The award followed four days of intense competition , as the team from Sao Paolo and the University of California Hastings College of Law were pitted against each other to mediate a complex business deal. The Brazilian team, made up of Gisela Ferreira Mation, Pedro Fida Fenelon Tibucheski, and Daniel Tabel Luis received a trophy, EUR 2 000 in prize money, an internship at ICC’s ADR Secretariat, and a set of legal reference books.

Every participant in this year’s competition received a year’s subscription to the ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin. The awards ceremony was officiated by Guy Sebban, ICC Secretary General, Jason Fry, Secretary General of the ICC International Court of Arbitration and ICC Dispute Resolution Services Director and Pierre Tercier, Chairman of the ICC International Court of Arbitration.

This year’s competition involved an even bigger roster of contenders from 30 universities in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland, Ukraine, the UK and the US.

Competitors acted as counsel and parties before professional mediators and used ICC’s ADR rules to solve business problems.

“What better way to educate tomorrow’s lawyers on the range mechanisms available for resolving international business disputes than through an international competition?” said Pierre Tercier.

The competition is part of ICC’s Dispute Resolution Services core mission: to educate the next generation of law professionals. Inaugurated in 2006, the annual ICC International Mediation Competition is organized by the Amicable Dispute Resolution (ADR) division. The competition brings together law schools from all over the world, giving students an opportunity to test their problem-solving skills in a mock international mediation, and to meet experts from diverse legal and professional backgrounds.

Next year, the 4th ICC International Mediation Competition takes place 12 to 16 February.

For more information contact:

Ms Emilie ROMEO
Project Coordinator
Email: iccmediationcompetition(AT)iccwbo.org

“This new course is a unique opportunity for participants to gain insight into the different stages of any amicable dispute resolution procedure. Bringing together individuals from widely diverse professional and cultural backgrounds, the training creates an exceptional forum for exchanging experience and viewpoints,” said Melanie Meilhac, Manager, ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Dispute Resolution Services.

ICC’s (International Chamber of Commerce) first ADR training session, held in Paris last April, attracted participants from 15 countries, reflecting the increased attention that the international legal community is giving to mediation and other methods of dispute resolution.

In recognition of the growing importance of the Asia Pacific region to ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Dispute Resolution Services and the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) International Court of Arbitration, ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) announced last week that it would open a branch of the Secretariat of the Court in Hong Kong with a case management team to administer cases in the region under the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Rules of Arbitration. ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) will locate the Director, ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Arbitration and Amicable Dispute Resolution Asia in Singapore, where it will open a liaison office dedicated to ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Dispute Resolution Services.

ADR operates under a set of rules that leaves parties free to choose the technique best suited to the circumstances. In addition to learning about mediation, participants in the new interactive course will become familiar with other amicable methods, such as neutral evaluation and mini-trial.

The Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts (CITDR) invites you to participate in the seventh annual online dispute resolution Cyberweek.

This is an all-online Web based conference with no fee for participation and registration. A few of the opportunities planned for Cyberweek include:

* Release of the new ODR library and database

* Discussions with leading practitioners and theorists about the present and future of ODR

* Report on the UN Forum on ODR 2004

* The 2005 International Competition on Online Dispute Resolution (presently ongoing)

* Seminar on the challenges in planning and implementing ODR efforts – examples from Sri Lanka, the Phillipines and Great Britain

* Panel discussion on teaching ODR * Seminar on public sector ODR – the University of Massachusetts/National Mediation Board/National Science Foundation project

* Demonstration of teaching and collaborating in groups with Moodle

* Simulated dispute resolution processes

* Demonstrations involving ConflictLab.com, SmartSettle.com, Info-Share.org and others.

The research project follows the European Commission’s Green Paper on ADR and the subsequent report of the European Parliament. Both the report and the summary of responses to the Green Paper emphasised the need for further research into ADR before any harmonisation could be attempted on a European level.

The study concentrates on court-annexed mediation schemes for commercial disputes, excluding the areas of family and employment law, and will focus on the 15 member states. The aim of the research is to compile a geographical guide describing the development of ADR in each member state. From this it will be possible to analyse the relative progress of each country and isolate any key issues which warrant further research.

CEDR and CMS aim to regularly update the report in order to provide a contemporary view of the development of mediation across the EU.

