115 and Counting: The State of ODR 2004

 

Melissa Conley Tyler

 

Program Manager, International Conflict Resolution Centre, University of Melbourne

 

Abstract

 

This paper will present a survey of the current state of online dispute resolution (ODR) through an analysis of 115 ODR sites and services launched to date around the world. ODR refers to dispute resolution processes such as mediation, arbitration or adjudication assisted by information technology, particularly the internet. ODR can be used for both online and offline disputes.

 

The paper will present statistical information and trend analysis of the ODR sites identified, including services offered, communication methods used, type of disputes dealt with and trends in ODR.

 

Introduction

 

Most of the literature on online dispute resolution (ODR) to date has dealt in conjecture. By contrast, this paper takes an empirical approach by outlining developments in ODR since 1996, offering a portrait of the state of the field.

 

ODR refers to dispute resolution processes assisted by information technology, particularly the internet. This can include facilitative processes such as mediation, advisory processes such as case appraisal and determinative processes such as arbitration and adjudication. An outline of terminology used is included in the glossary in Appendix 1.

 

As of July 2004, at least 115 ODR services had been launched worldwide, settling more than 1.5 million disputes. ODR services offer examples of using technology to resolve everything from eBay disputes to commercial litigation; from family disputes to the Sri Lankan peace process. There are now ODR services in all regions.

 

The continuing growth of ODR, particularly in Europe and Asia and in courts and other institutions suggests that ODR will impact on dispute resolution practice and should be of interest to all conflict resolution practitioners.

 

Methodology

 

This paper updates research conducted for the Department of Justice Victoria in 2003 that identified 76 ODR sites and services worldwide (Conley Tyler and Bretherton 2003 summarised in Conley Tyler 2003). This original research was prepared using the following methodology:

 

·         Comprehensive literature review of 128 books, articles, reports and other resources on ODR, including review of previous site surveys (Center for Law, Commerce & Technology 2000, Schultz et al 2001, Consumers International 2001, International Chamber of Commerce 2001)

·         Analysis of 76 ODR sites identified through internet indices and search engines, academic indices, informational sites and literature review

·         Liaison with ODR researchers and the expert community.

 

These results were then updated in May-June 2004 through the following:

 

·         Search of http://www.odr.info/ (list of ODR providers, ODR blog to June 2004)

·         Review of ODR Library (Conley Tyler 2004)

·         Review of Proceedings of Second Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution (Katsh and Choi 2003)

·         Review of Cyberweek 2004 conference discussions at www.odr.info and Network Lawyers group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Network-Lawyers

·         Google Search for “ODR” and “online dispute resolution” (first 100 entries)

·         Contact with UN Expert Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution, Site Committee organising the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution and confirmed speakers at the Third Annual Forum.[1]

 

ODR services identified and assessed in this paper are listed in Appendix 3.

 

State of the Art of ODR

 

Growth and Availability

 

ODR has been available since 1996. Its development can be defined as passing through three broad stages:

 

·         a "hobbyist" phase where individual enthusiasts started work on ODR, often without formal backing

·         an "experimental" phase where foundations and international bodies funded academics and non-profit organisations to run pilot programs

·         an "entrepreneurial" phase where a number of for-profit organisations launched private ODR sites (adapted from Katsh and Rifkin 2001:47-72).

 

The hobbyist phase lasted until around 1996 when the first four ODR services were launched. The experimental phase was around 1997-1998 and the entrepreneurial phase was marked by the many sites launched in 1999-2000.

 

Since 2001, ODR has been entering a fourth "institutional" phase where it is piloted and adopted by a range of official bodies including courts and other dispute resolution providers.

 

Given the essentially experimental nature of this field, ODR services have proved surprisingly durable with the majority of services launched still operating.

 

Of the 115 sites identified, 82 appear to be operational, 30 are no longer providing services and three are unknown. However it should be noted that many of the sites that are nominally offering ODR do not appear to be highly active. Services that are no longer operating are marked in italic type in Appendix 3.

