Cómo podría operar un Sistema Global de Resolución Electrónica de Disputas - Ecommerce


Published on

Presentacion realizada por Colin Rule http://www.linkedin.com/in/crule
Director the Resolución Electrónica de Disputas de Pay Pal / Ebay (EEUU) en el Marco del Coloquio Internacional sobre Resolucion Online de Disputas RED - Online Dispute Resolution ODR organizado por el Instituto Latinoamericano de Comercio Electronico ILCE. Para mayor informacion ingrese en http://www.einstituto.org/onlinedisputeresolution/

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cómo podría operar un Sistema Global de Resolución Electrónica de Disputas - Ecommerce

  1. 1. An Emerging Model for Global eCommerce ODR June 4 th 2010 Colin Rule Director of Online Dispute Resolution, PayPal
  2. 2. What is ODR? Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is the use of information and communications technology to resolve conflicts.
  3. 3. B2C E-Commerce Sales in Latin America (in millions) Source: Visa and AméricaEconomía Intelligence, "Informe Sobre Comercio Electrónico (B2C) en América Latina: Rompiendo los pronósticos," June 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Argentina $83 $162 $281 $619 $739 Brazil $757 $1,289 $2,270 $3,541 $4,899 Caribbean $127 $232 $387 $565 $818 Central America $64 $90 $189 $360 $499 Chile $79 $104 $243 $472 $687 Colombia $60 $105 $150 $175 $201 Mexico $296 $504 $567 $868 $1,377 Peru $65 $91 $109 $145 $218 Puerto Rico $174 $248 $344 $384 $445 Venezuela $85 $140 $253 $490 $821 Other $76 $101 $131 $165 $203 Total $1,866 $3,066 $4,925 $7,783 $10,908
  4. 4. The Challenge: Creating Justice for eCommerce <ul><li>Traditionally business and consumer issues have found redress in courts </li></ul><ul><li>However, eCommerce issues are difficult for courts to handle because the issues cross multiple jurisdictions </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional judicial mechanisms also struggle with eCommerce cases because: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the transactions are low value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>litigation is expensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>it is difficult to enforce foreign judgments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The solution is ODR: global, cross-jurisdiction, low cost </li></ul>
  5. 5. A Decade of Progress <ul><li>1999 : OECD publishes “Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce” </li></ul><ul><li>2000 : US FTC and Department of Commerce host “Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Transactions in the Borderless Online Marketplace” conference </li></ul><ul><li>2002 : The American Bar Association releases recommended standards for eCommerce Dispute Resolution </li></ul><ul><li>2003 : GBDe / Consumers International agreement </li></ul><ul><li>2004 : Global Trustmark Alliance Organizing Committee launched at GBDe Summit in Malaysia </li></ul><ul><li>2007 : OECD Recommendations call for states to establish mechanisms for arbitration of consumer disputes </li></ul><ul><li>2009 : European Committee for Standardization releases recommended best practices for ODR </li></ul>
  6. 6. New Initiative: The Global eCommerce ODR Proposal <ul><li>The ODR Initiative is intended to promote consumer confidence in e-Commerce by providing quick resolution and enforcement of disputes across borders, languages, and different legal jurisdictions. </li></ul><ul><li>Modeled on the ICANN system </li></ul><ul><li>Model law/cooperative framework and rules developed over 6 months by an extended working group of public, private, academic, and NGO representatives </li></ul><ul><li>Advanced as a formal proposal of the US Government to the Organization of American States in January 2010 </li></ul>
  7. 7. OAS Case DB Central Clearinghouse National Administrator National Administrator ODR Providers Key Components: A Central Clearinghouse, who maintains the case database; National Administrators; and ODR providers approved by the National Administrators Seller Seller Seller Overall System Design Sellers each opt-in to the system voluntarily ODR providers apply and are approved individually
  8. 8. CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Speaker Presentations and a Podcast of the Event can be Found at: http://www.pace.edu/page.cfm?doc_id=35560
