanently. Instead, the system will evolve organically over time, and will require continuous refinement to account for new challenges. Attendees of the Vancouver colloquium indicated their desire to remain engaged with this effort moving forward, and offered their commitment to learn and refine these systems in-flight as new challenges present themselves. Similar future meetings will enable the reflection required to enable the system to grow and evolve. The authors offer a special note of thanks to the participants of the Vancouver colloquium:

Tracy Baker  Smartsettle  Canada
David Bilinsky  The Law Society of British  Columbia  Canada
Kari Boyle  Mediate BC Society  Canada
Colleen Cattell  Mediator  Canada
Mitch Chihara  NEC Corporation  Japan
Andrew Clark  Sunny Hill Consulting  Canada
Tim Cole  ICANN  United States
Louis Del Duca  Penn State Dickinson School  of Law  United States
Michael Dennis  Department of State Office of  Legal Adviser  United States
Frank Fowlie  ICANN  Canada
Fred Galves  University of the Pacific  McGeorge School of Law  United States
Dana Haviland  Independent  United States
Bruce Hiebert  Smartsettle  Canada
Susanna Jani  Mediate BC  Canada
Frances Kiteley  Ontario Superior Court of  Justice  Canada
Peter Knudsen  European Consumer Center  Denmark  Denmark
May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning  Juripax B.V.  Netherlands
Kimberlee Kovach  South Texas College of Law  United States
Doug Leigh  Pepperdine University  United States
Zbynek Loebl  ADR.EU  Czech Republic
Agustin Madrid-Parra  Universidad Pablo De Olavide,  De Sevilla  Spain
Eiichiro Mandai  ODR Room Network Inc.  Japan
Janet Martinez  Stanford Law School  United States
William G. MacLeod  MacLeod & Company  Canada
M. Jerry McHale  Ministry of Attorney General  Canada
James Melamed  Mediate.com  United States
Paul Miniato  iCan Systems Inc.  Canada
Jennifer Nakamura  Hewlett-Packard  United States
Sue Pratt  Ministry of Attorney General  Court Services Branch  Canada
Vikki Rogers  Pace Institute of International  Commercial Law  United States
Martin Roy  Government of Alberta  Canada
Colin Rule  PayPal  United States
Trish Shwart  Ministry of Attorney General  Canada
Debora Slate  Crossroads Consulting  United States
Barbara Steele  VeriSign, Inc.  United States
Jessica Sullivan  Ministry of Attorney General  Court Services Branch  Canada
Gabriela Szlak  Instituto Latinoamericano de  Comercio Electrónico  Argentina
Ernest Thiessen  Smartsettle  Canada
Nicolas Vermeys Centre de recherche en droit public Canada
Aura Esther Vilalta Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Spain
Mohamed Abdel Wahab  Faculty of Law - Cairo  University  Egypt

APPENDICES

All of the presentations delivered at the Vancouver conference (as well as several
papers submitted by attendees) are available in‐line in the Online Agenda at
http://www.odrandconsumers2010.org/agenda.

All of the materials circulated in the conference binders and on a conference CD is
available for download at http://novomeeting.com/vancouver.zip. This file includes:
- UNCITRAL documents related to the ODR Working Group
- Provisional Agenda for the ODR Working Group meeting in December 2010
- UN Secretariat note on work in ODR
- ODR Note from the 43rd session
- US proposal to the OAS
- OAS documents
- Draft model law/cooperative framework
- Proposal for Global ODR Standard Setting body

AUTHORS’ CONTACT INFORMATION

This document is also available as an Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file here.

♬ Listen, let’s make, it national
I want the whole world to know…♬

Lyrics and music by: Tim Mosley, Missy Elliott, Craig Brockman; recorded by Missy Elliott.

David J. Bilinsky

(This is a cross-post with slaw.ca) There is a saying that you only see the tip of an iceberg.  Last week, the 2010 Canadian Forum on Court Technology hosted by the Canadian Centre for Court Technology wrapped up in Ottawa. This Forum provided several glimpses of icebergs floating in the Canadian Judicial System. All this was to be expected; after all this was a very insightful forum on the implementation of court technology and clearly showed the challenges that lie ahead. However, underlying all of this was the sometimes quietly spoken statement that the courts are losing market share to private settlement regimes.