 

ODR sites and services have continued to be launched with 30 new sites or services established in 2003-2004. ODR sites not included in Conley Tyler 2003 are listed in Appendix 5.

Location

 

Most of the early activity in ODR took place in North America. However both Europe and Asia have now started to develop significant ODR initiatives.

 

 

These three regions account for almost all ODR activity, however there are two South American, one African and one multi-region ODR service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The early-launched Cibertribunal (Peru) shows it is possible to offer ODR in a less developed context while the newer ChinaODR, TrustEnforce (South Africa) and Disputeresolution.ph (Philippines) are optimistic about extending ODR into these areas. See Appendix 4 for a list of ODR services by region and Wahab 2004 for a discussion of information and communications technology development factors and their impact on the development of ODR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Types of ODR Offered

 

ODR has adapted standard dispute resolution processes for use online, including complaint handling, arbitration, mediation, facilitated negotiation and case appraisal. Each traditional ADR mechanism has an analogy online: for example iCourthouse offers mock trials using panels of volunteer jurors. A description of ADR processes is included in the glossary in Appendix 1.

 

In addition, a number of online-specific techniques have been developed to take advantage of the new technology; these include automated negotiation (without human intervention) and negotiation support (see Kersten 2004 and Bellucci; Zeleznikow 2004). Mediation support such as online document sharing is beginning to be offered. Collaborative peace-building tools are also starting to be developed online (Balvin 2004).

 

Mediation and arbitration have been the most prevalent forms of ODR. The breakdown of types of ODR among the 115 sites is as follows:

 

 

 

The communication tools used in ODR have changed as online technology has developed. Early ODR sites tended to rely mainly on email meaning that communication was delayed, text based and insecure. By contrast, the most common technology for services launched since 2001 is a secure web site encrypted by Secure Socket Layers (SSL) technology where parties are given a password to access a web site area dedicated to their dispute. See Appendix 1 for a description of online communication methods and their characteristics.

 

Sites can either allow asynchronous communication through threaded discussion (bulletin boards) or real time chat facilities. Instant messaging is being used by some sites, as is "secure email" via an encryption program. Caucusing (the ability for one party to meet among themselves or with the neutral without the other party) is a basic feature in newer systems. Some sites offer facilities such as case tracking and document editing.

 

A number of providers integrate ODR methods with traditional tools such as phone, fax, teleconference and face-to-face meetings. Videoconferencing is offered by a number of sites. Broadcast-quality videoconferencing is expensive, however lower quality videoconferencing is becoming more affordable and may be the next phase in technological development (NADRAC 2002).

 

Type of Disputes

 

The range of disputes resolved by ODR has been broad: from family law to internet domain name disputes; from consumer transactions to peace negotiations.

 

ODR has been used to resolve both “online disputes” arising through or because of online activity and “offline disputes” such as family, neighbourhood and employment disputes arising in the “real world”.

 

It is becoming more common for providers to offer services for both online or offline disputes. This includes some providers who launched exclusively dealing with online disputes. There have been cases where offline disputants have demanded that online methods be extended to them even when the provider had intended only to deal with online disputes (Rule 2002:222).

The areas of dispute handled fall into the following broad categories: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.      Consumer disputes

2.      Internet disputes, especially domain names

3.      Commercial, family, workplace and neighbourhood disputes

4.      Complex litigation

5.      Peace and conflict

 

Examples of services dealing with each area are given below.

 

e-Commerce and other Consumer Disputes

 

Given that the need to resolve online disputes was one of the key drivers for the development of ODR, it is not surprising that many sites were established mainly to resolve disputes arising through or because of online communication.

 

Consumer ODR tends to be provided as a service for consumers in a particular “marketplace” or those residing in a particular geographic area.

 

The largest provider in this area is Square Trade, a private U.S. company that offers facilitated negotiation and mediation of mainly online disputes, including for the eBay, Google, Yahoo! and other online marketplaces. Square Trade now offers ODR for Californian Association of Realtors disputes.

