European ODR Initiative
European ODR Initiative
Moderated by Graham Ross & Pablo Cortes
The EU is in the process of approving a new legal framework on consumer redress with the aim of boosting the use of ODR methods within the European Internal Market. The forthcoming ODR Regulation requires the European Commission to design an ODR Platform by 2015 where parties can submit online complaints that will be later forwarded to nationally approved ADR/ODR providers. A question that remains open is whether the EU ODR Platform should provide an online negotiation tool, or whether this tool should be better left to individual ODR providers?
Another challenge that remains to be addressed is how to include incentives in ODR models. Indeed, many private and public ODR providers have failed to integrate enough incentives for (i) parties to participate in the ODR process, (ii) encouraging early settlements, and (iii) assuring out-of-court enforcement. Which sort of incentives could be imbedded in the European ODR Platform?
Join Pablo Cortés and Graham Ross for an exploration of the European ODR model for consumer redress.
Moderator Bios:
Pablo Cortés is a qualified attorney in Spain and a lecturer in law at the University of Leicester and a fellow at the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, UMASS, Amherst. His research interests lie in the intersection of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), online dispute resolution (ODR), consumer protection, and civil procedure. He has recently published a monograph entitled Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the EU (Routledge, 2010). Pablo has recently carried out expert appointments by UNCITRAL and the European Commission.
Graham Ross is a UK lawyer and accredited mediator with over 30 years experience in IT
and the law. Graham was trained in commercial mediation by the ADR Group and is a
member of the Civil Mediation Council and the Ombudsman's Association.
Graham is the author of legal application software (including the original version of the
QUILL solicitor's accounts and time recording package) and was the founder of LAWTEL,
the web-based legal information update service. Graham is the leading UK expert in the
field of ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) which applies new forms of technology to the
resolution of disputes. He co-founded the UK's first ODR service, a blind bidding service
called We Can Settle in 2000, and two years later the online mediation service The
Mediation Room.
Graham's work in ODR has led to his appointment as a Fellow of the National Center of
Technology and Dispute Resolution (NCTDR) at the University of Massachusetts. He
developed the leading training course in applying technology to ADR and, as such, has
trained mediators from over 20 countries as well as developing and delivering a course for
the Milan Chamber of Arbitration and for the UK Ministry of Justice. Graham has been
invited to advise court services in the UK and Canada on applying technology tools to
improve ADR.
In 2012 Graham was invited to head the European operations for Modria Inc, a US spin off
company to eBay and PayPal ( www.modria.com ).
Graham was a member of the Working Party of the European Committee on
Standardisation (CEN) which developed a Workshop Agreement on standards for Online
Dispute Resolution and is currently a member of the EU funded EMCOD project
( www . emcod .ne t) led by the University of Tilburg and which is developing a online tool for
the measurement of justice through ODR.
Graham is the co-author of the European chapter in “Online Dispute Resolution: Theory
and Practice” and which was published in 2010 (Eleven Publishing - ISB 9490947253),
which described as "a state-of-the-art overview and assessment of the status quo and
future of the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) field."
Graham speaks regularly at international conferences on the impact of the law on the
Internet and e-commerce and on technology in the judiciary and Alternative Dispute
Resolution.
In his legal work, Graham had considerable experience in clinical negligence and in major
high profile personal injury and product liability group actions, including the successful
action against the UK Government for HIV infected haemophiliacs (which he founded and
led) and was a member of the steering committee that negotiated the largest ever group
settlement, being for miners made ill by coal dust inhalation). Graham has been the
founder and member of over ten group action steering committees since 1987. Graham
worked as such with the courts in what was then virgin territory for managing large
numbers of claims. As a result he was at the forefront of developments in the court
management of personal injury and product liability related group litigation, the lessons of
which can contribute to the development of new, speedier and less costly techniques for
dispute resolution.
As a mediator Graham has developed novel techniques within the field of Interest-Based
Mediation which operates beyond the traditional areas of compromise by helping each
party to the dispute to consider interests they may have that, whilst peripheral to the main
issue, can be affected adversely as a consequence of the dispute not being resolved, no
matter what the outcome of the litigation. By focusing on identifying all interests, including
those not obviously linked, that may be impacted by the continuation of the dispute and
examining in detail the potential damage each side may suffer on the absence of
agreement, the parties themselves then begin to express their own desire to resolve the
matter between themselves. In other words, Graham works to bring the parties to the point
where it is they, the parties in dispute, who begin to press for settlement, not the mediator
seeking to coax them into it.
______________________________________________
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Josep Suquet on
-
Dear Graham,
Thanks for your answer about confidentiality. I also understand that adjudicatory processes rely heavily on confidentiality concerns.
