Archives: May 2004
Wed May 26, 2004
UN Forum Update
With six weeks to go, the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution is set to be the biggest yet. The Forum is being hosted by the International Conflict Resolution Centre in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) in Melbourne, Australia, 5-6 July.
There are 121 confirmed registrations for the Forum plus another 63 inquiries. Delegates registered for the Forum are from 25 countries, including Australia, USA, Iran, Canada, Argentina, China, Pakistan, New Zealand, Philippines, Nigeria, Netherlands, UK, Germany, Indonesia, Egypt, Thailand, Singapore, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Bougainville, South Africa, Brazil and Nepal. A small amount of financial aid has been obtained to assist some delegates from developing countries.
The speaker program is impressive with 13 keynote speakers, approximately 30
seminar papers and 8 ODR system demonstrations.
It is still possible to register for the Forum and to submit a proposal for a presentation at http://odrforum2004.themediationroom.com/ or to n.balvin@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au As a UN event, attendance at the Forum is free however delegates are responsible for their own travel and accommodation.
I’d like to thank our sponsors the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the Department of Justice Victoria, The Claim Room and the Victorian Society for Computers and the Law for their support.
[15] comments (7943 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Sun May 23, 2004
European Commission publishes dispute resolution policy concerning "eu" domain names
Last month, the European Commission published its policy rules on the implementation of the “eu” top-level domain in the EU Official Journal. These rules contain provisions on extra-judicial dispute resolution, which are quite similar to ICANN’s UDRP. The dispute resolution procedure may be conducted online or offline.
In this regard, Commission Regulation 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 on the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration first provides (Art. 22) that the dispute resolution may be initiated by “any party” claiming that a domain name registration is “speculative or abusive”.
Once the dispute resolution procedure has been initiated, participation of the domain name holder and the European Registry of Internet Domain names (EURid) is compulsory.
A domain name registration is “speculative or abusive” if (Art. 21) (a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or Community law, (b) the domain has been registered without rights or legitimate interests in the name, and (c) if it has been registered or is being used in bad faith. The conditions of “legitimate interests” and “bad faith” are defined in terms very close to those of the UDRP. A legitimate interest is for instance provided if the domain name holder has used it in connection with a commercial activity, if he or she has been commonly known by the domain name, or if he or she is making a “legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name”. Bad faith is for example shown if the domain name was acquired with the purpose of selling it to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognized, to prevent the holder of a name from reflecting it in a corresponding domain name, or to mislead Internet users.
One may further note that Article 22(10) provides, in what seems at first glance to be a systematic violation of the respondent’s procedural rights, that “failure of any of the parties involved in an ADR procedure to respond within the given deadlines or appear to a panel hearing may be considered as grounds to accept the claims of the counterparty”.
As in the UDRP, the dispute resolution provider may be selected by the claimant from a list of (soon-to-be) accredited dispute resolution providers (Art. 22(5) and 23(1)).
The panel deciding on the case may be composed of one or three panelists (the situations in which there will be one, respectively three panelists is as of yet undefined). The selection of the panelists will be made “in accordance to the internal procedures of the selected ADR providers” (Art. 22(9)).
The documents-only procedure may be conducted online or offline, as Article 22(9) provides that “any written communication to a complainant or respondent shall be made by the preferred means stated by the complainant or respondent, respectively, or in the absence of such specification electronically via the Internet, provided that a record of transmission is available”.
The decision must be rendered within one month, be duly motivated, and will be published (Art. 22(11)). It will be “binding” on the parties unless court proceedings are initiated within 30 days of the notification of the outcome to the parties. To what extent they will be binding (like a contract or like a judgment or arbitral award, in regard to the DNS enforcement system only or also in relation to the public legal systems) is as of yet undefined. The only hint is that Article 23 speaks of “arbitrators”. However, the UDRP had in its early days also been referred to as arbitration…
The enforcement process is as of yet undefined, but it seems that it will be the same as in the UDRP, the registrar being ordered to cancel or transfer the domain name.
The first frustrating impression that this policy leaves is that it seems that we Europeans have not learned much--except the extension of the period within which the initiation of court proceedings may halt the enforcement process--from the lessons of ICANN: the dispute resolution body is still selected by the claimant, the substantive conditions for cancellation or transfer of the domain name are still relatively vague, and there still is no appeal mechanism.
