A Panel Discussion and Book Launch Celebration honoring Dispute Systems Design: Preventing, Managing, and Resolving Conflict (2020) was hosted by the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution on July 29, 2020 featuring co-authors Lisa Blomgen Amsler, (Indiana University), Janet K. Martinez, (Stanford University), and Stephanie E. Smith, (Stanford University) and panelists Carrie Menkel-Meadow, (UC Irvine & Georgetown University), Larry Susskind, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Ayelet Sela, (Bar Ilan University) and Colin Rule, (Mediate.com). Hosts included Leah Wing, Co-director, (National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution (NCTDR) and U. of MA Amherst), Orna Rabinovich, (NCTDR Fellow and U. of Haifa), and Ethan Katsh (Director, NCTDR). You can watch the engagement with these leading ADR and ODR thought leaders here:

小幻HTTP代理 - 提供比收费还强大的免费HTTP代理IP:小幻HTTP代理免费代理ip网实时免费为大家更新最新免费代理ip、http和https代理为主,常年免费提供代理ip、qq代理ip、http匿名代理、国内代理软件等加速服务，为用户提供最优质代理.:

“Most civil and commercial private mediators and ADR providers offer their clients a binary choice between a half day mediation and a full day mediation as a standard offering, often on a flat rate with one or two hours of prep time, a preliminary call with counsel and open ended follow up as part of the flat fee. Most such mediations are convened and organized to have all the parties and counsel arrive at the same time. Since the onset of the pandemic and the various shut down orders, the use of online dispute resolution has increased exponentially, usually conducted through videoconferencing using Zoom and similar platforms. 

This broad use of videoconferencing around the world has lead to a phenomenon referred to as Zoom fatigue (see http://ideas.ted.com/zoom-fatigue-is-real-heres-why-video-calls-are-so-draining/). Psychologists attribute this fatigue to the higher levels of concentration caused by staring at a computer screen for long periods, often looking at multiple images of participants on the screen, leading to eye strain and sensory overload. All of this is exacerbated in mediation, given the emotions caused by conflict and the high levels of interactivity between the mediator and the parties as they move through trust building into often difficult conversations to bridge the gaps between parties. Given the medium, mediators must also be thinking about eye contact and reading facial expressions, which is second nature in a face to face conversation but which takes effort in a videoconference. Exhausted mediators and parties cannot do their best work. Good, durable settlements and settlement agreements require careful attention…”

Read more: http://www.mediate.com/articles/Burke_Shorter_Sessions.cfm

Taylor Worsham, writing on July 9, 2020 in The Sault News:

‘The Michigan Supreme Court Office of Dispute Resolution recently announced the availability of its completely free MI-Resolve online dispute resolution tool in Chippewa, Luce and Mackinac counties.

MI-Resolve provides an efficient and accessible way of resolving disputes that are typically filed as small claims, general civil or landlord-tenant cases in the district court. Michigan is the first state to have an online dispute resolution system for every citizen in the state.

“Keeping the virtual doors of justice open to everyone in Michigan has never been more important,” said Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack. “Confronting the COVID-19 crisis makes closing the justice gap all the more urgent. Opening up online dispute resolution to Chippewa, Luce, and Mackinac county residents represents a huge step toward achieving that goal.”’

Read more here

During the global COVID-19 pandemic, and at a time when social distancing is required to save lives, technology has been vital to human connection. This turn in society has forced even the most reluctant practitioners and overburdened institutions to rely on technology to assist in the handling of disputes. Suddenly, online dispute resolution is at the forefront of conversations about providing access to justice and repair of human relationships from courts to alternative dispute resolution. The National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, birthplace of online dispute resolution over twenty years ago, is enthusiastic about this upsurge in its use. And as we stand in solidarity against state brutality, we think it now more important than ever for all of us to work for racial equality and all forms of human rights, further innovating the use of technology in the name of access to justice for all.