Your interesting comments have raised another relevant issue: that of the applicability of the Mediation Directive to consumer disputes. The Directive (recital 10) states that the Directive does not apply to processes of adjudicatory nature, and it lists specifically “consumer complaint schemes”. Do you think that the Directive does not intend to be applicable to all B2C consumer complaint schemes or only to those B2C adjudicatory complaint schemes? For instance, if the latter was the case and since the Directive includes the principle of confidentiality, the ADR Proposal would not need to detail any norms on confidentiality. However, the Spanish legislation transposing the Directive (I do not know in any other jurisdiction) understands that the Directive excludes all consumer disputes from its scope of application. So, currently there is no norm from a European origin regulating confidentiality in consumer disputes in Spain.
As regards the last issue introduced by Pablo, regulating both adjudicatory and consensual mechanisms in the ADR Directive may pose some problems when determining the principles that may exist in only one of these mechanisms, or its eventual different scope of application. This approach may be beneficial for entities providing a wide arrange of ADR mechanisms, and as Pablo says the distinction may be blurring sometimes, but to me it seems that the principles differences between adjudicatory/consensual mechanisms are less evident now under the Directive Proposal than on the EC Recommendations of 1998/2001.
Thanks,
Josep
Graham Ross said:Josep, I suppose the short explanation is that the Directive and Regulation are focused on ADR in its broader sense and not just mediation and its higher dependence on confidentiality and privilege. Consumer ADR in Europe has so far weighed heavily towards adjudication/arbitration. ODR may help raise the mediation profile by reducing cost/increasing access.
As to the specifics of confidentiality, the Commission would probably say that it is not the role of this Directive /Regulation to regulate the mediation process itself We already have in Europe a Mediation Directive and a European Code of Conduct for Mediators. The objective is to create awareness and improve access. It is key to the legislation that the issues of standards will be left t the individual member states and the orgs responsible within them
-
-
Graham,
I think you raised a very controversial issue: on the one hand, when traders cannot initiate a claim against a consumer this may lead to companies being suspicious about the ODR/ADR scheme. As you say, it seems that this possibility could be useful in the area of reputation complaints. Outside this area there might be fewer cases but there are some (i.e., somebody that does not pick up the clothes in a drycleaner…)
Allowing companies to initiate proceedings may be beneficial since it may show an interest to resolve conflicts, to speed up the process and even of fairness. However, this should be carefully treated since this could also lead to exacerbate current imbalances between consumers and traders.
Josep
Pablo Cortes said:Very thought provoking, but I still wonder how traders are going to manage to convince consumers to become respondents after the dispute arises. A trader threatening to take legal action for libel in a case of an unfair review could really persuade a consumer to participate in ODR?
Pablo
Graham Ross said:A recently proposed amendment to the ODR Regulation is to extend its remit to cover claims by traders against consumers. This was objected to by many States including the UK. I argued for this extension because of the growing problem of adverse consumer reviews. See my blog on this subject at http://www.modria.com/business-reputation-threat/ What do others think of this extension? Should it be included?
-
Permalink Reply by Alberto Elisavetsky on
-
Hi my friends from cyberweek spanish chapter
Translate to spanish : Maria Victoria Marun
-
Permalink Reply by Pablo Cortes on
-
Graham, I think that the independent expert review you propose is a very interesting initiative. Could you tell us a bit more about it? If I understood you correctly, a trader will be able to challenge a negative review by a consumer by inviting the consumer to participate into an ODR process, and the outcome will be added to the review (whether parties agree to a settlement, the consumer declines to participate in the ODR process, or a final decision is issued by third neutral). Would it be along these lines?
Pablo
Graham Ross said:Pablo- the ODR I have proposed in my blog would be an independent expert review that could be posted below the original consumer review as part of the response by the trader (most review sites allow for the trader's response) and so did not require participation by the consumer. As to mediation, it is more in the consumer's interest that he is offered a very low cost online mediation than to be taken to court for libel where he may be disempowered by lack of funds to fight the claim.
Graham
-
-
Josep,
My understanding is that the apparent exclusion of B2C from the Mediation Directive is a translation mistake. I know, it's hard to believe, but that what someone at the Commission told me. Furthermore, like you, I have read the Mediation Directive in English, which does not exclude B2C, but only trader's inhouse schemes. I have also checked it in other languages and they all follow the English interpreation. On the top of that, the proposal Consumer ADR Directive makes references to the Mediation Directive thus indicating that B2C falls within the scope of the Mediation Directive. Now, the question I can't answer is why the Spanish legislator (unlike the rest of Member States) have excluded B2C from its scope. I therefore susspect that they blindly trusted the Spanish text of the Mediation Directive.