 

Other examples of consumer ODR include:

 

·         ECODIR, the European Union’s prototype online consumer dispute resolution site

·         Online Confidence, an initiative of Eurochambres, the membership organisation of 1300 European chambers of commerce

·         NotGoodEnough.org, an Australian “gripes” site where disgruntled consumers can post complaints to be forwarded to the company involved

·         FSM, a German site that handles complaints about internet sites

·         eCOGRA, a British site that provides ODR for users of online gaming.

 

Internet Disputes

 

ODR has also been adopted as a method for resolving disputes relating to internet addresses (“domain names”).

 

There have been five service providers approved under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number (ICANN) in 1999. These deal with disputes over the ownership and use of “.com”, “.org” and other high level domains:

 

·         Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre

·         CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution

·         eResolution (no longer operating)

·         National Arbitration Forum

·         World Intellectual Property Organisation.

 

ODR is also offered for some national domain name disputes, such as:

 

·         Nominet (“.uk” domains)

·         CIETAC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (“.cn” domains)

·         American Arbitration Association (“.us” domains)

 

Commercial, Family, Workplace and Neighbourhood Disputes

 

At the other end of the spectrum, ODR has been adopted for quintessentially “real world” disputes such as commercial, family, workplace and neighbourhood disputes. ODR is now being used in situations where face-to-face dispute resolution might have been possible but, for some reason, ODR is preferred.

 

Some providers offer ODR as a stand-alone facility. For example, U.K. company The Claim Room offers a series of “rooms” where dispute resolution practitioners can conduct mediations and other dispute resolution procedures. These can be “hired out” by practitioners in the same way as physical rooms.

 

Others integrate online communication into existing dispute resolution services. For example Family Mediation Canada provides web-broadcast teleconferencing and joint document collaboration facilities as a service to its members mediating family disputes (Brannigan 2004).

 

ODR is also being offered as a pro-active service, such as the International Chamber of Commerce’s “Paction” which enables parties to prepare, negotiate and complete contacts for the international sale and purchase of goods online.  

 

Some of the ODR services that assist in “real world” disputes focus on providing analytical rather than communication tools. For example Canadian company SmartSettle helps people prepare for negotiation by analysing their preferences and the potential options on the negotiation table while the Department of Justice Victoria’s disputeinfo service uses Acumentum’s Scenario Builder to guide disputants through the options for dealing with their dispute.

 

Complex Litigation

 

ODR is also being adopted by courts and tribunals seeking to improve access to justice and streamline the litigation process.

 

The Federal Court of Australia’s eCourt initiative enables electronic filing and document management and offers a “virtual courtroom”, including videoconferencing, particularly for Native Title hearings in remote areas (Tamberlin 2004).

 

An unusual example is Justica Sobre Rodas, a mobile court in Brazil that uses an artificial intelligence program to analyse witness statements and assessors’ reports to enable a Judge to hand down a decision at the scene of a vehicle accident.

 

Courts and tribunals in Singapore (e@dr), the United Kingdom (MoneyClaimOnline) and Ireland (Irish Commercial Court) have similarly adopted ODR for some of their processes. A U.S. experiment, the Michigan Cybercourt, remains under development.

 

LegalGrid Online has launched its Court21 product to assist courts and tribunals to incorporate ODR into their operations.

 

Peace and Conflict

 

Finally, online tools are being used to assist in peacebuilding and conflict resolution.

 

For example Info-Share brings the parties in the Sri Lankan peace process together electronically in a situation where it would be impossible for them to meet face-to-face. Its aim is to promote conflict transformation by knowledge-sharing, information and communications flow and offering shared spaces for stakeholder dialogue (Hattotuwa 2004).

 

The Cultures of Peace News Network (CPNN) works preventively to promote a culture of peace through a global network of sites created by UNESCO to enable people to exchange information on media and events (Balvin 2004).

 

What is striking about these results is the rapid growth of ODR and the variety of contexts and locations in which it is being adopted.

 

Case Statistics

 

There is very wide variability in the number of cases dealt with by ODR sites: from only one case to more than 1.5 million disputes.

