- The American Arbitration Association – AAA – says ODR is used in only a small percentage of all cases settled, but it has seen recent growth. In 2006, 3,000 of the 160,000 cases the AAA handled were done digitally.

- ODR, Online dispute resolution is a broad category: Any mediation, ar­bitration or dispute resolution that takes place outside of court and at least partially online qualifies. It differs from alternative dispute res­olution, which refers to processes outside governmental jurisdiction. ODR can mean anything from e-mailing documents and evidence to using videoconferencing to bring the sides together. And it has been most effective in international or long-distance disputes involving technology issues.

- ODR will always be most important for online businesses since it’s clear the Internet is not always a harmonious place, giving rise to many disputes. Often those disputes involve small dollar amounts, far-flung ad­versarial parties and seemingly petty issues. In the wildly popular online game Second Life, a dispute arose because one player put a nude image where another player would be forced to look at it. It’s the kind of thing that’s too small to litigate in the real world—but using Web mediation, it got resolved.

- ODR makes most sense in cases in which attorneys’ fees would exceed what could be recouped. But many large organizations, particularly insurance companies and municipalities, are finding ODR saves them money even in big-money cases because a matter can be handled much faster.

- ODR is faster because it is not dependent on getting on a mediator’s or judge’s calendar. Using e-mail, discussion groups and Web sites, agreements can be written, posted and responded to when convenient. And when something needs to get done fast, participants can log on to a chat or a secure online session and hash out a dispute no matter where in the world participants may be.

- ODR has the added benefit of simplifying jurisdictional issues. Such matters can be resolved at the outset once all parties agree. And there is greater flexibility for the adversarial parties, with each dispute process tailored to each dispute’s needs. As long as someone can get online, he or she can participate in the process.

ODR Aplications:

Online dispute resolution may not have taken over the process of solving conflict, but it has provided new, efficient and low-cost ways to reach the goal. The following are a few examples of ODR applications:

1. FILING A CLAIM ONLINE

SquareTrade uses a tool called Direct Negotiation, which handles all the communications through e-mail, including an online form to explain the complaint and possible resolutions, and contact with the defending party to see if it will counter. If Direct Negotiation doesn’t bring a settlement, a mediator can join in.

2. TRADING SETTLEMENT OFFERS

In Cybersettle’s system, a claims professional initiates the process with confidential offers. The opposition is notified by fax, e-mail or mail, and the respondent has three tries to settle the claim. If the complainant’s offer is less than or equal to the opposition’s, the claim settles.

3. DISCUSSING THE ISSUES

The E-Arbitration-T Open Source Groupware and Customer Relationship Management Suite allows parties to create an entire ODR system, handling online case document sharing between all parties and offering full security. Off-the-shelf solutions like wikis and whiteboards also allow parties to share information, discuss and collaborate on documents, and even reach agreements online.

4. SIGNING AN AGREEMENT

The federal E-Sign Act has validated the use of electronic documents and electronic signatures since 2000. Digital signatures can now be added to many commonly used documents, including those created with Adobe Acrobat 8.

More information in: Settling It On the Web.

The 2008 International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution will take place in Victoria, British Columbia. This important conference will held at venues including Royal Roads University, and the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific on Vancouver Island June 18-19, 2008. The photograph is of Hatley Castle at Royal Roads University. The Forum has as its purpose the bringing together of the world’s leading practitioners, academics, theorists, and online negotiation application developers, to share information, and to create a vehicle for ODR education.

The 2008 International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution in Victoria will build on the research, applications and field development discussed at other international ODR meetings and workshops that were held in Geneva (2002 and 2003), Edinburgh (2003), Melbourne (2004), Bologna (2005), Brussels (2005), Cairo (2006), and Palo Alto (2007), Liverpool (2007) and Hong Kong (2007).