Over last weekend there was a very high level meeting of leaders in the justice sector to discuss the future of ODR in India, convened by Agami and Omidyar Network. From the press release on the meeting:

“In a first, NITI Aayog, in association with Agami and Omidyar Network India, brought together key stakeholders in a virtual meeting on 6 June 2020 for advancing online dispute resolution in India.

ODR is the resolution of disputes, particularly small- and medium-value cases, using digital technology and techniques of alternate dispute resolution (ADR), such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. While courts are becoming digitized through the efforts of the judiciary, more effective, scalable, and collaborative mechanisms of containment and resolution are urgently needed. ODR can help resolve disputes efficiently and affordably.

Senior judges of the Supreme Court, secretaries from key government ministries, leaders of industry, legal experts, and general counsels of leading enterprises, explored the opportunities and specifics of what lies ahead.

The common theme was a multi-stakeholder agreement to work collaboratively to ensure efforts are taken to scale online dispute resolution in India.

In his welcome address, NITI Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant said, ‘This historic meeting is the start of a collaborative exercise that sets into motion the use of technology towards efficient and affordable access to justice in our post-pandemic response.’

Justice DY Chandrachud, speaking on technology and access to justice, remarked, ‘Above all there needs to be a fundamental change in the mindset—look upon dispute resolution not as relatable to a place, namely a court, where justice is “administered” but as a service that is availed of.’

Stressing on the need of ODR during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said, ‘Let us target Covid-related disputes first [through ODR] because those are people who would like for their disputes to be resolved quickly, particularly in this context. This is an important part of economic revival.’

Justice Indu Malhotra spoke of the nuanced specifics that could be considered for scaling ODR. ‘Making ODR or ADR voluntary may defeat the purpose. It should be made mandatory [for specified categories], and it should cover about three [sessions] so that parties don’t feel that it’s a mere formality.’

Justice (Retd) A.K. Sikri brought forth the advantages of ODR—convenient, accurate, time-saving, and cost-saving.

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Law Secretary, Government of India, articulated that, ‘Private ODR and ADR providers need to be complemented to ensure that online resolution can reach different industries, locations, and parts of the country and also support the public institutions in a big way. The government is open-minded.’

Nandan Nilekani, Non-Executive Chairman of Infosys, gave his vision for justice delivery. ‘The future will be a hybrid model that combines the best of both worlds—offline courts, online courts and ODR. We will have to reimagine the whole process of justice delivery to work in the hybrid system and this will require good data…’”

Read more here:
http://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1630080

Wow — there are some impressive stats!

May 2020 British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal Participant Satisfaction Survey results are up at 哒哒软件官网：高匿HTTP代理IP，海量IP库，长效稳定 ...:哒哒软件是企业级大数据爬取HTTP动态IP服务提供商,为上百家企业用户提供海量优质高匿HTTP代理IP,全国数百万优质IP,低延迟高可用率稳定专业！ — some of the highlights:

100% felt the CRT treated them fairly

96% felt CRT staff were professional

92% felt their CRT dispute was handled in a timely manner

匿名代理ip

Well done, Shannon and team! You can view the full report at
国内高匿免费HTTP代理IP__第4075页国内高匿:2021-12-30 · 国家 IP地址 端口 服务器地址 是否匿名 类型 速度 连接时间 存活时间 验证时间 118.125.78.8 6666 四川眉山 高匿 socks4/5

Larry Axelrood in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin:

小幻HTTP代理 - 提供比收费还强大的免费HTTP代理IP:小幻HTTP代理免费代理ip网实时免费为大家更新最新免费代理ip、http和https代理为主,常年免费提供代理ip、qq代理ip、http匿名代理、国内代理软件等加速服务，为用户提供最优质代理.