 

Statistics on cases attracted were available for 31 of the sites surveyed (27%). Lack of information for the other sites makes it difficult to make comprehensive judgements (Consumers International 2001). While some sites that do not include this information may have attracted fewer cases (Schultz et al 2001), there are also other factors such as client confidentiality requirements that may prevent some providers from reporting on their results.

 

The sites that have handled the most disputes appear to be the following:

 

·         Square Trade: over 1.5 million cases handled

·         Cybersettle: over 90,000 disputes handled

·         iCourthouse: 11,094 cases filed

·         World Intellectual Property Organisation: over 6,000 decisions administered

·         National Arbitration Forum: 4,259 decisions listed

·         TRUSTe: thousands of complaints

·         clickNsettle, iLevel, SettleOnline and WebTrader: over 2,000 cases each

·         Nominet: 1,614 cases resolved.

·         FSM: over 1,179 complaints

 

Some of the online complaints handling services have had a large volume of complaints filed. BBBOnline had 1.3m complaints filed (but not handled) online in 2000 while NotGoodEnough.org had 3,000 complaints filed in its first day.

 

A further seven services have settled over 100 cases and another 10 have settled under 100 disputes. The least successful sites are The Virtual Magistrate and intelliCourt recording one case each. Some services, such as Internet Neutral, appear never to have handled a case.

 

The key to viability of an ODR service appears to be the quality of its referral sources. For example the majority of Square Trade’s cases have come directly from its link to the eBay site, the “place” where the disputes occurred. A number of incentives are built into the eBay system to encourage parties to resolve their disputes, including a buyer and seller ratings system and web seal program. Cybersettle has been the preferred provider for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and the Canadian Bar Association.

 

There is less data on the settlement rates achieved by ODR services with only 18 sites including these statistics (including seven domain name arbitration services that publish case results on their sites). Other international surveys of ODR sites have been unable to gather significant data on this issue (Consumers International 2001; International Chamber of Commerce 2001).

 

The following settlement rates have been reported:

 

·         Word&Bond: 100% settlement rate

·         WebAssured: over 95% success in complaints against member firms

·         Square Trade: 85% of cases settled through facilitated negotiation, as well as further cases settled through mediation and case appraisal

·         IRIS Médiation: 53 of 61 mediations (87%) settled in its pilot year

·         Resolution Forum: 75% of cases successfully resolved

·         SmartSettle: 80% settlement rate for real cases

·         Bankers Repository Corporation: 60% settlement rate (5% annual variation)

·         Nominet: 50% settled

·         clickNsettle: 50% settled

·         Online Ombuds Office: 50% settled

·         USSettle.com: 40-50% success rate

 

This is broadly comparable to settlement rates for alternative dispute resolution generally which range from 50% to over 85% (NADRAC).

 

User satisfaction is rarely tracked; however one site that collects this information has positive data. 80% of Square Trade users say they would use the service again.

 

Funding

 

ODR sites have grown from a number of environments, including government and international bodies, academia, consumer organisations, business organisations and entrepreneurial start-up companies. They have been motivated by both business opportunities and a sense of social need.

 

ODR sites make use of a number of funding mechanisms including:

 

·         grant funding (such as the Online Ombuds Office)

·         government funding (such as Singapore’s Dispute Manager service)

·         user fees for one or both parties (such as Word&Bond)

·         membership fees (such as Nova Forum)

·         advertising revenue (such as Complain.com.au)

·         subsidy from other services.

 

User fees have been the predominant funding mechanism for ODR. User fees can take a number of forms including:

 

·         a filing fee

·         an hourly rate for mediators', arbitrators' and evaluators' time

·         an administration fee or online "room" rental

·         a standard service fee, usually for a set number of hours

·         a percentage of settlement reached

·         a per round bidding fee (automated negotiation only).

 

A number of services have offered ODR for no cost, usually on a pilot basis while they were supported through philanthropic or University funding. These services have tended to cease once the initial funding was exhausted.

 

Government ODR services have offered at least a pilot phase with reduced or no user fees (eg ECODIR) or, where services are associated with a court, have applied the same filing fees as for a standard court process (eg e@dr).