The 2008 International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution will consist of two days of plenary sessions and breakout sessions. The Forum brings together the world’s leading practitioners, academics, students, and civil society to discuss the resolution of disputes using online technologies. These disputes may range from b2c (Business to consumer) to the prevention of human rights violations in conflict regions, to reconciliation of opposing groups in armed conflict, to disputes over intellectual property on the internet. It also brings together the leading technology developers who design conflict resolution platforms for use legal, commercial, or insurance related disputes (i.e. PayPal). Keynote Speakers The organizing committee of the 2008 International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution notes that we have invited two special keynote speakers, Dr. Vinton Cerf, inventor of the Internet, and Dr. Jose Ramos Horta, Pax Nobel 1996 and President of East Timor). The presence of these notable persons on the world stage as our special guests indicates the importance and relevance of the Forum’s deliberations. The keynote speakers will add their unique perspectives on the possible uses of technology and the Internet to resolve disputes and create peace.

Agenda of the 2008 International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution

Wednesday June 18, 2008

0900 – 0930 Opening ceremony
0930 – 1000 What is ODR
1000 – 1040 Key note address for the day The Internet and Resolving Disputes
1040 – 1100 coffee break
1100 – 1200 The Uniform Domain Resolution Policy
1100 – 1200 Press conference
1200 – 1300 Lunch
1300 – 1500 Breakout groups

1) Technology presentations and demonstrations
2) Social – cultural aspects of ODR – assimilating cultural approaches to language, process, bidding to an online environment

1500 – 1520 coffee break
1520 – 1630 Breakout groups
ODR and Environmental concerns
ODR and Health Care
1630 – 1700 Day 1 summary
1700 – 1830 Reception

Thursday June 19, 2008
0800 – 0900 continental breakfast coffee
0900 – 0915 Housekeeping welcoming
0915 – 0945 ODR and First Nations
0945 – 1030 Keynote address Dr Ramos Horta, Peace and the internet
1030 – 1050 Coffee break
1050 – 1200 ODR and Business
1200 – 1300 Lunch
1300 – 1500 Breakout sessions
1) ODR and the Legal environment
2) ODR and Peace
3) ODR and developing nations
1520 – 1520 Coffee break
1520 – 1600 ODR Education
1600 – 1700 Plenary session
2008 International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution
More information: 2008 International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution

The 5th Anniversary International Competitions for Online Dispute Resolution are open for registration! The free competitions offer law students worldwide an opportunity to practice and demonstrate their ADR and litigation skills working in a technological environment on the international plane.

The only requirements are that students have access to the internet and permission of a faculty member to participate. Student competitors are evaluated anonymously by experienced professionals from ADR and Litigation from around the world
.
The competitions will run over the following periods:
Litigation: January 20 – March 20, 2006
Arbitration: February 1 – March 31, 2006
Mediation: Round One : February 6-13,
2006; Round Two February 16-23, 2006
Negotiation: Round One: February 27-March 6; Round Two March 10-17, 2006

Problems for the negotiation and mediation competitions are graciously provided by the Harvard Program on Negotiation. Problems for the arbitration and litigation competitions are graciously provided by the International Chamber of Commerce Institute of World Business Law.
We are pleased to once again have West Workspace/Erooms Technology as our sponsor and platform provider for the competition.
To see previous competitions please visit the ICODR portal.
As part of this 5th anniversary ICODR celebration, please note the call for papers for the University of Toledo Law Review International Symposium on April 21-22, 2006 in Toledo, Ohio entitled “Enhancing Worldwide Understanding through Online Dispute Resolution.