Read more:
http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/axelrood-kitchen-table-mediation-6-2-20-20200602?MvBriefArticleId=2983

Excerpt from a new article from Rachael Bicknell for the law Law Society of Scotland Journal:

套餐购买-芝麻代理:2021-6-6 · 芝麻代理ip软件是国内专业的ip代理服务器提供商，提供http代理，API接口和自动换IP代理软件，千万高匿名ip覆盖全国随意切换，支持PC、iOS、安卓，高效稳定免费试用，国内ip代理软件、http代理选择芝麻代理

All methods of exploring the resolution of a dispute with the assistance of technology are ODR. It can involve advanced technologies and processes such as machine learning, artificial intelligence and cognitive computing which are being developed and promoted to resolve specific types of disputes. More importantly for the practice of law, it is the movement online of face-to-face mediation, arbitration and other resolution processes, using videoconferencing combined with secure onboarding, e-signing of agreements, document sharing and online communication, to deliver fair, proportionate and effective redress for commercial and civil disputes.”

Read the full article here:
http://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-65-issue-05/odr-the-next-leap-forward/

From the announcement page on Hong Kong’s new ODR program for low value disputes:

“In view of the severe economic repercussions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic globally and locally, the Government announced another package of measures to support the affected individuals and businesses last Wednesday. Two of which are particularly relevant to the legal and dispute resolution sector – LawTech Fund and COVID-19 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Scheme. The LawTech Fund was briefly introduced in this blog a few days ago (http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/blog/20200411_blog1.html). Today, I would like to give an outline of the COVID-19 ODR.

In anticipation of an upsurge of disputes arising from or relating to COVID-19, the Scheme aims to provide speedy and cost-effective means to resolve such disputes, especially for those involving micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) that may be adversely affected or hard hit by the pandemic. The Scheme will engage eBRAM to provide ODR services to the general public and businesses, in particular MSMEs, involved in low value disputes…

It is a global trend to develop and use ODR to provide reliable and efficient platform to facilitate alternative dispute resolution. The Scheme is in line with the development under Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s Collaborative Framework on ODR (APEC Framework), with MSMEs as the major beneficiary. The mechanism of adopting negotiation and mediation in the first stage under the APEC Framework is also to prevent entrenched views on the conflicts, thereby helping to create harmony in society.”

Read more:
http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/blog/20200413_blog1.html

Richard Susskind wrote a IP库-ip修改器-换ip软件-手机电脑换ip地址【官方网站】:2021-4-29 · IP库,海量高质量IP资源提供商,ip库,提供http代理,API接口和自动换IP代理软件,千万高匿名,静态ip,动态ip随意选,支持PC,IOS,安卓,高效稳定免费试用,国内ip代理软件首选,IP库 on the move to online courts. An excerpt:

“…the main reason for the digital transformation of court service is unrelated to Covid-19. Rather, court systems around the world are largely broken. According to the OECD, more than 4bn people live beyond the protection of lawyers, the law and courts. In some countries, the backlog is staggering: some 80m cases in Brazil and 30m in India. Even in advanced legal systems, the process is generally only understandable to lawyers, is too expensive for most and civil cases take far too long. There is an acute problem of access to justice. Hardly anyone, anywhere, can afford to take legal action through public courts. It is increasingly unaffordable for large businesses too. Many practices and procedures are arcane in today’s digital societies.

I have little doubt that technology can provide a sustainable set of solutions. But we have to deploy the right systems. Many technology advocates believe greater efficiency can be achieved by automating and streamlining conventional court work. Although well-intentioned, this approach is misguided. It will deliver mess-for-less, rather than a transformed public dispute system fit for the 21st century. Grafting technology on to processes that can date as far back as 900 years is not the answer.

The challenge instead is to develop systems that deliver court services in ways that were previously impossible or even unimaginable. The point is not to computerise current practices. The great power of technology lies in transformation, not in automation.”

Read the full piece here (subscription required):
http://www.ft.com/content/fb955fb0-8f79-11ea-bc44-dbf6756c871a