 

A number of sites which provide both online and offline services have chosen to have the same fee structure for both.

 

Overall, experience suggests that early claims about cost savings should not be overstated for ODR as a whole. While some techniques such as automated negotiation and facilitated negotiation can be delivered at a very low cost, others such as mediation remain time intensive for the neutral involved. ODR is not inevitably a low cost option but may offer cost savings in many cases.

 

Access

 

There are three issues that may limit use of ODR services:

 

·         access to a computer with minimum hardware and software support

·         accessibility of sites to people with disabilities and slow connection speeds

·         language of services offered.

 

Access to Hardware and Software

 

Most of the sites surveyed assume that disputants have access to basic computing infrastructure. However some providers who use videoconferencing make this equipment available to parties (for example JAMS and clickNsettle).

 

The U.S. government Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is an interesting example of incorporating access to equipment into its service: FMCS brings laptops and other mobile technology to the workplace to help conciliate labour/management disputes (Rule 2002:179-181). Skilled facilitators are also provided to help parties make use of the equipment.

 

Accessibility for People with Disabilities

 

Accessibility for those with computer equipment may be a more important issue and is something that can be completely managed by ODR system design. NADRAC 2002 suggests that ODR systems should use appropriate and accessible bandwidth, low requirements for computer capacity and should comply with guidelines for disability standards (NADRAC 2002).

 

Most early ODR sites meet these criteria; however many more recent sites employ programming that does not appear to comply with disability standards. For example, Flash is increasingly used to enable moving elements; however a number of sites do give the option of a non-Flash version.

 

Languages Offered

 

Language and culture can both be bars to use of ODR. Primerano 2004 discusses the impact of language on usability while Rao 2004 discusses the implications of differences of culture in the virtual world.

 

The breadth of languages used to provide ODR services is improving, admittedly from a low base. In Conley Tyler 2003, 61 of the 76 sites identified (80%) offered their services in only one language, 53 in English only (70%).

 

English remains the most common languages for ODR services, followed by Spanish, French and German. ODR services are offered in 20 languages, including Greek, Russian, Sinhala, Tamil, Irish, Norwegian and Icelandic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

A single language service is still the most common model (74%).However there are an increasing number of bilingual (15%) or multilingual services (11%).

Some consumer ODR sites offer services across a number of states in each official language, such as the consumer association consortium WebTrader or Eurochambres’ Online Confidence service. Among the most interesting of these are econsumer.gov (where consumers can lodge a complaint online which is accessible to government law enforcement in 13 countries) and CCForm (where a consumer submits a complaint in his or her own language which is automatically translated into the language of the company involved). 

 

Other services such as Scenario Builder offer a dispute resolution tool that can be populated with content in any language desired.

 

Privacy and security

 

Privacy and security are issues in an online environment as they are for traditional dispute resolution services. Bonnet et al 2002 suggest that ODR systems must be able to meet the following minimum security standards:

 

·         identifies the author of each message

·         shows evidence that documents have been completely sent

·         ensures the integrity of submitted information

·         protects information stored on a database from unauthorised parties

·         distinguishes an original from a copy.

 

ODR technology is definitely coming closer to this point (Bonnet et al 2002, Hornle 2003). However no communication method can provide for absolute security. Security is always a question of risk management.

 

Much of the early resistance to ODR probably came from the fact that email is not secure. The conventional wisdom is that unencrypted email is about as secure as a postcard (Schultz et al 2001). While encryption options such as S/MIME and Pretty Good Privacy exist, these are not in general use. One estimate is that only 0.5% of email is encrypted in any way (Rule 2002:246).

 

However, probably because of this, email is not the main communication method used by modern ODR systems. Most systems instead allow parties to communicate on a secure web page or platform. The most common mechanism is Secure Sockets Layer (SSL): this is indicated by a website beginning with "https" or lock symbol on the user's screen. Some systems use encrypted email.

 

Like any other sites, ODR sites are also at risk of virus infections, intrusions or disk crashes. Firewalls, backup policies and intrusion detection systems are the standard mechanisms used to reduce these risks (Schultz et al 2001). Modern ODR sites appear to make use of these mechanisms.

