Introduction

Online dispute resolution, or ODR,1 was originally devised as a means of resolving disputes arising out of e-commerce. It was natural that such disputes should be resolved in the electronic environment in which they occurred. In such a setting technology is of paramount importance - so crucial that it is considered a fourth party, alongside the two parties in conflict and the third-party dispute resolver. 2 However, its potential remains largely unrealized. This is due in part to the existence of legal obstacles, 3 but also to a persisting lack of trust on the part of users accustomed to traditional means of communication. This lack of trust is fuelled by concerns regarding the security of online communications, data protection, privacy and confidentiality.

The present article aims to address the classical tension between technology and trust. It will begin by considering the factors that influence trust in technology-dependent processes, and will then go on to analyze the requirements of confidentiality and security in online arbitration.

I. The technology-trust equation in ODR

Successful ODR depends not only on the availability of technology but also on an adequate level of trust in its use. Trust is a 'psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another'. 4 It is therefore essentially a subjective concept based on individual perceptions of risk, fear, knowledge, confidence, experiences, awareness and expectations.

In cyberspace, the lack of face-to-face interaction, scepticism about electronic documents and transactions, concerns about the integrity and privacy of web-based communications, and a fear of the perceived complexity of using technology or technology-dependent processes are generally thought to undermine trust. In the specific realm of ODR, the factors affecting trust can be grouped into three categories: (a) technological factors, (b) subjective factors and (c) dispute resolution factors (see figure below). [Page44:]

Trusting Technology and ODR

A. Technological factors

Traditional scepticism towards technology-dependent processes could be easily overcome by ensuring that the technology used is accessible, convenient and secure.

Accessibility implies visibility and round-the-clock availability to compensate for time-zone differences where communication is conducted asynchronously. 5 It also implies ease of access to case information and documents. Convenience means that the technology must be simple, affordable and time-efficient and the platform well organized. 6 Both accessibility and convenience are especially important in online arbitration of transnational business-to-business disputes, which often involve large quantities of documents and data, complex contractual relationships and multiple parties. In such cases, there is an especial need for a hi-tech platform capable of storing large amounts of information and at the same time simple and convenient to access. It is also essential that electronic submissions and communications and virtual hearings (e.g. through videoconferences, teleconferences, multiparty Internet meetings) are accurately regulated and able to accommodate differences in time zones. [Page45:]

Security is also crucial to trust in technology-dependent processes. ODR providers must maintain a high level of security and authentication for access to the platform, case files, and documents. Similarly, communications should be protected by encryption technologies so as to prevent interception, and firewalls should be used to avoid unauthorized access and hacking. 7

It is important to strike a balance between accessibility and convenience on the one hand and security on the other hand. The right balance will help to maintain trust and attract consumers and businesses. It will also help to level the playing field between parties whose knowledge of technology may vary. Imbalances here could have an impact on the requirement of due process. The way to achieve a balance with regard to technological factors might be through a well-organized platform, user-friendly software, clear and detailed information on the use of the software, technical help, and training sessions that familiarize the parties with the technology used.

By and large, the use of technology in dispute resolution does not undermine trust, as the implementation of appropriate hi-tech, user-friendly software as well as the construction of secure online platforms can be effective means of increasing trust. Furthermore, technology may also offer advantages with respect to the organization of proceedings, facilitating record-keeping and allowing cases to be managed more efficiently than would be possible manually.

B. Subjective factors

Knowledge, motivation and experience are the principal subjective factors that influence trust.

It is much easier to trust technology when one knows how it works, even if that knowledge is rudimentary. Fear of the unknown is one of the greatest impediments to trust. Concerns regarding accessibility, convenience and security are likely to arise if parties and their representatives are unfamiliar with the technology underlying online dispute resolution processes. Thus, the provision of technical help, training sessions and practical demonstrations will be indispensable to creating trust in the process and ensuring its success. They will also help to reduce any gap that might exist between the parties' knowledge and experience of technology, especially in transnational disputes where the parties come from different backgrounds and cultures and may well have different levels of computer literacy. 8

Knowledge as a factor of trust is linked to motivation. The desire to resolve a dispute swiftly, effectively and cost-efficiently may cause parties to turn to ODR even though their knowledge of how the process works is minimal. This desire will motivate them to learn about the service and how to use the relevant technology. It is worth noting that motives in resorting to ODR may differ between business-to-business and business-to-consumer disputes. In the former, time-effectiveness, confidentiality, expertise and enforcement may be crucial, whereas legal costs and due process are likely to be uppermost in the minds of consumers. Similarly, the nature of the dispute may have a bearing on motivation. In some instances, ODR may be the only feasible dispute resolution system available, 9 as is the case when small amounts of money or cheap goods are involved. However, the cost of having the necessary IT equipment available should not be overlooked, especially in less developed countries where access to information and communications technologies is relatively more expensive. [Page46:]

