=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-430/paper-2
|storemode=property
|title=Towards Standardisation of Online Dispute Resolution Tools
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-430/Paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-430
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/odr/LodderBGHT08
}}
==Towards Standardisation of Online Dispute Resolution Tools==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-430/Paper2.pdf
Towards Standardisation of Online Dispute
Resolution Tools
Arno R. LODDERa1 , Andrea BORRIb, Jacques GOUIMENOUc, Brian
HUTCHINSONd and Vincent TILMANf
a
CEDIRE & Computer/Law Institute, The Netherlands
b
Firenze Tecnologia, Italy
c
TIGA Technologies, France
d
University College of Dublin, Ireland
e
Eurochambres, Belgium
Abstract. This contribution summarizes the main goals, objectives, and tasks done
so far in the framework of the the CEN/ISSS Workshop on Standardization of
Online Dispute Resolution Tools (WS/Stand-ODR), started on 17 December at the
CEN Management Centre in Brussels (Belgium).
Keywords. Online Dispute Resolution, ODR, standards, interoperability,
ontologies.
1. The CEN Workshop on ODR Standards
Many different Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) services have been developed all
over Europe in order to allow consumers and businesses to exploit Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) resources.
We are developing a CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) that specifies the
guidelines to facilitate a clearer and easier use and exploitation of ADR resources to the
potential users. The focus will be on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). Whilst
recognising that the technical requirements of ODR may necessitate the introduction of
specific processes that vary from those applicable in ADR, it is an objective of this
CWA to maintain the processes of ODR and ADR in as close a synergy as may be
practicable and to encourage and facilitate their future evolution in parallel to the
maximum practicable extent.
The project team started in February 2008, and will deliver the final results in early
2009. In our final project report we provide a survey of ODR models and providers, an
analysis of ODR processes, background information on technical aspects of ODR as
well on regulatory and legal aspects. The main aim of the project is to deliver a
taxonomy of ODR processes that is used as the basis of an ontology. This ontology is
implemented in Protégé, and used to automatically generate XML schemes. One of the
underlying goals is to create interoperability within ODR.
1
Corresponding author: Arno R. Lodder, Centre for Electronic Dispute Resolution (CEDIRE) and
Computer/Law Institute of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1105, 1081HV Amsterdam; E-
mail: lodder@rechten.vu.nl.
8
Many ODR providers exist today and ODR systems offer different user interfaces,
adopt different languages and are unable to exchange information each other,
preventing potential users from using their features within multi-language and cross-
country business and legal environments. This diversity contributes to the lack of
visibility of ODR systems and undermines the take off of this service in the market.
2. Interoperability
Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and
organizations to work together (inter-operate). The term is often used in a technical
systems engineering sense, or alternatively in a broad sense, taking into account social,
political, and organizational factors that impact system to system performance.
With respect to software, the term interoperability is used to describe the capability
of different programs to exchange data via a common set of exchange formats, to read
and write the same file formats, and to use the same protocols. (The ability to execute
the same binary code on different processor platforms is 'not' contemplated by the
definition of interoperability.) The lack of interoperability can be a consequence of a
lack of attention to standardization during the design of a program. Indeed,
interoperability is not taken for granted in the non-standards-based portion of the
computing world.
According to ISO/IEC 2382-01, Information Technology Vocabulary,
Fundamental Terms, interoperability is defined as follows: "The capability to
communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a
manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique
characteristics of those units".
Lack of interoperability can have important economic consequences. If
competitors' products are not interoperable (owing to causes such as patents, trade
secrets or coordination failures), the result may well be monopoly or market failure.
For this reason, it may be prudent for user communities or governments to take steps to
encourage interoperability in various situations.
Our goals in ODR interoperability are:
• To define a clear and simple European level ODR framework, based on
common taxonomy and resolution models
• To make this available in different European countries
These main objectives raise the following issues, amongst others:
Open Questions
• What if a dispute owner wishes to move his dispute resolution
process from an ODR provider to another ODR provider (competitor)
saving his position and all the documentation? It is apparent that as
yet there is little demand for such transfer – is this to do with the
nature of the processes or are there barriers (technological, semantic,
legal or regulatory) preventing such transfer?
9
• What can be done to reduce time spent and costs in the processes?
• What scope is there for scalability (from automated negotiation to
assisted negotiation, to mediation or arbitration); and should this be
optional or mandatory?
• What is the state of interoperability between ODR and pre-dispute
systems (customer complaints mechanisms, e-sales and e-contracting
systems, etc) and post-dispute systems (enforcement and appeal
mechanisms)?
• What is the state of interoperability between ODR and of line ADR
procedures?
Interoperability is connected with process. The ODR process can be interoperable
with external process, such as pre-dispute systems (typically provided by private
companies), following defined best practices.
Also, as described in the “Typical Information Flow” above, the ODR process can
provide internal progression between Automated Negotiation, Assisted Negotiation,
Online Mediation, but not normally with Online Arbitration; if at the end of the single
step there is no settlement between the parties, they can escalate to another process.
The ODR process can be interoperable with external processes, such as post-
dispute systems (enforcement and appeal mechanisms). All of these progressions
between different steps of the process could be provided by different providers.
If the dispute owner moves to another ODR provider he should approve the
integrity of information that he is migrating to the new system.
10
Figure 1. ODR Typical Information Flow
11
3. Ontology
The main concepts of the ontology will be presented during the ODR workshop in
Florence on December 13, 2008. The ontology defines the concepts, terminology and
semantics of ODR in both business and technical terms, in order to:
• Create a foundation for further work in domain-specific areas,
• Enable communications between business and technical people,
• Enhance the understanding of ODR concepts in the business and technical
communities,
• Provide a means to state problems and opportunities clearly and
unambiguously, and
• To promote mutual understanding. And on the other hand it potentially
contributes to model-driven ODR implementation.
12