The parties who attended – particularly the judges – are to be commended.  They demonstrated a real concern on how the system can be advanced by the adoption of technology to ensure its relevance in an increasingly online world.  Ultimately, whether this was a conference that results in all players embracing the future and realizing that the only way any real change can occur is if all the players collaborate and work together on reshaping the judicial and legal system, or whether it was just another signpost along the highway that the keynote speaker Richard Susskind calls: “The End of Lawyers” remains to be seen. The fact that eBay already settles the vast majority of its 60 million disputes in 14 languages annually using Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and mediation techniques may provide the clearest picture yet of the future.

The opening plenary Session: “Courting Technology: A Return to Foundational Principles was delivered by The Honourable Madam Justice Louise Charron, Supreme Court of Canada. Other keynotes were by Richard Susskind: “The beginning of a new justice system” and BC’s Deputy Minister to the Premier and Cabinet Alan Seckel delivering his vision for the future.

This two day Forum concentrated on creating a dialogue between a broad spectrum of all those involved in the court process. The Judiciary, representatives of court administration from across Canada and into the USA, representatives of Attorneys-General and Justice departments, the National Center for State Courts from the USA and the Association of Canadian Court Administrators, The Canadian Bar Association, The Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, the National Judicial Institute, the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, the Center for Advancement in Community Justice and the Canadian IT Law Association were just some of the organizations involved along with lawyers, consultants and others.

The major themes of the conference was how technology could be better applied to improve the business processes of the court and to improve access to justice. Along the way the Forum looked at matters as down to earth as digital voice recording in the courts and as far reaching as Cyber-judging in 2020. Richard Susskind painted his vision of how technology is a disruptive force to the legal system and how change must occur within the profession at a rapid rate otherwise the changes from outside the legal system will greatly limit the role that lawyers (and judges) will play in dispute resolution. In particular, Richard emphasized four disruptive technologies facing the justice and legal system: closed client communities, the role that ODR (online dispute resolution) will play in the future, automated drafting and the electronic legal marketplace. Not everything that Richard painted was black: he did state that dispute avoidance could be a significant area for the future work of lawyers.  He advocated such ideas as a social network for Canadian judges and the possibility of lawyers moving from dispute resolution to dispute avoidance.

The vendors that were present such as Xerox, Adobe, IBM and others were painting their own vision for the future; one that applied technology to improve workflow, e-filing, case management and more to the court process. Certainly court administration officials were highly concerned on how to reduce costs and increase the handling of cases, given the imminent retirement of so many of their staff.

Dominic Jaar on one panel gave the quote of the conference:  “There will be no further bricks and mortar courthouses built after 2015″, referring to the fact that future disputes will be dealt with online. Dominic has another great quote:  “In the future there will be no e-discovery: lawyers will use meta-search techniques instead.”

Madam Justice Fran Kiteley, the co-chair of the CCCT asked the question of the conference: “Why are we committed to adjudicating in a courtroom?”  There are principles that underly the court process: our job is to determine how they can be addressed using other adjudicative or resolution methods and technologies.  The best comment from the audience was made in response to justice Kiteley’s question:  “But then we would need e-gowns!”

The ethical role of technology was explored from video conferencing to using technology to reinvent legal rituals. The BC contingent led the way in terms of exploring lessons learned in e-strategy (currently in their Court Services Online program they have 87 locations e-filing involving 2,134 clients, 115,000 documents filed/week and they scan 34,000 documents/month) and they are on an exponential curve upwards in terms of lawyers using e-filing.

For example, BC has learned from their e-courts initiative that you need a well-articulated, documented vision to start out on the right foot. Furthermore, you must have policy and judicial support before moving forward.  In terms of detail, they determined a need for two factor authentication and digital signing when it comes to e-filing. From a change management perspective, they have also indicated that to be successful, they learned that you need the support of all stakeholders coupled with the  need to understand the diversity of the client base.  Document standards and documented standards, of course, are a given. Functionality must meet workflow. Their next step is determining how to fully integrate technology to have a true electronic trial (where all processes from filing to the rendering of the decision are processed and all records are accessed electronically) rather than one which simply uses electronic evidence presented in the courtroom.