Completing the questionnaire
As part of the research we would be grateful if you as a Law Firm, ADR provider, public administrations or other interested stakeholder, could find the time to complete the questionnaire to assist CEDR in compiling an accurate study into the current status of mediation in the EU.

The questionnaire, available in English, French and German, can be downloaded in word format in the following website..

Year 2003

As a follow-up to the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2003 stressing the need for exchanging experience in the field of e-business, the European Commission, Directorate General Enterprise, would be interested in your experience as an enterprise doing e-business. The objective is to collect feedback and practical experiences from the market and to identify still existing practical barriers or new legal problems encountered while conducting business electronically.

The consultation will remain open for responses until 7 November 2003. And..

Members of E-Arbitration-T Portal and related stakeholders are invited to consult the – following questionnaire -
The services of the Commission will analyse the results of the open consultation and discuss them with all relevant stakeholders at a High-level Conference, to be organised in March/April 2004. The conclusions will help to reach the EU’s ambitious Lisbon target of becoming the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy.

We appreciate your contributions and thank you in advance!

Definition of e-business:
For the purpose of the present questionnaire, “e-business” is defined in a broad sense as the use of electronic telecommunications for business purposes, including:

Online buying
Online selling
Provision of other online services (including marketing and advertising)
Online collaboration with business partners
Online internal business activities: accounting, management

Year 2003

Many organisations expressed they interest in this Green Paper. Most of they have directly participated in the debate launched by the Green Paper, by submitting comments on it. The European Commission would like to thank them for they contribution.

In the context of the consultation exercise launched by the Green Paper, a public hearing will be held on this subject in Brussels on Friday 21 February 2003.

Further detailed information on this event will be posted on this webpage in the next few days, together with a summary of the comments to the Green Paper received by the Commission:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_public_en.htm”

Year 2003

Copy for the 2003 release is due at the end of March. The book is mainly used in the UK and other commonwealth jurisdictions.

I would welcome any hard news of or advice about these new procedures as they are working out in practice.

Robert Fenwick Elliott
http://www.fenwick-elliott.co.uk”

Year 2003

A. Background and Goal

Last year’s online negotiation competition had 12 teams from 10 schools in six countries. This year interest has been expressed on behalf of about 35 schools in 15 countries in the online arbitration, online mediation and/or online negotiation competitions being held.
The goal of the competitions is to enhance worldwide law student understanding of online dispute resolution.

All that a law student needs to participate is a computer with an internet connection, an internet browser, and a faculty sponsor.

Please note that the competitions for this year will be in English. We are endeavouring to hold future competitions in other languages.

B. Brief description of the competitions.

i. Online Arbitration Competition:
Description: International Commercial Arbitration Dispute under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
Teams: Students compete either as advocates (teams of up to four) or as arbitrators (1 or 2 persons). Student arbitrators serve in different arbitrations from student advocates of the same school. In each arbitration, the student advocates work out the procedure with the student arbitrators and student arbitrators write an award due by mid-February. Evaluators determine the most effective advocate and arbitral tribunal teams.

Realism: To enhance the realism for the students and thanks to the kind permission of these major international arbitral institutions, the designation of the appointing authorities and the actual appointments of the student arbitrators will be done as if the students were being appointed by the Secretary General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, the UNCITRAL Committee of the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris, the London Court of International Arbitration, and the International Center for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association in New York and Dublin.

Dates: Problem given out at the beginning of November, competition lasts from December 15 through end of February 2003.

ii. Online Mediation Competition
Description: Commercial Dispute Mediations
Teams: Students compete as advocates (team of up to two) and as mediators (1 or 2 persons). Student mediators serve in different mediations from the student advocates of the same school. Evaluators determine the most effective teams and mediators in a two round competition (one week for the first round and one day for the second round)

Dates: Problems given out in January, competition is last 10 days of February.

iii. Online Negotiation Competition
Description: Commercial Dispute Negotiations
Teams: Students compete as advocates (team of up to two). Evaluators determine the most effective team in a two round competition (one week for the first round and one day for the second round)

Dates: Problems given out in January, competition is last 10 days of February.

An evaluator watches what happens in one online work area where the students are acting as advocate, arbitral tribunal or mediator. The evaluator then evaluates the students on nine criteria and their evaluations and comments are sent via a website form to the Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution. The evaluator can do this at their leisure with the evaluations due in the last week of February.

