when the payment is not made or the buyer does not receive an item, eBay has
included an ODR process on its website. In addition to ODR, the platform
includes the possibility of private enforcement enabled by the connection
between eBay and its payment mechanism, PayPal. However, the coercive
nature of dispute resolution and private enforcement has been downplayed by
collectively referring to these as the Money-Back Guarantee.
The relative lack of success of most private ODR providers corresponds with
the shift in dispute resolution technology described above. The reasons for this
are various but most probably the difficulties in funding private ODR, the lack of
enforcement options outside market leaders such as eBay, complexity of redress
options and the low level of consumer awareness all play a role. Because of this
lack of success of private ODR, civil justice reforms have become an essential
venue for ODR functionalities.
The publicly funded ODR schemes also have the potential to extend their
usability through interfaces to payment mechanisms, identity verification, public
land registers and other public databases. To conclude, the field of dispute
resolution technology is continuously evolving and different examples reveal
different sides of the complex phenomenon. However, such examples reveal
only a partial truth, as we often lose sight of the overview when focusing on
specific functionalities.
3.1.2 Possible taxonomy for dispute resolution technology
As the development of dispute resolution technology is often fragmented, overlapping, shifting in focus and multi-voiced, different applications are often difficult
to categorise and the overview is missing. Still, a taxonomy of dispute resolution
technology is necessary for evaluating the broader context beyond individual
examples, for perceiving the change in dispute resolution brought on by technology, and for examining technology-driven private enforcement. One option for
taxonomy would be to follow the doctrinal distinction between ODR and courtroom technology,
16 but as the shift away from private ODR and the potential of
public dispute resolution technology demonstrate, this distinction seems to provide
little value for categorisation. Although the tension between private and public
ODR models remains, we might as well ask whether the differences between
models are, in fact, as definite as the doctrinal divide would lead us to believe.
17
The preservation of the doctrinal distinction in debates about dispute resolution
technology may hamper in-depth analysis of its potential for both forms of dispute
resolution and hide the convergence points from sight. Despite doctrinal differences, conflict management in both the public and in the private sphere carries a
public function in the end,
18 places value on fairness of outcomes and requires
tools to encourage sustainable digitalisation of dispute resolution.
The emerging social system of the use of ICT converges the ways in which
different dispute resolution models are used and dilutes the differences when it
comes to the role granted to technology in the procedure. When courtroom
technology and ODR are discussed separately from each other, only in connection
Emerging crisis 63
included an ODR process on its website. In addition to ODR, the platform
includes the possibility of private enforcement enabled by the connection
between eBay and its payment mechanism, PayPal. However, the coercive
nature of dispute resolution and private enforcement has been downplayed by
collectively referring to these as the Money-Back Guarantee.
The relative lack of success of most private ODR providers corresponds with
the shift in dispute resolution technology described above. The reasons for this
are various but most probably the difficulties in funding private ODR, the lack of
enforcement options outside market leaders such as eBay, complexity of redress
options and the low level of consumer awareness all play a role. Because of this
lack of success of private ODR, civil justice reforms have become an essential
venue for ODR functionalities.
The publicly funded ODR schemes also have the potential to extend their
usability through interfaces to payment mechanisms, identity verification, public
land registers and other public databases. To conclude, the field of dispute
resolution technology is continuously evolving and different examples reveal
different sides of the complex phenomenon. However, such examples reveal
only a partial truth, as we often lose sight of the overview when focusing on
specific functionalities.
3.1.2 Possible taxonomy for dispute resolution technology
As the development of dispute resolution technology is often fragmented, overlapping, shifting in focus and multi-voiced, different applications are often difficult
to categorise and the overview is missing. Still, a taxonomy of dispute resolution
technology is necessary for evaluating the broader context beyond individual
examples, for perceiving the change in dispute resolution brought on by technology, and for examining technology-driven private enforcement. One option for
taxonomy would be to follow the doctrinal distinction between ODR and courtroom technology,
16 but as the shift away from private ODR and the potential of
public dispute resolution technology demonstrate, this distinction seems to provide
little value for categorisation. Although the tension between private and public
ODR models remains, we might as well ask whether the differences between
models are, in fact, as definite as the doctrinal divide would lead us to believe.
17
The preservation of the doctrinal distinction in debates about dispute resolution
technology may hamper in-depth analysis of its potential for both forms of dispute
resolution and hide the convergence points from sight. Despite doctrinal differences, conflict management in both the public and in the private sphere carries a
public function in the end,
18 places value on fairness of outcomes and requires
tools to encourage sustainable digitalisation of dispute resolution.
The emerging social system of the use of ICT converges the ways in which
different dispute resolution models are used and dilutes the differences when it
comes to the role granted to technology in the procedure. When courtroom
technology and ODR are discussed separately from each other, only in connection
Emerging crisis 63