1. Johan Billiet Association for International Arbitration Billiet & Co November 21-22, 2013

2.   Traditional arbitration facilitated by means of IT facilities  Online arbitration Distinguish

3.   ICC – NetCase  AAA – WebFile  The ICDR Manufacturer/Supplier Online Dispute Resolution Protocol Electronic file management

4.   procedural framework - due process, confidentiality, and the seat of arbitration  award - formal requirements, binding nature, and enforcement and public policy Legal obstacles to the use of online arbitration

5.  Belgium Lithuania Trust marks

6.   The trader will not encourage minors to order products/services  If a complaint against a member is considered valid, the trust mark can impose one (or several of the following penalties:  Warning  Blame  Fine (minimum 1000 Euro and maximum 50 000 Euro)  Suspension of membership  Exclusion Criteria and code of conduct BeCommerce, Belgium

7.   WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center  CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution & Modria Current Developments

8.   UNCITRAL - draft Rules on online dispute resolution in cross border electronic transactions  EU - Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes bring for consumers and traders - Regulation No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes ODR in cross-border consumer disputes

9.  UNCITRAL aims to develop a global online dispute resolution system for the resolution of low-value high- volume cross-border disputes, both B2B and B2C. ODR framework will consists of the following documents which form part of the Rules:  Guidelines and minimum requirements for online dispute resolution providers;  Guidelines and minimum requirements for neutrals;  Substantive legal principles for resolving disputes;  Cross-border enforcement mechanism. Task of the Working Group III

10.   Applicable to B2B and B2C;  Rules have contractual nature and will not supersede national mandatory laws;  domestic laws invalidating pre ‐ dispute arbitration clauses in consumer contracts would be applicable;  A “two-track” set of Rules. Main features of the Draft UNCITRAL ODR Rules

11.  The Rules include different sets of provisions depending on whether the consumer’s domestic law would permit a pre-dispute arbitration agreement to be binding upon that consumer. Track I: Binding Option  Ends in a binding arbitration stage (all parties would be bound by the final award where the applicable domestic law so permitted). Track II: Non-Binding Option  neutral makes a recommendation which is non-binding unless parties otherwise agree (proceedings would not end in arbitration for any party) Proposed structure: a “two- track” set of Rules

12.  Purchasers will need to provide two simple pieces of information:  their shipping or billing address;  whether they were a consumer. + an Annex to the Rules to identify “Group I” and “Group II” jurisdictions and a definition of “consumer”.  a vendor’s website will automatically offer the appropriate dispute resolution clause to the prospective purchaser. How to determine which track is the right track?

13.  ‘To ensure trust in ADR procedures’ is a leitmotif of the EU legislator. Main goals:  to integrate the ADR mechanisms already existing in various Member States and to make them function more effectively across the borders;  to strengthen the existing harmonised EU consumer protection rules;  to bolster due process standards in consumer ADR. No detailed set of procedural rules  the EU prefers to create ADR schemes and networks of ADR schemes, which will co ‐ operate and function across borders, instead of creating one international ADR scheme with the ambition of global operation. Main features of the EU approach

14.  ‘To ensure trust in ADR procedures’ is a leitmotif of the EU legislator. Main goals:  to integrate the ADR mechanisms already existing in various Member States and to make them function more effectively across the borders;  to strengthen the existing harmonised EU consumer protection rules;  to bolster due process standards in consumer ADR. No detailed set of procedural rules  the EU prefers to create ADR schemes and networks of ADR schemes, which will co ‐ operate and function across borders, instead of creating one international ADR scheme with the ambition of global operation. Main features of the EU approach

15.  It applies to: a) consumer disputes, b) disputes between a consumer residing in one of the 27 EU member states c) an enterprise that is registered in the Belgian Register for companies or vice versa Belmed

16.   The resolutions/protection model (eBay, Amazon)  The chargeback model (credit cards)  The escrow model (TaoBao, Alibaba) How do companies use ODR?

17.  Thank you!