Personal experience is another subjective factor that influences trust. Parties' impressions and their personal satisfaction when participating in online dispute resolution processes will affect their confidence in such processes. An organized, transparent, impartial and secure dispute resolution process is likely to give satisfaction and result in greater trust. A policy of transparency should therefore be encouraged at all stages of the process, particularly with respect to the rules of procedure, the role of any neutral third party involved, costs and fees, the expected duration, and the nature of the settlement or award. 10

C. Dispute resolution factors

The main trust-inducing dispute resolution factors are expertise, impartiality, recognition and confidentiality. These factors are of course fundamental to almost all dispute resolution schemes, whether offline or online. However, some of them acquire a particular significance in an online environment, which demands a high level of security.

Firstly, confidence in the dispute resolution process will be all the greater if the third-party dispute resolver has the required qualities and skills. In an online environment, in order to compensate for the lack of face-to-face interaction and avoid any unnecessary errors in communication, the dispute resolver will need to possess technological skills in addition to knowledge of the subject area and the ability to communicate well with the parties and understand and analyze the central issues in dispute.

Secondly, impartiality is required of neutrals and arbitrators. This is a sine qua non, not only to promote trust, but also for the sake of due process, so as to ensure fair and equitable proceedings and avoid the risk of awards being set aside or refused enforcement by competent courts. Thus, particular care must be taken in online arbitration to ensure that each party is given an equal opportunity to present its case and claims, together with any supporting evidence, and that it is notified of the other party's submissions. In an online environment due process requires that parties should generally refrain from communicating unilaterally with the arbitrator. Also, all communications, submissions, expert opinions and commentaries should be stored electronically on the platform and the parties should be allowed secure and easy access to such documents. Time limits for submissions and hearings should be clearly notified to the parties, taking into consideration the possibility of time-zone differences. To avoid allegations of a violation of due process on technological grounds, it important to ensure that all parties have the necessary technology to participate in online proceedings, especially if videoconferences are involved.

Given that there are risks in conducting arbitral proceedings online, the impartiality and fairness of the proceedings will also depend on the participants' acting bona fide. Accordingly, errors in communications and submissions should be conveyed to the parties and the arbitral panel as soon as possible. 11 Good faith and due process also call for adequate encryption and authentication technologies to be used to ensure the integrity of evidentiary documents (including expert and witness opinions) as well as the identity of the parties.

Thirdly, governments should provide adequate, simple and efficient mechanisms for the enforcement of ODR settlements and awards. Although the principle of self-regulation through private actors is usually promoted in cyberspace, governmental intervention should not be thought to undermine the civil and [Page47:] commercial structure of cyberspace or hinder the progression and development of e-commerce. On the contrary, appropriate governmental regulation is a trust-inducing factor, and in the field of ODR appears to be important for its development. 12 Greater cooperation between states, ODR providers and consumer and business organizations is required in this connection. Governmental regulation and recognition of ODR could be achieved on two levels. On an organizational level, governments could provide an accreditation system or support the establishment of ODR clearing houses. 13 On a regulatory level, governments should provide the necessary legislative framework by enacting laws that give full legal effect to electronic contracting, digital signatures and technology-dependent applications in dispute resolution. 14 If electronic processes are given the same legal effect as paper-based processes, judicial recognition and enforcement of electronic awards and settlements will be easier and more certain, which will in turn promote trust in ODR. 15

Finally, confidentiality is another important trust-inducing factor. In cyberspace it is closely linked to privacy and data protection and, more generally, to online security, as data can be intercepted, copied and communicated instantaneously online. Particular care must therefore be taken in an online environment to provide the security necessary to ensure the confidentiality of personal and business information and case details and documents. The risk of a breach of confidentiality is all the greater as it may easily occur inadvertently through the mere click of a button.