Un saludo,
Pablo
Josep Suquet said:Dear Graham,
Thanks for your answer about confidentiality. I also understand that adjudicatory processes rely heavily on confidentiality concerns.
Your interesting comments have raised another relevant issue: that of the applicability of the Mediation Directive to consumer disputes. The Directive (recital 10) states that the Directive does not apply to processes of adjudicatory nature, and it lists specifically “consumer complaint schemes”. Do you think that the Directive does not intend to be applicable to all B2C consumer complaint schemes or only to those B2C adjudicatory complaint schemes? For instance, if the latter was the case and since the Directive includes the principle of confidentiality, the ADR Proposal would not need to detail any norms on confidentiality. However, the Spanish legislation transposing the Directive (I do not know in any other jurisdiction) understands that the Directive excludes all consumer disputes from its scope of application. So, currently there is no norm from a European origin regulating confidentiality in consumer disputes in Spain.
As regards the last issue introduced by Pablo, regulating both adjudicatory and consensual mechanisms in the ADR Directive may pose some problems when determining the principles that may exist in only one of these mechanisms, or its eventual different scope of application. This approach may be beneficial for entities providing a wide arrange of ADR mechanisms, and as Pablo says the distinction may be blurring sometimes, but to me it seems that the principles differences between adjudicatory/consensual mechanisms are less evident now under the Directive Proposal than on the EC Recommendations of 1998/2001.
Thanks,
Josep
Graham Ross said:Josep, I suppose the short explanation is that the Directive and Regulation are focused on ADR in its broader sense and not just mediation and its higher dependence on confidentiality and privilege. Consumer ADR in Europe has so far weighed heavily towards adjudication/arbitration. ODR may help raise the mediation profile by reducing cost/increasing access.
As to the specifics of confidentiality, the Commission would probably say that it is not the role of this Directive /Regulation to regulate the mediation process itself We already have in Europe a Mediation Directive and a European Code of Conduct for Mediators. The objective is to create awareness and improve access. It is key to the legislation that the issues of standards will be left t the individual member states and the orgs responsible within them
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
About
@ADRHub Tweets
ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University
© 2024 Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.
Powered by
Aporto la Traduccion del Artículo para los Colegas que no hablan ingles, esperando estar a la altura de la circunstancias, ya que el ingles es mi segunda lengua y existen términos técnicos específicos. La calidad de estos dos referentes en ADR Y ODR, amerita el esfuerzo:
La UE está en proceso de aprobar un nuevo marco legal sobre reparación a los consumidores con el objetivo de impulsar el uso de métodos ODR dentro del mercado interno europeo. El próximo Reglamento ODR obliga a la Comisión Europea a diseñar una plataforma ODR para 2015 en la que las partes pueden presentar quejas en línea que luego serán enviadas a proveedores de ADR/ODR aprobados nacionalmente. Una pregunta que queda abierta es si la plataforma ODR UE debería proporcionar una herramienta de negociación en línea, o si esta herramienta debería ser dejada mejor a los proveedores de ODR individuales?
Otro desafío que queda por abordar es cómo incluir incentivos en los modelos de ODR. De hecho, muchos proveedores privados y públicos de servicios de ODR no han logrado integrar los incentivos suficientes para (i) las partes que participan en el proceso de ODR, (ii) fomentando soluciones (o acuerdos) tempranos y (iii) asegurando la ejecución estra judicial. ¿Qué tipo de incentivos podrían ser i incluidos en la plataforma ODR Europea?
Únete Pablo Cortés y Ross Graham para una exploración del modelo europeo de ODR para reclamo de consumidores.
Pablo Cortés es un abogado calificado en España y profesor de Derecho en la Universidad de Leicester y miembro del Centro Nacional para la Resolución de Disputas y Tecnología, Universidad de Massachusetts, Amherst. Sus intereses en investigación se centran en la intersección de la resolución alternativa de disputas (ADR), la resolución de controversias por vía informática (ODR), la protección del consumidor, y el procedimiento civil. Recientemente ha publicado una monografía titulada Solución de Controversias en línea para consumidores en la UE (Routledge, 2010). Pablo ha llevado a cabo recientemente aportes expertos para UNCITRAL (CNUDMI) y la Comisión Europea.
Graham Ross es un abogado y mediador acreditado Reino Unido con más de 30 años de experiencia en IT y el derecho. Graham fue entrenado en mediación comercial por el Grupo de ADR y es un miembro del Consejo de Mediación Civil y la Asociación de Defensores del Pueblo.