Questions or comments? Please contact Ben Davis (bdavis8(at)UTNet.UToledo.Edu) or Alan Gaitenby (gaitenby@disputes.net)

The swift growth of e-commerce and web site contracts has increased the potential for conflicts over contracts which have been entered into online. This has necessitated a solution that is compatible with online matters and is netizens centric. This challenging task can be achieved by the use of ODRM in India. The use of ODRM to resolve such e-commerce and web site contracts disputes are crucial for building consumer confidence and permitting access to justice in an online business environment. These ODRM are not part and parcel of the traditional dispute resolution machinery popularly known as judiciary but is an alternative and efficacious institution known as ADRM. Thus, ADR techniques are extra-judicial in character. They can be used in almost all contentious matters, which are capable of being resolved, under law, by agreement between the parties. They have been employed with very encouraging results in several categories of disputes, especially civil, commercial, industrial and family disputes. These techniques have been shown to work across the full range of business disputes like banking, contract performance, construction contracts, intellectual property rights, insurance, joint ventures, partnership differences etc. ADR offers the best solution in respect of commercial disputes. However, ADR is not intended to supplant altogether the traditional means of resolving disputes by means of litigation. It only offers alternatives to litigation. There are a large number of areas like constitutional law and criminal law where ADR cannot substitute courts. In those situations one has to take recourse of the existing traditional modes of dispute resolution.

II. THE PREMIER MODE OF ADR

Arbitration is the supreme method for resolving and adjudicating commercial disputes . It is a procedure in which the dispute is submitted to one or more arbitrators, for adjudication, who resolve the dispute. The decision is given in the form of an award. The main objects of arbitration are speed, economy, convenience and simplicity of procedures. It encourages healthy relationship between the parties. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs the ?arbitration procedures? in India. Section 5 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by Part I (Sections 2 to 43), no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in the said part. This clearly indicates the legislative intent to minimise supervisory role of courts to ensure that the intervention of the court is minimal. Section 4 is a deeming provision, which lays down that where a party proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to non-compliance of any provision of Part I from which the parties may derogate or any requirement under arbitration agreement, it shall be deemed that he has waived his right to so object. Section 7 provides that the arbitration agreement shall be in writing and such an agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. Sub-section (4) of Section 7 provides the conditions under which a document or exchange of letter or exchange of statement of claim and defence may amount to an arbitration agreement. Section 11 of the Act provides for appointment of arbitrators and sub-section (6) thereof empowers the Chief Justice of the High Court or any person or institution designated by him to make such an appointment on the happening of certain conditions enumerated in clauses (a), (b) or (c). Section 16 of the Act is important and it provides that the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or authority of the arbitration agreement . Thus, the base provided by the Act is sufficient to accommodate the mandates of ODRM. It must be noted that a court of law cannot render justice unless the ultimate decision is based on the contemporary law as prevailing in the society. A decision based on an old law, which does not satisfy the requirements of the present situation, and environment should be avoided. In such a situation the efforts of the courts should be to give the law a “purposive, updating and an ongoing interpretation”. This position makes the interface of justice delivery system with the information technology inevitable and unavoidable. We cannot allow the dead hand of the past to stifle the growth of the living present. Law cannot stand still; it must change with the changing social concepts and values. If the bark that protects the tree fails to grow and expand along with the tree, it will either choke the tree or if it is a living tree, it will shed that bark and grow a new living bark for itself. Similarly, if the law fails to respond to the needs of changing society, then either it will stifle the growth of the society and choke its progress or if the society is vigorous enough, it will cast away the law, which stands in the way of its growth. Law must therefore constantly keep on adapting itself to the fast changing society and not lag behind . Justice is supreme and justice ought to be beneficial for the society so that the society is placed in a better-off situation. Law courts exist for the society and ought to rise up to the occasion to do the needful in the matter, and as such ought to act in a manner so as to sub serve the basic requirement of the society. It is a requirement of the society and the law must respond to its need. The greatest virtue of the law is its flexibility and its adaptability; it must change from time to time so that it answers the cry of the people, the need of the hour and the order of the day. Thus, the justice delivery system cannot afford to take the information technology revolution lightly . The judiciary in India has not only recognised this need but has also utilised the information technology to do complete justice. The Supreme Court has on various occasions encouraged the use of information technology for meeting the ends of justice and to do complete justice. There is nothing that shows that the courts in India will not encourage the concept of ODRM in India. The Supreme Court has encouraged the use of ADR techniques in India and very soon the same will be extended to ODRM as well.