  9. 9. 43 rd Session of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 21 June - 9 July 2010, New York <ul><li>Note by Secretariat: P ossible future work on online dispute resolution in cross-border electronic commerce transactions (A/CN.9/706) </li></ul>“ The goal of any work undertaken by UNCITRAL in this field should be to design generic rules which, consistent with the approach adopted in UNCITRAL instruments (such as the Model Law on Electronic Commerce), could apply in both business-to-business and business-to-consumer environments” <ul><li>Note by Secretariat : Provisional agenda, annotations thereto and scheduling of meetings of the forty-third session (A/CN.9/683) </li></ul>“ The Commission will also have before it a note by the Secretariat on the issue of online dispute resolution and, in particular, will inform on the outcome of the colloquium “A fresh look at online dispute resolution (ODR) and global e-commerce”, organized in Vienna on 29-30 March 2010 jointly with the Institute of International Commercial Law (A/CN.9/706).”
  10. 10. <ul><li>Systems needed for the developing world vs. developed world – global or regional? </li></ul><ul><li>Where to place the system? </li></ul><ul><li>Do companies want to go beyond regional sales – are global or regional systems needed? Incentives for businesses to join? </li></ul><ul><li>Outreach to consumers? </li></ul><ul><li>Enforcement mechanisms? </li></ul><ul><li>Private or public system – or hybrid? </li></ul>Questions to Answer Moving Forward
  11. 11. Conclusion <ul><li>E-commerce cross-border disputes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>will form a significant proportion of complaints in coming years; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>require tailored mechanisms that do not impose cost, delay and burdens that are disproportionate to the economic value at stake. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The time is now to build a global ODR system to address these challenges, and extend justice to issues that are not served by existing systems </li></ul><ul><li>We’re closer than ever – we need your help </li></ul>
  12. 12. Why does this matter? The world needs Argentinian Soccer jerseys!
  13. 13. Appendix
  14. 14. Rome I Regulation – EU Parliament Recital <ul><li>“ With reference to consumer contracts, recourse to the courts must be regarded as the last resort.”  </li></ul><ul><li>“ Legal proceedings, especially where foreign law has to be applied, are expensive and slow. . . .” </li></ul><ul><li>“ The protection afforded to consumers by conflict-of-laws provisions is largely illusory in view of the small value of most consumer claims and the cost and time consumed by bringing court proceedings.”   </li></ul><ul><li>“ As regards electronic commerce, the conflicts rule should be backed up by easier and more widespread availability of appropriate online alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems. . . ” </li></ul><ul><li>Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/juri_oj(2007)1119_romei_am_/juri_oj(2007)1119_romei_am_en.pdf </li></ul>
  15. 15. Rome I Regulation -- Review Clause <ul><li>Article 27 of Rome I Regulations requires that by 2013 the EC provide special report to the European Parliament on application of the special Rome I rule for consumer contracts. </li></ul><ul><li>European Parliament cites need to promote inter alia “ADR in the field of electronic commerce and . . . to review to what extent on-line ADR schemes might be used . . . to increase consumer confidence in electronic commerce and obviate the need for court proceedings” </li></ul><ul><li>Special report may be accompanied by proposals to amend the special Rome I rule for consumer contracts. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EU Parliament Final Compromise Amendment 104 Article 23(b) (new), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/juri_oj(2007)1119_romei_am_/juri_oj(2007)1119_romei_am_en.pdf </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. State ODR Models <ul><li>In some OAS member states, state-run alternate dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms for business to consumer disputes are very well developed, offering dispute resolution services for a wide range of consumer disputes. </li></ul><ul><li>In Mexico, Concilianet , has been established to provide a government run online dispute resolution platform. The Federal Consumer Protection Law promotes and protects the rights of consumers without distinction based on nationality or other considerations. Available at: http://concilianet.profeco.gob.mx/concilianet/faces/inicio.jsp .   </li></ul><ul><li>In Chile, a similar online platform has been established. http://www.sernac.cl/tramites/index.php </li></ul><ul><li>The US Federal Trade Commission launched www.econsumer.gov to refer consumer cross-border cases to ODR providers </li></ul>