These evaluations are tabulated by the Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution of the University of Massachusetts to determine the most effective teams at the end of ADRCyberweek 2003.

The most effective teams earn Gold, Silver or Bronze Medals.

C. Evaluators

Evaluators (as of October 18) are distinguished international lawyers, professors and business persons coming from 12 countries on four continents.

Arif Ali, Fulbright and Jaworski, USA
Thomas Allen, Ogilvy and Renault, Canada
Tony Belak, Entrepreneur/ADR Practitioner, USA
Geoffrey M. Beresford Hartwell, Professor University of Glamorgan Law School, United Kingdom
Lyne Boinat, LBMB Notaires Associes, France – mediation
Alex Blumrosen, Bernard-Hertz-Bejot, France
John Allen Chalk, Sr., Whitaker Chalk, USA – arbitration or mediation
Kelvin Chin, Entrepreneur/Technologist, USA
Alfonso Alvarez Calderon , Cybertribunal Peruano, Peru
Charles W. Crumpton, Stanton Clay Chapman Crumpton & Iwamura, Hawaii, USA
Cheri Eklund, Canada – arbitration
Wayne I. Fagan, Soules & Wallace, USA
Dennis Foster, Alcatel, France
Llew Gibbons, Professor of Law, University of Toledo, USA
Christopher Gibson, Steptoe and Johnson, United Kingdom
Sally Harpole, Sally Harpole and Co, Hong Kong, China
Karin Helmlinger, ADR Practitioner, Peru
Michael Hwang, Allen and Gledhill, Singapore
Christopher Koch, Georgana & Koch, Counselors at Law, Greece
Anne Larkin, ADR Practitioner, USA
Roderick B. Mathews, Troutman Sanders, USA

Doug Earl McClaren, Bechtel, USA
Stefan Naumann, Cabinet Denton Sales Vincent et Thomas, France
Fredrik Norburg, Mannheimer, Swartling Advokatbyra, Sweden – arbitration
Myra Orlen, Professor of Law, Western New England College of Law, USA
Lucille M. Ponte, Professor of Law, Bentley College, Law Department, USA – mediation or negotiation
Arthur W. Rovine, Baker and McKenzie, USA
Alice Sullivan, Judge (Ret.), USA

Erik Schaefer, Germany – arbitration or mediation
Ercus Stewart, S.C., Ireland
Nagib Tabet, France
Lim Lei Theng, Singapore
Magda Theodate, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, France

Alexander Yanos, Freshfields, USA

D. Law school interest

We greatly appreciate the expressions of interest from students, professors, alumni and/or interested professionals on behalf of:

Cardozo Law School, USA
Catholic Leuven University, Belgium
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Duke University, USA
Edinburgh University, Scotland, UK
Georgetown University, USA
Hamline University School of Law, USA
Harvard Law School, USA
Loyola Law School – Chicago, USA
Ohio State University, USA
St. Mary’s University School of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law
Southern Methodist University, USA
Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, USA

University of British Columbia, Canada
UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, USA
University of Cork, Ireland
University of Illinois College of Law, USA
University of Miami, USA
University of Montreal, Canada
University of Missouri-Columbia, USA
Univ. of Ottawa, Canada
University of Paris, France
University of Perth, Australia
University of Queensland, Australia
Victoria Univ. of Wellington, New Zealand
A Belgian Law School (to be determined), c/o Caroline Hanotiau
A Chilean Law School (to be determined), c/o Jose Manuel Simian Lopez
Another Chinese Law School (to be determined), c/o Jeffrey Xiaomin Meng
A Malaysian Law School (to be determined), c/o Cecil W. M. Abraham
A Moldovan Law School (to be determined), c/o Mrs. Maria Corfanenco
A Mexican Law School (to be determined), c/o Carlos Loperena
A Nigerian Law School (to be determined), c/o Paschal Madu
A Swedish Law School (to be determined), c/o Fredrik Norburg

E. American Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section 2003 Mid-Year meeting panel

The competitions will be the subject of a panel entitled “International Competitions for Online Dispute Resolution: Connecting Law Students Worldwide” at the American Bar Association Mid-Year meeting on March 20-22, 2002 in San Antonio. Please watch the San Antonio conference portion of the ABA website for dates at www.abanet.org/dispute.

