About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center - Conference 2000

International Conference on
Dispute Resolution in Electronic Commerce

organized by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Geneva, November 6 and 7, 2000


Institutional Perspectives and Responses
(See presentation)

presentation prepared by Dr. Richard Hill,
Partner, Hill & Associates
Geneva, Switzerland

"LCIA Technology Group"

Introduction

1. We distinguish between promoting/facilitating electronic communications within the context of a conventional arbitration, on one hand, and arbitration in which the proceedings are entirely on-line, on the other.

2. The LCIA already provide (at Article 4) for email communications and we think it worthwhile to promote the use of electronic communications under existing LCIA Rules, at least partly for the benefit of demonstrating that we are firmly in the 21st century. (There are very few pending LCIA cases in which either the parties or the Tribunals routinely use email. There is one current case in which one of the parties has objected to other’s use of email, because of fears about security and confidentiality.)

3. We believe that there is merit in setting up a dedicated email address for each new case. This will allow the parties and the Tribunal to copy the dedicated address in all their communications, so creating an independent record of who e-mailed what to whom and when. To create a dedicated e-mail for each arbitration is simple from the technical point of view and inexpensive.

4. The primary focus of the technology group is the more radical issue of a total on-line arbitration service.

Cyberspace arbitration

5. The reported success of WIPO’s domain-name on-line arbitrations might give an early indicator as to the potential for cyberspace dispute resolution. However, the application of the WIPO domain-name system is very much limited to the kind of dispute where little, if any, historical paper evidence is involved and which is amenable to determination without any form of hearing.

6. The more ambitious WIPO on-line project is the sort of generally-applicable cyberspace system that the LCIA ought, in the view of the technology group, be seriously investigating.

7. It is our understanding that all necessary technology is currently available to make the system work (though at a cost).

8. Presentationally, the greatest practical hurdle, and the greatest potential expense, would appear to be in dealing with a dispute which, were it a conventional arbitration, would be heavy with documentary evidence. However, it is cheaper to move large bundles of documents around if they are computerised. The biggest hurdle, we think, is in the customary practice of arbitrators who, with some justification, are not keen to abandon well-proven methods in favour of untried methods.

9. If the system is not merely to operate as an adjunct to conventional arbitration (falling back on hard copy files and conventional hearings) the paper problem must be overcome.

10. The paper problem can be overcome by scanning. The cost of scanning is about the same as the cost of copying. Given that documents are invariably copied at least once during an arbitration, there is no economic or technical reason why they should not be scanned instead, once and for all. However, parties, arbitrators, and arbitral institutions will wish to verify the security and reliability of scanning before implementing it on a wide scale.

11. Among (many) other issues for investigation/development/clarification are:

(a) the parties’ agreement to submit their disputes to on-line arbitration;

(b) the seat of an on-line arbitration (which is wherever the parties have agreed; the "virtuality" of the arbitration not being an issue);

(c) security/confidentiality/encryption;

(d) the form of Awards (which, in our view, must be in conventional written form (so no arbitration can be entirely on-line)); and

(e) secure sub-sites within the main site to allow the private on-line deliberations of the Tribunal.

12. We think that, given the extraordinary pace at which e-technology is developing, the LCIA should be in the vanguard of on-line dispute resolution. Indeed, LCIA will be holding a one-day seminar in London in May 2001 on the use of e-media and e-technology in conventional arbitrations and mediations.