Graham es el autor de la aplicación legal de software (incluyendo la versión original QUILL (cuentas o registros de abogados (solicitor: término británico equivalente a abogado o procurador) y el paquete actualizado de registro) y fue el fundador de LAWTEL, el servicio de sistema de información legal actualizado. Graham es el principal experto del Reino Unido en el campo de ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) que aplica nuevas formas de tecnología para la resolución de conflictos. Fue co-fundador del primer servicio ODR en el Reino Unido, un servicio de oferta a ciegas (Se trata de un procedimiento de oferta “a ciegas” - “blind bidding”-, en que cada parte hace una oferta sin conocer la que efectúa la parte contraria) llamada Nosotros podemos resolver (o acordar) en 2000, y dos años más tarde, el servicio de mediación en línea La sala deMediación.-.
El trabajo de Graham en ODR ha dado lugar a su nombramiento como miembro del Centro Nacional de Tecnología y Resolución de Disputas (NCTDR) de la Universidad de Massachusetts. Él desarrolló el curso de capacitación en liderazgo en la aplicación de la tecnología para ADR y, como tal, ha capacitado mediadores en más de 20 países, así como desarrollando y entregando un curso para la Cámara de Arbitraje de Milán y para el Ministerio de Justicia del Reino Unido. Graham ha sido invitado para asesorar a los servicios judiciales en el Reino Unido y Canadá en la aplicación de herramientas tecnológicas para mejorar ADR.
En 2012, Graham fue invitado a dirigir las operaciones europeas de Modria Inc, EE.UU. compañía desmembrada de eBay y PayPal (www.modria.com). (“Spin-off” es un término anglosajón que expresa la idea de la creación de nuevas empresas en el seno de otras empresas u organizaciones ya existentes, sean públicas o privadas, que actúan de incubadoras. Con el tiempo acaban adquiriendo independencia jurídica, técnica y comercial)
Graham fue miembro del Grupo de Trabajo de la Comisión Europea sobre Normalización (CEN), que desarrolló un Acuerdo de Trabajo sobre las normas para Solución de Controversias Online y actualmente es miembro del proyecto financiado por la UE EMCOD (Www. Emcod. Ne t) liderado por la Universidad de Tilburg y que está desarrollando una herramienta en línea para la medición de la justicia a través de ODR.
Graham es el co-autor del capítulo europeo de "Online Dispute Resolution: Teoría
y práctica " que fue publicado en 2010 (decimo primera publicación - ISB 9490947253),
que se describe como "una visión general del estado del arte y la evaluación de la situación actual y futuro del campo de la Resolución de Disputas Online (ODR) "
Graham habla regularmente en las conferencias internacionales sobre el impacto de la ley sobre Internet y el comercio electrónico y sobre la tecnología en el poder judicial y Alternativas de Resolución de Conflictos.
En su trabajo legal, Graham tuvo una considerable experiencia en negligencia clínica y en un mas alto perfil lesiones personales, y acciones grupales por responsabilidad de fabricantes (o responsabilidad por productos defectuosos), incluyendo la exitosa
acción contra el gobierno del Reino Unido para los hemofílicos infectados por el VIH (que él fundó y lideró y fue miembro del comité de dirección que negoció el más grande acuerdo grupal para los mineros que enfermaron por la inhalación de polvo de carbón). Graham ha sido fundador y miembro de más de diez comités de dirección de grupos de acción desde 1987. Graham trabajó como tal en los tribunales en lo que entonces era territorio virgen para la gestión de gran número de reclamos. Como resultado, él estaba a la vanguardia de los avances en la administración judicial de lesiones personales y litigios grupales por responsabilidad por productos defectuosos, las lecciones de que puede contribuir al desarrollo de nuevas técnicas, más rápidas y menos costosas para la resolución de disputas.
Como mediador Graham ha desarrollado nuevas técnicas dentro del campo de la mediación basada en intereses La cual opera más allá de las áreas tradicionales de compromiso por ayudar a cada parte en la controversia a considerar los intereses que puedan tener que, si bien son periféricos a la cuestión principal, pueden verse afectados negativamente como consecuencia de que la disputa no se resuelva, sin importar cuál sea el resultado del litigio. Al centrarse en la identificación de todos los intereses, incluidos los los que no están obviamente relacionadas, que pueden verse afectados por la continuación de la controversia y examinar en detalle los daños potenciales que cada parte puede sufrir en la ausencia de acuerdo, las partes mismas entonces comienzan a expresar su propio deseo de resolver el problema entre ellos mismos. En otras palabras, Graham trabaja para acercar a las partes hasta el punto donde son ellos, las partes en litigio, los que comienzan a presionar para la solución (o el acuerdo), no el mediador buscando colocarlos dentro de ella (coax, significa engatusar –término poco agradable-).
Odr latinaomerica link: http://odrlatinoamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/iniciativa-europea-pa...