F. International sponsors

As part of this process, an effort is being made to include as many types of technology service providers as possible so that students may have experience with a variety of platforms. Last year, we were pleased to select Online Resolution.com as the service provider for the negotiation competition.

This year, we are pleased that Thomson West corporation, and eRoom Technology, Inc. are international sponsors and service providers of ICODR 2003. They are providing the West WorkSpace technology platform for the arbitration, mediation and part of the negotiation competition.

We are also pleased that Squaretrade.com is the other international service provider for the negotiation competition.

The hypotheticals are being created with the assistance of the Harvard Program on Negotiation.

Law school sponsors for ICODR 2003 are Hamline University School of Law and Texas Wesleyan University School of Law

G. Organizers

Benjamin Davis (Associate Professor, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, USA),
Alan Gaitenby (Professor and Assistant Director, Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution, University of Massachusetts, USA),

Ayesha Hassan (Senior Policy Manager, E-Business, IT and Telecoms, International Chamber of Commerce, France),
Ethan Katsh (Professor and Director, Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution, University of Massachusetts, USA),

David Larson (Professor and Senior Fellow Dispute Resolution Institute, Hamline University School of Law, USA), and
Franklin G. Snyder (Associate Professor, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, USA)

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide additional information. Thank you for your consideration of this information note.

Benjamin Davis
Associate Professor
Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
1515 Commerce Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Tel.: 1 817 212 3915
Fax: 1 817 212 3965
E-mail:bdavis(at)law.txwes.edu

Year 2002

Bad administration was found in two-thirds of all the complaints investigated. Failures by landlords to deal with repairs and with anti-social behaviour were the reasons for more than half of the complaints. It also reports many changes in the administration and operation of the Scheme. In particular it has recruited more staff and reformed casework management procedures.

The Ombudsman clarifies his vision of IHOS: “We give a service to providers of housing and their consumers in an appropriate and proportionate way. We are conciliators and problem-solvers, not hit-and-run regulators”. The report, in full or in summary, is available online from the Ombudsman’s website at www.ihos.org.uk, or contact Rafael Runco, Deputy Ombudsman, at rrunco@ihos.org.uk.”

This paper aims to be a basic overview of the issues that Online Arbitration raises when dealing with B2B transactions.

Summary of Questions Submitted for Discussion:

Question 1: What is your opinion on the general approach that the EU institutions should follow on ODR and Online Arbitration of B2B transactions? Should the initia-tives be limited to B2B transactions?

Question 2: Do you think that a directive is the most appropriate regulatory instrument to deal with e-commerce issues? And to deal with ODR methods? Do you think that the European Primary Law provides the EU with a legal basis to adopt a directive on ODR methods?

Question 3. Could or should the principles set out in the two recommendations apply indiscriminately to fields other than consumer protection? Of the principles enshrined in the Recommendations, which in your view could be incorporated in the legislation of Member States?

Question 4: Do you think that the EU should follow the Uncitral Model Laws, or should it leave the regulation of Online Arbitration disputes to national laws?

Question 5: What is your opinion on the controversial issues highlighted in section 7? Are they controversial at all? Is this a fictitious debate? What option would you adopt, if any, to solve the inconsistencies? What other alternatives would you propose?

Question 6: Do you think that this is an appropriate time to pass a directive on ODR methods? Would you be in favour of a directive on ODR methods? What are, in your opinion, the legal bases, if any, for a directive on ODR methods?

Question 7: Do you think that the adoption of European standards for Online Arbitration technologies is necessary? Do you think that the EU has the human and technical resources to dictate European Standards without public discussion? Would it be wise to create an interdisciplinary group capable of negotiating standards with other geo-graphic regions?

Question 8: Should there be a register of ODR providers or any other administrative control that ensures the respect of due process rights? Would the intervention of ad-ministrative entities impair the development of ODR bodies?

Question 9: What is your experience in negotiation and enforcement of private mecha-nisms? Should electronic awards be dealt with in an EU directive?

Question 10: Would you eliminate the formal requirements of deposit and notarisation at all? Would you empower notaries and other public authorities to deposit, authenticate and notify the award to the parties?

In your opinion, what are the inconveniences of harmonising the formal requirements of deposit and notarisation and attributing more essential faculties to public authorities?.

Year 2002