ODR Services Providers In Asia

Online dispute resolution (ODR) is becoming a preferred mode of dispute resolution globally. However, Asian countries in general and India in particular have still not considered using ODR for dispute resolution.

Even otherwise there are very few ODR service providers in India. Further, when it comes to techno legal ODR services in Asia or India, there seems to be very few institutions dealing with the same.

At Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we provide techno legal ADR and ODR services. Our services include a wide variety of areas that practically covers all the techno legal ADR and ODR disputes

We believe in party autonomy and therefore are open to all national and international norms, regulations and rules. Whether it is the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) or any other rules or norms of similar international institutions like United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), we adopt and utilise the relevant norms as per the requirements of the case.

Although ODR in India is facing severe legal roadblocks yet at Perry4Law and PTLB we have been providing techno legal technology dispute resolution policies and strategies. We have suggested the technology dispute resolution policy of India and ODR policy of India in the hope that Indian government would consider utilising technology related projects like ODR and e-courts more often.

At the same time we also believe that without international harmonisation, ODR can never be a global reality. We also understand the importance of national and international cooperation and collaboration and are therefore open to all sorts of proposals from global ODR community.

ADR service providers of Asia must utilise concepts like ODR and e-courts as well. Like traditional ADR mechanisms, ODR and e-courts also provide effective dispute resolution. In fact, ODR and e-courts are better mechanisms to resolve disputes without any party moving from his place.

Sooner or later ODR and e-courts have to be established and used by all Asian countries. However, the sooner they are established and used the better it would be for the citizens of these countries.

Preliminary Issue Report On The Current State Of The UDRP

The World of Domain Name is fast changing. Whether it is the Policy decisions or the issues of securing Internet and Domain Names, lots of development is taking place these days. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been taking many pro active steps in this regard. For instance, recently ICANN and INTERPOL have agreed to work in the direction of securing Internet.

ICANN has also widely contributed for the World of Domain Names. ICANN has formulated the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that has been in effect for over 10 years. It is widely recognised as one of ICANN’s defining accomplishments from its formative years. While not perfect, the UDRP has successfully offered parties a far less expensive alternative to costly litigation for resolving international disputes involving domain name cybersquatting. In the last decade, the Internet community has come to rely on the consistency, predictability, efficiency, and fairness generally associated with the present implementation of the UDRP.

The UDRP has not been reviewed by the GNSO Council since its inception. Now a Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP has been prepared at the request of the GNSO Council and it has been posted online for public comment. The Public Comment period ends on 15 July 2011. Upon the publication of the Final Issue Report, the GNSO Council will determine whether to commence a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the UDRP.

In response to the GNSO Council’s request, Staff conducted preliminary research on the UDRP to identify issues for inclusion in this Report. Due to the tremendous volume of cases and materials available regarding the UDRP (including, over 300,000 hits on Google alone), it became clear that there was no effective way to evaluate these materials. Instead, at the suggestion of the GNSO Council, Staff conducted a Webinar on the Current State of the UDRP (UDRP Webinar), to solicit feedback and information from UDRP experts and representatives from a broad cross-section of stakeholders.

While periodic assessment of policies can be beneficial to guard against unexpected results or inefficient process, the GNSO Council should consider the perspective of the ICANN community with regard to whether such review is necessary or warranted. Although properly within the scope of the GNSO’s mandate, Staff recommends that a PDP on the UDRP not be initiated at this time. However, if the GNSO Council nevertheless believes that the UDRP should be reviewed, Staff suggests an alternative approach for addressing this issue. After carefully evaluating the issues and concerns expressed by the ICANN community regarding the UDRP, Staff has concluded that many issues relate to process issues associated with the implementation of the UDRP, rather than the language of the policy itself. The GNSO Council should consider in lieu of commencing a PDP, convening a small group of experts to produce recommendations to improve the process or implementation of the UDRP policy as an initial step. If after consideration of such expert recommendations, there continues to be a desire to conduct a more thorough review of the UDRP, the GNSO Council could subsequently initiate a more focused PDP at that time.

This Report addresses the GNSO’s specific request for information on:

(1) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process.

(2) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.

This is an opportunity for the ICANN community to provide its views on the current state of the UDRP, and on whether a Policy Development process should be initiated to review the UDRP. This Report will be updated to reflect such feedback in the Final Issue Report to be presented to the GNSO Council after the closing of this public comment forum.