Richard Susskind did close with one final quote: “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”  We will host our own international conference on ODR and the global resolution of low-value claims in Vancouver on Nov. 2-3, 2010.  This will be the next best opportunity for Canadian lawyers, court administration and judges to see the international model rules being proposed by UNICTRAL and others in this area and judge how ODR can either exist within – or as some advocate – outside of the judicial system.  (In terms of fair disclosure, the writer was one of the speakers on a panel entitled: A Virtual Day in Court: Online Dispute Resolution).  This is the time to invent the future and allow the courts to adopt ODR as part of their overall structure for dispute resolution.  There really is no reason why the judicial system cannot offer the same services as are rendered by the private systems.  Susskind did say that if there was cannibalization of legal services taking place now, then we might as well be first to the feast.

Ultimately the reason for holding these types of conferences is to make these issues national and allow the whole world to know the challenges that we are all facing.

Moolchul Chang, Professor of Law, Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea recently hosted: ODR for Consumer Protection, a Joint Seminar by Korea Consumer Agency and the US Federal Trade Commission, on June 9-11, in Seoul, Korea.

The Korea Consumer Agency and the US Federal Trade Commission held joint seminars and an international forum on ODR for Consumer Protection on June 9 to June 11, 2010, in Seoul, Korea.

The joint seminars dealt with e-commerce, consumer credit, cross-border consumer dispute and other consumer protection issues. More than 30 speakers and discussants participated in the seminar mainly from Korea Consumer Agency, US Federal Trade Commission, Japan Federation of Lawyers and other domestic consumers organizations. International Forum on June 11 highlighted the Cross-border Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for Consumer Protection that has recently emerged as a major international issue between the U.S. and South Korea.

Alberto Elisavetsky

IDEAS SOBRE UN SISTEMA INTERNACIONAL PARA EL CONSUMIDOR ODR

Por Graham Ross el 30 de Junio 2010
Publicado en www.odrandconsumers2010.org

Traducido por Freddy Ortiz Nishihara publicado en www.odrlatinoamerica.com

Estoy publicando a través de este medio mis ideas para un sistema internacional del consumidor en ODR . Empiezo con algunas ideas para determinar en que casos de omisión de acuerdos seria definible y que principios debería requerirse honrar a los vendedores, bajo un sistema determinado por una marca de la confianza y luego cubrir algunas ideas sobre cumplimiento y ejecución.

PRESUNCION DE LEGALIDAD Y USO PRACTICO EN EL PAIS DEL VENDEDOR

Si un vendedor no declara de otra manera, que la evidente posición mostrada en la pagina web (es decir no se vincula a aspectos que se presten a la confusión) cualquier decisión arbitral será decidida sobre la base que era una condición de venta que era utilizable (tanto practica como legalmente) en el país del vendedor. El ejemplo que di en Buenos Aires (basado en como nosotros – los de la sala de mediación- decidimos un caso para PayPal) fue el caso de un vendedor del Reino Unido a través de E Bay de faros delanteros de un carro a un comprador del mismo país, a quien mientras que se le describió correctamente el numero de modelo, no se definió que era solo de uso para Europa continental, es decir para manejar por el lado derecho, al mismo tiempo que el no había mal descrito el bien. Yo sugerí que el espíritu que deseábamos desarrollar en el consumidor del comercio electrónico, seria asignar al vendedor la responsabilidad de evitar el obvio mal entendido por parte de un razonable comprador quien supondría que dichas luces eran de uso en el Reino Unido.

PRESUNCION DE LEGALIDAD Y USO PRACTICO EN EL PAIS DEL COMPRADOR

Si los consumidores a los que apunta como objetivo un vendedor, se hallan dentro de un país (por ejemplo a través de PPC/ SEO colocaciones y diseño) diferente a aquel donde se halla basado aquel (Usando la prueba según la Directiva de Bruselas sobre jurisdicción que invalida las cláusulas sobre contratos de consumidor que intentan remover la habilidad del consumidor para demandar en su propio país. Entonces cualquier decisión arbitral será decidida sobre la base de que era una condición de venta que el bien fuese usable ( tanta legal como prácticamente) en ese otro país.
Loa anterior seria aplicable en la ausencia de evidencia de definición del mercado mas reciente. Esto podría reflejar así el mundo físico, pues en el caso que viaje a otro país, Ud. Espera que los bienes sean para ser utilizados en dicho país a menos que se halla establecido de otra manera. Pero si el vendedor viaja a vender a su país, entonces asumiría que tales bienes son de uso en su país.
NO ENTREGA
Los reclamos por falla en la entrega serán decididos de acuerdo a la extensión declarada por el vendedor en la etapa de pre venta y frente a potenciales riesgos de no entrega, por ejemplo aquellos originados en los embarques graduales, los agentes etc y no de acuerdo con alguna cláusulas protectivas.
COMERCIANTES SUSTITUTOS