 

In line with increasing privacy regulation worldwide, most ODR sites have explicit policies on privacy that tell users what use can be made of their personal information. Some sites delete all information on a case from their database once settlement has been reached (Bankers Repository Corporation) while others can store it in case of the disputant losing data (Intersettle).

 

Policies and procedures

 

Most ODR sites have formal policies and procedures, including dispute management protocols, privacy and confidentiality policies, standards of conduct and codes of practice.

 

Almost all sites explicitly state a set of procedures for handling disputes. These can be as formal as an arbitration procedures manual or as simple as a flow chart. However, none of the ODR systems publicised a dispute handling mechanism if procedures were not followed (Consumers International 2001).

 

A number of the sites surveyed explicitly bind their online mediators, arbitrators and evaluators to a set of rules for conduct such as:

 

·         rules of the American Bar Association (ABA)

·         American Arbitration Association (AAA) Code of Ethics

·         ethical standards of the Association for Conflict Resolution (formerly the Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution)

·         Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators

·         the Institute for Responsible Dispute Resolution Code of Ethics

·         in house standards of conduct.

 

The American Bar Association established a task force to look at ways of ensuring that ODR services remain effective and ethical (Rule 2002:116). The Online Sector of the Association for Conflict Management prepared Proposed Guidelines for Online Dispute Resolution (Wiener 2001:4). In Australia, NADRAC 2002 provides draft practitioner standards for ODR and the Department of Justice Victoria has commissioned a study into accreditation of ODR practitioners (Conley Tyler, Bornstein and Bretherton 2004).

 

Future of ODR

 

As these case statistics show, ODR tools are being used by an increasing number of people to resolve their disputes.

 

ODR can be a convenient, quick, low-cost option. For some disputes, such as low-value, cross-border internet transactions, there is no other option to resolve them: parties are not likely to fly around the world for an online auction that went wrong. In other cases, the choice can be because of costs, time or inclination. Sometimes people in dispute simply prefer not to meet. Technology can be particularly useful where parties would be in physical danger if they came together, such as in hostile conflict situations.

 

A needs assessment of a broad cross-section of citizens conducted in Victoria, Australia in 2003 using surveys and focus groups found that more than 70% of respondents were willing to try ODR to settle a dispute (Conley Tyler, Bretherton and Bastian 2003). The main factors influencing this choice were cost, speed and convenience.

 

However there were a group that were resistant to online technology. This would be predicted by an analysis of factors such as age, culture, disability and income identified by Sourdin 2004 as factors impacting on the use of technology. This suggests that ODR is a valuable additional service, but should not completely replace existing dispute resolution methods.

 

A study in Canada (Hammond 2003) found that disputants who experienced ODR had positive responses: 80% of disputants who were exposed to ODR found that they had no trouble expressing their ideas, concerns and issues online and they were confident that the other participants understood them. 82% said they had no difficulty expressing their emotions online.

 

This suggest that a major bar to the growth of ODR may be disputants’ lack of knowledge of the availability of various forms of dispute resolution rather than any lack of demand or previous negative experiences. Ross 2004 suggests this may be a major factor accounting for business reluctance to adopt ODR.

 

At the same time, sophisticated analyses of the behaviour of disputants highlight the role of corporate cultural barriers in considering dispute resolution alternatives (Opie 2004) and suggest reasons why demand for ADR does not necessarily translate into use of services (Barendrecht and de Vries 2004). Accreditation of ODR practitioners arguably has a role in building trust and confidence (Conley Tyler and Bornstein 2004). Further analysis of why parties choose to use or not use ODR is an area that deserves further research.

 

Conclusion

 

With 115 sites worldwide, ODR is no longer conjecture. In fact, ODR has the potential to become a major part of dispute resolution practice worldwide.