Finally, one should note that the “eu” registry is not operational yet. According to the current timetables, the "eu" registrars will be accredited in June or July of this year, the sunrise period of registration will begin in December of this year, and the system will be fully operational by April 2005.
[7] comments (6152 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Tue May 18, 2004
Info-Share: ICT for Peace Building in Sri Lanka
Info-Share was created with the belief that ICT and innovative media can help bridge communications gaps between the main stakeholders in the Sri Lankan peace process and also enable public participation in the process.
Info-Share provides a software platform, Groove Workspace, readily adoptable by all stakeholders in the peace process, to engender a process of information sharing, where the approach to conflict transformation in one that is holistic, inclusive and participatory. By supporting the creation of "shared spaces", Info-Share hopes to help bridge the ethnic and political divides in Sri Lanka.
Info-Share is the only example of its kind in the world where ICT is actually being used in the design and implementation of not only ICT4D, but an on-going peace process.
The initiative is at the cutting edge of using technology to create processes and methods in peace-building and conflict transformation which really are otherwise impossible in the physical world.
As such, it can be seen as a harbinger of the application of tradition Conflict Resolution and Mediation theories to the world of Information Technology - a marriage between virtual information sharing and real world change.
One particularly interesting facet of our work to this forum is the One-Text process we are engineering online in Sri Lanka.
In creating the One-Text space for high-level negotiations between the various political stakeholders in the Sri Lankan Peace Process, Info-Share needed to create a virtual negotiations table that would enable the stakeholders to discuss issues freely and frankly, and most importantly, privately, without worrying about the security of their communications. This need lead to the creation of the Sri Lanka One Text Process Groove space.
Info-Share's software platform, Groove Workspace, was ideal for this purpose, because of its inbuilt strong encryption and a plethora of other key features that lent itself to the work we envisaged.
The One-Text shared space makes use of both the Negotiations Table tool already available for Groove, but for the One-Text process itself, where the negotiators come together to create a single text that incorporates all points of view, required a somewhat more specialized approach. A software interface was required that would allow each party to contribute their input on each topic under discussion, and to do so in a way that gave equal prominence to all. For this, Info-Share developed a set of custom-built Forms tools, each of which targeted a specific group of negotiators and each of which was able to handle any amount of highly specific topics, first laying out each party s position summary and detailed proposals on each topic, and then providing a space for the negotiators to arrive at a consensual one-text proposal on each topic after taking all points of view into account.
For more details of our work, please visit our website at www.info-share.org
[12] comments (6701 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Thu May 13, 2004
New Article on ODR
Online Dispute Resolution Systems: Exploring E-Commerce and E- Securities
by Jagruti Chauhan in
(March, 2003) 15 W.R.L.S.I. 99
Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues
[17] comments (8649 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Mon May 10, 2004
New ODR Article in Conflict Resolution Quarterly
Steven Pyser and Cliff Figallo have a new ODR article in the Spring 2004 issue of Conflict Resolution Quarterly: "The 'Listening to the City' Online Dialogues Experience: The Impact of a Full Value Contract."
It "explores how an intentional social agreement...can help relax skepticism while supporting trust in sustaining full and conscientious participation and community in a purposeful online dialogue." They analyze the "Listening to the City" online dialogue, which involved 800 folks in 2002 (who posted 10,000 messages!)
Cliff Figallo used to be Director of the WELL. and his current gig is http://www.socialchemy.com
[24] comments (8827 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Tue May 04, 2004
ICODR 2004 Results!
The Center is pleased to present the results from the International Competition for Online Dispute Resolution for 2004. Thanks to WestWorkspace and the eNegotiation group for supplying platforms, Harvard's Program on Negotiation for providing cases, and to the support of the University of Toledo School of Law, Hamline University School of Law, and the University of Massachusetts.
- eNegotiation Results
- Mediation Results
- Arbitration Results
[18] comments (17684 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks
Sat May 01, 2004
New article about ODR and Cybersettle
Clive Thompson, a well-known writer abouit the Internet and society, has a nice piece about ODR and Cybersettle in the current issue of Legal Affairs magazine http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2004/scene_thompson_mayjun04.html
[13] comments (7226 views) | [0] Trackbacks [0] Pingbacks