La parte vendedora requerida para el cumplimiento con una decisión arbitral de resolución de disputa en línea será la de esa persona o compañía que se ha presentado en el sitio web declarando ser la vendedora única o con cualquier otra compañía o persona cada una por si, que también ha declarado ser vendedora dentro del acuerdo.

FORZANDO ISPS Y EL PAGO A LOS PROVEEDORES EN RELACION A LA ELIMINACION DE COMERCIANTES FRAUDULENTOS

( Sujeta a la visión de ICAAN y a mas consideraciones del detalle) ISPs y el pago a los proveedores que serán requeridos a cumplir con laudos arbitrales en relación a los vendedores por transacciones que ellos han facilitado (por mantener o motivar el pago y en el ultima instancia, incluirlos en casos en los que la ley del consumidor ha negado la devolución) en todas las transacciones de vendedores que daten de después de 14 días que las noticia les fue dada o se hayan enterado a través de una opinión escrita hecha llegar a ellos por medio de una apropiada autoridad policial especializada en fraudes, la que les ha informado que el vendedor ha cometido lo mismo en similares transacciones ( la idea aquí es motivar a desligarse de los comerciantes fraudulentos antes que ellos causen mas daño . Hay obvios problemas aquí que necesitan mas ideas detalles y discusión)

COSTOS Y EJECUCIONES

El consumidor ODR es la mayor valla- miremos el problema como esta ilustrado en el reporte sobre nuestro proyecto de Ombudsman en “href=http://www.theinternetombudsman.com/traget=”_bla….) con los centros de consumidores europeos. Dado el hecho que los proveedores del pago y ISPs ganan proporcionalmente del incrementado comercio electrónico, resultado de la confianza inspirada y mantenido por un efectivo sistema global de resolución de conflictos en línea. Ellas deberían contribuir con los verdaderos costos del proceso en los casos que resulten en el pago de una compensación por parte del vendedor.
Ellos pueden protegerse a si mismos obligando contractualmente al vendedor a reembolsar lo pagado a través de montos adicionales incrementados.
La pregunta es si esto debería aplicarse al monto compensatorio en si mismo y así de esta manera resolver legalmente el problema

COMENTARIO GENERAL

Un sistema de devoluciones podría ser introducido para reemplazar al sistema existente y requeriría la aplicación de la devolución en concordancia con el laudo arbitral o la solución mediada. A diferencia del sistema corriente de devoluciones que es manejados por leyes para el consumidor ( ejemplo en el Reino Unido 75% de los casos solucionados) que establece la responsabilidad concurrente en el suministrador de las compras y asi solo se aplica al pago con tarjetas de crédito, el nuevo sistema podría cubrir todos los métodos de pago, incluyendo los sistemas de pago con chequera y las tarjetas de debito.
Como mencionamos anteriormente la confianza seria regulada a través de reglas especiales.
Alternativamente una extensiva campana de de Marketing sobre “el vendedor seguro” podría generarse alrededor de un sello que asegure que los comerciantes genuinos entendieron que el mensaje de acatamiento voluntario al proceso de la resolución de disputas en línea era vital para generar ventas. Bajo este enfoque los bancos y proveedores de pagos podrían requerirlo en los procesos de financiamiento de compras como una condición para proveer facilidades financieras.
Tal iniciativa traería como beneficio que se aísle y se ponga en evidencia a los comerciantes que usan el fraude (así comprar de un comerciante que no muestre la marca de la confianza seria como comprar un ticket para un evento deportivo en la calle a un extraño, sin estar seguro que el mismo fuese verdadero o falso y que te permitirían el ingreso al estadio con el, siendo una especie de riesgo que tu tomas) y de esa manera se ayudaría significativamente a reducir los riesgos de transacciones fraudulentas.