 

Comparing the results in this paper with Conley Tyler 2003 a number of trends in ODR can be identified:

 

1.      Growth in Europe and Asia

2.      Growth in developing countries

3.      Growth in institutional contexts, especially in Courts and other justice institutions

4.      Growth within some service providers as they extend their services to new markets

5.      Growth of ODR in languages other than English

 

If these trends continue, particularly the adoption of ODR by traditional dispute resolution institutions such as courts, ODR will become an important part of dispute resolution practice. Government and justice institutions have a particularly important role in encouraging the adoption of technology through their adoption of technology and its associated demonstration effect.

 

The increasing integration of online technology into dispute resolution practice suggests that in time ODR may no longer be seen as a separate field of endeavour: it will be seen as dispute resolution using particular tools.

 

In the meantime, ODR will remain relevant to those involved in dispute resolution, law, e-commerce, industry, information technology and government.

 

Appendix 1
Glossary of Terms

 

ODR is the term used in this paper for dispute resolution processes conducted with the assistance of communications and information technology, particularly the internet. Similar terms are “online ADR”, "eADR", "iADR", "virtual ADR", "cyber mediation" and "cyber arbitration." Simply providing information about ADR on a website is not ODR.

 

ADR refers to processes other than judicial determination in which an impartial person assists those in a dispute to resolve the issues between them (NADRAC 1997). Processes can be determinative, advisory or facilitative.

 

The main determinative process is Arbitration: a process in which the parties to a dispute present arguments and evidence to a neutral third party who makes a determination (NADRAC 1997). The arbitration judgment is binding on parties.

 

Advisory ADR processes include expert appraisal, case appraisal, case presentation, mock trial and neutral evaluation. In each process, an ADR practitioner considers and appraises the dispute and provides advice as to the facts, law and possible outcomes. Case Appraisal in this paper refers to all of these processes.

 

Facilitative processes include Conciliation, Mediation and Facilitated Negotiation: in each case the parties to a dispute, with the assistance of a neutral third party, identify the issues in dispute, develop options, consider alternatives and endeavour to reach an agreement (NADRAC 1997). Complaint Handling is a facilitative process where a party can make a complaint to a third party who will communicate a demand for redress to the respondent, usually for consumer disputes. It may or may not include the power to make a non-binding decision.

 

Online is a colloquial term that refers to communication through an electronic medium, especially the internet. The Internet is a global network of computers that exchanges data and communication messages. Online communication includes:

 

·         Email - a virtually instantaneous transfer of mainly text messages

·         Instant Messaging - a variant on email that allows synchronous online chat

·         Online Chat - a synchronous, text-based exchange of information

·         Threaded Discussion (also known as bulletin boards) - an asynchronous, textual exchange of information organised into specific topics

·         Video/Audio Streams - asynchronous transfer of recorded messages

·         Videoconferencing - synchronous transfer of video information.

 

Online Disputes are any disputes that arise through or because of online communication methods. For example, a dispute between a consumer and a website that sells products online, or between a buyer and a seller over an internet auction. Offline Disputes are any disputes that arise in the "real world" outside of cyberspace. These include family disputes, neighbourhood disputes and employment disputes.

 

Appendix 2
References

 

Balvin, Nikola (2004). “The Cultures of Peace News Network : Is there Room for Peace Building in ODR?” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre, University of Melbourne in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Barendrecht, Maurits and de Vries, Berend (2004). “Fitting the Forum to the Fuss with Sticky Defaults: Failure on the Market for Dispute Resolution Services?” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Bellucci, Emilia and Zeleznikow, John (2004). “Trade-off Manipulations in the Development of Negotiation Decision Support Systems” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre, University of Melbourne in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Bonnet, V., Boudaoud, K., Gagnebin, M, Harms, J. and Schultz, T. (2002).  Online Dispute Resolution Systems as Web Services. Proceedings of Hewlett-Packard OpenView University Association Workshop, June 11-12 2002. Available www.online-adr.org/publications.htm

Brannigan, Colm (2004). “Beyond E-Commerce: Expanding the Potential of Online Dispute Resolution”, Interaction, March 2004, 15-17.