Given their importance in establishing trust, confidentiality and security will be further analyzed below in the specific context of online arbitration. 16

II. Confidentiality in online arbitration

Confidentiality aims to foster trust by restricting the dissemination of certain information. It is an established principle in international commercial arbitration, where it represents a key to the success of the process as it helps to guarantee the sincerity of communications exchanged during the proceedings. Accordingly, it is generally hailed as a strategic advantage of international commercial arbitration; 17 although some eminent scholars argue that there is no general duty of confidentiality as such in international arbitration. 18

The practice of international commercial arbitration reveals that confidentiality is of paramount importance to the parties, regardless of whether or not a general duty of confidentiality exists and the legal basis of such a duty if it exists. The parties may include a stipulation on confidentiality in their arbitration agreement, or a separate confidentiality agreement may be signed, especially in business-to-business disputes. Furthermore, resorting to institutional arbitration is also a fundamental safeguard in this respect as many institutions uphold confidentiality [Page48:] strictly and it is often laid down as an obligation in their arbitration rules. For example, the arbitration rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) provide, in similar terms, that all awards, materials and documents produced in the proceedings and deliberations shall remain confidential as a matter of principle unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in writing. 19 The American Arbitration Association (AAA) also has a similar confidentiality provision in its International Arbitration Rules. 20 As regards ICC, Article 20(7) of the its Rules of Arbitration allows the arbitral tribunal to take measures for protecting trade secrets and confidential information, while Articles 6 of Appendix I and 1 of Appendix II to the Rules of Arbitration refer to the confidential nature of the work of the International Court of Arbitration.

The most comprehensive clause on confidentiality is found in the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Arbitration Rules. This is probably due to the fact that WIPO is particularly involved in technology and intellectual property disputes, which usually involve trade secrets, patents and copyright materials calling for a high degree of confidentiality. Articles 73-76 of the WIPO Arbitration Rules provide that the existence of an arbitration, the documents and materials produced in the arbitration, including witness testimonials, and the awards shall remain confidential. This general and comprehensive duty of confidentiality binds the parties, their witnesses, the arbitrators and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre. Only in exceptional circumstances, as when ordered by a court, required by law, agreed by the parties or when the information comes within the public domain will a party be released from its duty of confidentiality and then only within the necessary limits.

Whilst the need for confidentiality is widely acknowledged, there are times when the disclosure or publication of information is necessary or desirable. For instance, this may be needed in the interests of justice, for the sake of transparency, for the protection of consumers in business-to-consumer disputes, or in order to create a system of precedents with a view to promoting legal certainty and predictability. The nature and scope of confidentiality in online arbitration will therefore depend on the balance struck between all competing public and private interests.

In online arbitration, as in traditional offline arbitration, trust will be all the greater if confidentiality is applied widely to case information, documentation, communications and the outcome of the proceedings. Thus, no information concerning the existence of an arbitration, the parties, the award, or any documentation or evidence given by a party or witness in the context of the proceedings should be unilaterally disclosed to any third party by a party whose access to that information arises as a result of its participation in the arbitration, except to the extent necessary in connection with an action to set aside or enforce an award or as required by law or by a competent regulatory body. 21

Confidentiality concerns all participants in online proceedings. These include of course the ODR provider, as confidentiality in the electronic medium is inseparable from security. ODR providers should use effective encryption technologies to ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings and the authenticity of any electronic communications, as well as firewalls and password protected systems to prevent unauthorized access to information. Article 7(1) of the European Model Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Agreement provides that the parties shall ensure that EDI messages containing confidential information are held [Page49:] in confidence and are not disclosed or transmitted to any unauthorized persons nor used for any purposes other that those intended by the parties. 22

In practice, all ODR providers23 respect confidentiality and state that their procedures are carefully designed so as to protect the integrity of information and documentation transmitted electronically and prevent unauthorized access to confidential information. 24 Some providers require the parties, their attorneys and arbitrators to sign a confidentiality agreement covering the identity of the parties, the facts, the arguments and the evidence for the case. 25 Some reserve the right to reveal information concerning the arbitration in any statistical data they publish, provided all references to the parties and confidential information disclosed in the context of the proceedings are omitted. 26

Although confidentiality undoubtedly helps to build trust, so too, it may be argued, does openness and transparency. For the publication of information on proceedings and case results would enable outside observers to see online arbitration working successfully and in compliance with the principles of fairness and due process. This would likely lead to greater confidence in online dispute resolution processes.

The answer to this apparent contradiction lies in striking the right balance. Transparency or disclosure of information need not necessarily imply total erosion of confidentiality, for it is usually the case results and awards only that are made public. The proceedings, communications between the parties and arbitrators or amongst the parties, deliberations and documentation presented by the parties remain confidential, leaving confidentiality intact at least with regard to these matters. 27 To dispel all doubt, it might be worth making reference to the scope of confidentiality and the freedom to publish in the ODR provider's privacy policy or arbitration rules.