III. E-JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA

The judicial response vis-?-vis information technology is positive and technology friendly.

In M/S SIL Import, USA v M/S Exim Aides Silk Exporters the words “notice in writing”, in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were construed to include a notice by fax. The Supreme Court observed: “A notice envisaged u/s 138 can be sent by fax. Nowhere is it said that such notice must be sent by registered post or that it should be dispatched through a messenger. Chapter XVII of the Act, containing sections 138 to 142 was inserted in the Act as per Banking Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988.Technologiacl advancements like Fax, Internet, E-mail, etc were on swift progress even before the Bill for the Amendment Act was discussed by the Parliament. When the legislature contemplated that notice in writing should be given to the drawer of the cheque, the legislature must be presumed to have been aware of the modern devices and equipments already in vogue and also in store for future. If the court were to interpret the words “giving notice in writing” in the section as restricted to the customary mode of sending notice through postal service or even by personal delivery, the interpretative process will fail to cope up with the change of time. So if the notice envisaged in clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 was transmitted by Fax, it would be compliance with the legal requirement”.

Thus the requirement of a written notice will be satisfied if the same is given in the form of a fax, e-mail etc, using the information technology. It must be noted that a notice by e-mail can be send instantaneously and its delivery is assured and acknowledged by a report showing the due delivery of the same to the recipient. This method is more safe, accurate, economical and lesser time consuming as compared to its traditional counterpart, popularly known as “Registered A.D”.

In Basavaraj R. Patil v State of Karnataka the question was whether an accused need to be physically present in court to answer the questions put to him by the court whilst recording his statement under section 313. The majority held that the section had to be considered in the light of the revolutionary changes in technology of communication and transmission and the marked improvement in the facilities of legal aid in the country. It was held that it was not necessary that in all cases the accused must answer by personally remaining present in the court. Once again, the importance of information technology is apparent. If a person residing in a remote area of South India is required to appear in the court for giving evidence, then he should not be called from that place, instead the medium of “video conferencing” should be used. In that case the requirements of justice are practically harmonised with the ease and comfort of the witnesses, which can drastically improve the justice delivery system.

In State of Maharashtra v Dr.Praful.B.Desai the Supreme Court observed: “The evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic records can be produced as evidence. This means that evidence, even in criminal matters, can also be by way of electronic records. This would include video conferencing. Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. Thus, it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is recorded in the “presence” of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of section 273, Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law”. The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to set up video conferencing equipments in the court itself. In that case evidence would be recorded by the magistrate or under his dictation in the open court. To this method there is however a drawback. As the witness is not in the court there may be difficulties if commits contempt of court or perjures himself. Therefore as a matter of prudence evidence by video conferencing in open court should be only if the witness is in a country which has an extradition treaty with India and under whose laws contempt of court and perjury are also punishable”.

This judgment of the Supreme Court is a landmark judgment as it has the potential to seek help of those witnesses who are crucial for rendering the complete justice but who cannot come due to “territorial distances” or even due to fear, expenses, old age, etc. The Courts in India have the power to maintain anonymity of the witnesses to protect them from threats and harm and the use of information technology is the safest bet for the same. The testimony of a witness can be recorded electronically the access to which can be legitimately and lawfully denied by the Courts to meet the ends of justice.

The above discussion shows that the judiciary in India is not only aware of the advantages of information technology but is actively and positively using it in the administration of justice, particularly the criminal justice. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the “E-justice system” has found its existence in India. It is not at all absurd to suggest that ODRM will also fine its place in the Indian legal system very soon.