Center for Law, Commerce & Technology (2000). Online Alternative Dispute Resolution: An Issues Primer. Prepared for the National Association of Attorneys General. Center for Law, Commerce & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law. Available at http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/resources/index.html

Conley Tyler, Melissa, “Seventy-six and Counting: An Analysis of ODR Sites” (2003) in Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Technology as the “Fourth Party”. Proceedings of the UNECE Second Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. UNECE. Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution, University of Massachusetts. Available www.odr.info

Conley Tyler, Melissa (Ed.) (2004), ODR Library/Resource Database, www.odr.info, launched 24 February 2004

Conley Tyler, Melissa and Bornstein, Jackie (2004). “Accreditation of Online Dispute Resolution Practitioners” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Conley Tyler, Melissa, Bornstein, Jackie and Bretherton, Di (2004), Accreditation of Online ADR Practitioners: An Options Paper. Prepared for the Department of Justice, Victoria. International Conflict Resolution Centre.

Conley Tyler, Melissa and Bretherton, Di, Research into Online Alternative Dispute Resolution: Exploration Report (2003). Prepared for the Department of Justice, Victoria. International Conflict Resolution Centre, University of Melbourne. Available www.justice.vic.gov.au, www.psych.unimelb.edu.au/icrc

Conley Tyler, Melissa, Bretherton, Di and Bastian, Brock (2003). Research into Online Alternative Dispute Resolution: Needs Assessment. Prepared for the Department of Justice Victoria. International Conflict Resolution Centre,. Available www.justice.vic.gov.au, www.psych.unimelb.edu.au/icrc

Consumers International (2001). Disputes in Cyberspace 2001: Update of online dispute resolution for consumers in cross-border disputes. Consumers International Office for Developed and Transition Economies. www.consumersinternational.org

Hammond, Anne-Marie (2003). "How Do You Write 'Yes'? A Study on the Effectiveness of Online Dispute Resolution." Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Volume 20, No. 3, September 2003

Hattotuwa, Sanjana Yajitha  (2004). “Untying the Gordian Knot: ICT for Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding “ in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre, University of Melbourne in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Hornle, Julia (2003). “Online Dispute Resolution – More Than The Emperor's New Clothes” in Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Technology as the “Fourth Party”. Proceedings of the UNECE Second Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. Available www.odr.info

International Chamber of Commerce (2002). Business-to-Consumer and Consumer-to-Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Inventory Project. Summary Report. 14 May 2002. Available www.iccwbo.org.

Katsh, Ethan and Rifkin, Janet (2001). Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. Jossey-Bass.

Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds) (2003). Online Dispute Resolution: Technology as the “Fourth Party”. Proceedings of the UNECE Second Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution, University of Massachusetts. Available www.odr.info

Kersten, Gregory E. (2004). “E-negotiation Systems : Interaction of People and Technologies to Resolve Conflicts” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre, University of Melbourne in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

NADRAC (unknown). Summary of Research into ADR Effectiveness (internal document) cited in Mack, Kathy (2003), Court Referral to ADR: Criteria and Research. Australian Institute of Judicial Administration and National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council

NADRAC (1997). Alternative Dispute Resolution Definitions. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council. Available www.nadrac.gov.au.

NADRAC (2001). Online ADR: Background Paper. January 2001. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council. Available www.nadrac.gov.au.

NADRAC (2002). Dispute Resolution and Information Technology: Principles for Good Practice (Draft). National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council. March 2002. Available www.nadrac.gov.au.

Opie, Elisabeth (2004). “The Economics of ADR: is ODR the Next Efficiency?” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Primerano, Francesca (2004). “Multicultural Australia, Information Technology and Online Dispute Resolution” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre, University of Melbourne in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Rao, Sharanya (2004). “The Cultural Vacuum in Online Dispute Resolution” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Ross, Graham (2004). “Online Dispute Resolution and Business” in Conley Tyler, Melissa, Katsh, Ethan and Choi, Daewon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution. International Conflict Resolution Centre, University of Melbourne in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. www.odr.info

Rule, Colin (2002). Online Dispute Resolution for Business: For ECommerce, B2B, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other