953; Ethan M Katsh, ‘The Online Ombuds Office: Adapting Dispute Resolution to
Cyberspace’ (1996); Katsh and Rifkin published the first monograph on ODR in 2001
focusing on analysing the role of technology as the fourth party of dispute resolution
proceedings. Ethan M Katsh and Janet Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving
Conflicts in Cyberspace (Jossey Bass 2001).
6 In literature, e-commerce disputes have usually been described as low value, high
volume. On ambiguity of this terminology see Karim Benyekhlef and Nicolas Vermeys,
‘Low-Value, High-Volume’ Disputes: Defining the Indefinable’ (Slaw – Canada’s
online legal magazine, 29 January 2014) available at http://www.slaw.ca/2014/01/
29/low-value-high-volume-disputes-defining-the-indefinable (accessed 15 June
2018); However, this characterisation is very much entwined with e-commerce and
may overlook other applications of dispute resolution and technology. The Laboratory
of Cyberjustice of University of Montreal uses the terminology of low intensity
disputes to describe the characteristics of disputes that would be suitable for ODR.
This terminology has the advantage of expressing the relatively low and simple
interests of the parties without labelling them simply as e-commerce disputes. See e.
g. Karim Benyekhlef, Valentin Callipel and Emmanuelle Amar, ‘La Médiation En
Ligne Pour Les Conflits de Basse Intensité’ (2015) 135 Gazette du Palais 17.
7 See e.g. Colin Rule, Online Dispute Resolution for Business. B2B, E-Commerce,
Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts (Jossey-Bass
2002) 45; Aura Esther Vilalta, ‘ODR and E-Commerce’ in Mohamed S Abdel
Wahab, Ethan Katsh and Daniel Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory
and Practice. A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International
Publishing 2012) 115; Hörnle sees ODR as an out-of-court resolution in the spirit
of ADR. See Julia Hörnle, Cross-Border Internet Dispute Resolution (Cambridge
University Press 2009) 75; On defining ODR see also Pablo Cortés, Online Dispute
Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (Routledge 2011) 53; Although
technology-augmented litigation and ODR are often conceptually separated, some
authors have suggested a joint approach. See Arno R Lodder and John Zeleznikow,
Enhanced Dispute Resolution Through the Use of Information Technology (Cambridge
University Press 2010) 170.
8 ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is responsible for
the distribution of unique Internet Protocol (IP) address spaces which are an essential
part of the structure and functioning of the Internet. ICANN has established its own
dispute resolution model called Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in
cooperation with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). ICANN gives a
binding decision in domain name disputes which is also directly enforced by ICANN.
Because, in the end, ICANN is a private organisation entrusted with responsibilities of
public interest, it has been criticised for its lack of adequate accountability mechanisms.
See Rudolf W Rijgersberg, The State of Interdependence: Globalization, Internet and
Constitutional Governance (TMC Asser Press 2010) 69–217.
9 Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May
2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC)
No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR) 2013;
Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013
on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC)
No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) 2013.
10 However, some of the ODR providers listed on the EU platform do offer processes
that are binding by default, upon agreement or biding for traders. Of the around 280
ADR entities listed, about a third provide some type of binding decisions. See Riikka
Koulu, ‘Improving Consumer Protection through Technology: The Challenge of
Compliance’ in Immaculada Barral (ed), La resolución de conflictos con consumidores:
de las ADR a las ODR (Reus 2018) 70.
Introduction 21
Cyberspace’ (1996); Katsh and Rifkin published the first monograph on ODR in 2001
focusing on analysing the role of technology as the fourth party of dispute resolution
proceedings. Ethan M Katsh and Janet Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving
Conflicts in Cyberspace (Jossey Bass 2001).
6 In literature, e-commerce disputes have usually been described as low value, high
volume. On ambiguity of this terminology see Karim Benyekhlef and Nicolas Vermeys,
‘Low-Value, High-Volume’ Disputes: Defining the Indefinable’ (Slaw – Canada’s
online legal magazine, 29 January 2014) available at http://www.slaw.ca/2014/01/
29/low-value-high-volume-disputes-defining-the-indefinable (accessed 15 June
2018); However, this characterisation is very much entwined with e-commerce and
may overlook other applications of dispute resolution and technology. The Laboratory
of Cyberjustice of University of Montreal uses the terminology of low intensity
disputes to describe the characteristics of disputes that would be suitable for ODR.
This terminology has the advantage of expressing the relatively low and simple
interests of the parties without labelling them simply as e-commerce disputes. See e.
g. Karim Benyekhlef, Valentin Callipel and Emmanuelle Amar, ‘La Médiation En
Ligne Pour Les Conflits de Basse Intensité’ (2015) 135 Gazette du Palais 17.
7 See e.g. Colin Rule, Online Dispute Resolution for Business. B2B, E-Commerce,
Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts (Jossey-Bass
2002) 45; Aura Esther Vilalta, ‘ODR and E-Commerce’ in Mohamed S Abdel
Wahab, Ethan Katsh and Daniel Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory
and Practice. A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International
Publishing 2012) 115; Hörnle sees ODR as an out-of-court resolution in the spirit
of ADR. See Julia Hörnle, Cross-Border Internet Dispute Resolution (Cambridge
University Press 2009) 75; On defining ODR see also Pablo Cortés, Online Dispute
Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (Routledge 2011) 53; Although
technology-augmented litigation and ODR are often conceptually separated, some
authors have suggested a joint approach. See Arno R Lodder and John Zeleznikow,
Enhanced Dispute Resolution Through the Use of Information Technology (Cambridge
University Press 2010) 170.
8 ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is responsible for
the distribution of unique Internet Protocol (IP) address spaces which are an essential
part of the structure and functioning of the Internet. ICANN has established its own
dispute resolution model called Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in
cooperation with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). ICANN gives a
binding decision in domain name disputes which is also directly enforced by ICANN.
Because, in the end, ICANN is a private organisation entrusted with responsibilities of
public interest, it has been criticised for its lack of adequate accountability mechanisms.
See Rudolf W Rijgersberg, The State of Interdependence: Globalization, Internet and
Constitutional Governance (TMC Asser Press 2010) 69–217.
9 Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May
2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC)
No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR) 2013;
Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013
on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC)
No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) 2013.
10 However, some of the ODR providers listed on the EU platform do offer processes
that are binding by default, upon agreement or biding for traders. Of the around 280
ADR entities listed, about a third provide some type of binding decisions. See Riikka
Koulu, ‘Improving Consumer Protection through Technology: The Challenge of
Compliance’ in Immaculada Barral (ed), La resolución de conflictos con consumidores:
de las ADR a las ODR (Reus 2018) 70.
Introduction 21