IV. ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The ADR mechanism can be effectively used to settle online disputes by modifying it as per the need. It is time effective and cost efficient. It can also overcome the geographical hurdles. However, there are certain issues revolving around ADR mechanism like need for personnel with knowledge of IT, ADR and law; technical concerns; legal sanctity of proceedings; industry support etc. But these hurdles are just a passing phase. The use of ADR mechanisms for resolving online disputes is increasing day by day. A number of web-sites provide for some type of online dispute resolution method like arbitration, negotiation, mediation etc. and also certain conflict management services. These services fall into the general categories of complaint handling, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. These services will be in great demand in the future since the 1996 Act has given paramount importance to ?party autonomy? by accepting the intention of parties as a platform for dispute resolution. Thus, what law will be applicable will depend on the intention of parties. If the parties have adopted the mechanism of ODRM then it will definitely apply with necessary minor modifications. The language used in various sections of the Arbitration Act give options to the parties to opt for the procedure as per their agreement during the arbitral proceedings before the arbitrator. So if there is an agreement between the parties with regard to the procedure to be followed by the arbitrator, the arbitrator is required to follow the said procedure. However, this would not mean that in appeal parties can contend that the appellate procedure should be as per their agreement. The appellate procedure would be governed as per the statutory provisions and parties have no right to change the same . It must be noted that party autonomy presupposes the existence of an arbitration agreement. There may be a situation where the parties had not entered into an arbitration agreement. To meet such situations Sec.89 of CPC can be invoked. The reason for inserting Sec.89 has been to try and see that all the cases which are filed in the court need not necessarily be decided by the court itself. Keeping in mind the law delays and the limited number of judges, which are available, it has now become imperative to resort to ADR Mechanism as contemplated by Sec.89. There is a requirement that the parties to the suit must indicate the form of ADR, which they would like to resort to during the pendency of the trial of the suit. If the parties agree to arbitration, then the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will apply and that will go outside the stream of the court .

V CONCLUSION

The need and necessity of ODRM is going to be felt very soon and we must be prepared for the same. A sound techno-legal base must be established in advance. There is a possibility that we may get BPO services in arbitration matters in the distant future. In any case it is also a mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Art.21 confers a Fundamental Right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty, except according to procedure established by law. Such procedure is not some semblance of a procedure but the procedure should be ?reasonable, fair and just?, and therefrom flows the right to speedy trial . It cannot be doubted that if the State is encouraging ODRM it is thereby assisting in the attainment of a speedier, economical and convenient justice system. Thus, the sooner ODRM is adopted the better it will be for the nation in general and the justice seeker in particular.

Praveen Dalal
Arbitrator, consultant and attorney
Delhi High Court, India.

E-mail:pd37(at)rediffmail.com
Contact at: +91 9899169611

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.

Tuesday 7 December 2004, 14:00 – 17:00 at Tilburg University, Building A, Room AZ 186
ICTs have the potential to enhance and revolutionize conflict resolution mechanisms by making these processes more efficient and cheaper. The lectures will give an in-depth introduction to the emerging field of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and will discus the benefits of and challenges for ODR technology.

Programme

14:00 – 14:05 dr. Ronald Leenes Welcome

14:05 – 14:35 prof. Maurits Barendrecht
Access to Courts and Civil Procedure Rules? Key Features of Effective
Institutions for Dispute Resolution

14:35 – 15:05 mr. Berend de Vries
ODR: Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Dispute Resolution

15:05 – 15:15 Discussion: ADR/ODR – a solution? For what?

15:15 – 15:30 tea break

15:30 – 16:00 dr. Arno Lodder
How to support parties in ODR best? Fundamental and practical
guidelines on the use of technology

16:00 – 16:30 prof. John Zeleznikow
Using game theory and artificial intelligence to provide support with
regard to trade offs – a case study.

16:30 – 16:45 dr. Ronald Leenes
Layla, the Layman’s legal assistant, glimpse of a new research project

16:45 – 17:00 Discussion: ODR technology

17:00 Cocktail reception

For more information, see

http://www.uvt.nl/faculteiten/frw/onderzoek/schoordijk/tilt/lectures/lectures.html.

You can attend free of charge, please …

register via e-mail
(b.r.devries)uvt.nl.

Kind Regards,

Berend de Vries
Tilburg University
Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT)
www.uvt.nl/tilt
Tel. +31 (0)13 466 8193
Tel. +31 (0)13 466 8199

http://ssrn.com/author=356185

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