The need for confidentiality as opposed to publication may vary according to the nature of the dispute. In business-to-business disputes, the parties often seek anonymity and there would appear to be no compelling need to publicize the outcome of such disputes, which besides may involve trade secrets and confidential information of a technical or commercial nature. On the other hand, in disputes involving consumers, especially business-to-consumer disputes where there is a clear disparity of power, consumers may merit the protection of publicity. 28 Also, such disputes do not usually relate to industrial know-how or trade secrets, so the issues are in themselves less confidential. Indeed, publication may be regarded as a source of added security, as it can be thought to deter potential defrauders.

Despite the arguments put forward in support of publication, the majority of online arbitration providers do not publicize awards. One exception is ICANN. ODR providers operating under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy are required to publish all awards in full online unless the panel decides otherwise. 29 It is argued that such disputes, which are related to publicly registered trademarks and domain names, do not demand the observance of a high degree of confidentiality. Furthermore, the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is directed primarily at cybersquatting30 or intentional misappropriation and is not generally intended for the arbitration of trademark ownership disputes where there is a legitimate claim on both sides; 31 hence it is in the public interest to publicize the outcome of such disputes.

In conclusion, confidentiality is as much a concern in online arbitration as it is offline, especially in business-to-business disputes. Confidentiality is always [Page50:] maintained with respect to the proceedings and electronic communications and documents save in cases where there exists a legal duty of disclosure or the information is already in the public domain. Sometimes, however, the need for transparency and legal certainty militates in favour of the publication of awards, as is the case under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. In any event, this does not affect the general duty of confidentiality that binds the parties and the arbitrators as well as any other persons involved in the process, as publication of the awards is done through the dispute resolution provider approved by ICANN.

III. Security concerns in online arbitration

The Internet and developments in information and communication technologies have revolutionized the way business is conducted and led to the increasing use of electronic as opposed to paper-based means of communication and data storage. These new possibilities are not without risk: data may be intercepted, monitored, altered, accessed, downloaded or even destroyed. Of course, the risks should not be exaggerated: paper-based documents and communication are not entirely risk-free either as they too may be forged, altered, accessed, intercepted or destroyed. The general belief in the greater security of paper-based communication is thus not justified. Moreover, the risks posed by new technologies can be minimized through the use of encryption technologies, digital signatures, firewalls and passwords, as well as privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) to ensure that information about parties remains secure and to prevent identity theft. 32

Security relates to communications between the various players in the proceedings, control of access, and the integrity and authentication of documents and data.

Most security protocols are based on encryption technology, which automatically transforms data into a secret language that is inaccessible to unauthorized persons. In order to access and read the data, a person must have access to a secret key or password that decrypts the language into readable text. 33 Examples of the encryption technologies used to ensure the security and confidentiality of email and web-based communications are Secure Multipurpose Internet Mail Exchange Protocol (S/MIME) and Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) for e-mails and Secure Sockets Layer technology (SSL) and Secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (S-HTTP) for web-based communications. Both S/MIME and PGP are powerful cryptographic products that guarantee both privacy and authentication. Even if the information is intercepted, it remains completely unreadable. As regards SSL and S-HTTP, whilst the former creates a secure connection between a client and a server and has the added feature of being able to encrypt all data passed between the client and the server, including data at the Internet Protocol (IP) level, the latter only encrypts HTTP-level messages and is designed to transmit individual messages securely. Thus, both could be seen as complementary rather than competing technologies.

Control of access is achieved using a login password-protected system, encryption technologies and firewall software to prevent hacking and unauthorized third-party access to case materials and confidential information. 34

Encryption technology is also used to ensure the security of electronic documents. It prevents unauthorized access and manipulation and makes changes to the [Page51:] content of a document virtually impossible. Similarly the use of invisible digital watermarks, which are digital codes invisible to the human eye but readable by computers and software and which incorporate identification information into a document, constitutes an added layer of security to minimize the risk of data alteration, manipulation and forgery. 35 This could be especially useful for electronic arbitral awards and party submissions.

As far as party authentication is concerned, digital signatures provide an effective means of verifying the sender and receiver of information. Digital signatures use what is known as public-key cryptography, which employs an algorithm using two different keys, one for creating a digital signature or transforming data into an unreadable form and the other key for verifying a digital signature or returning the message to its original form. Digital signatures identify and authenticate the signed message with greater certainty than paper signatures. They also provide a means of verifying whether the original message has been altered or tampered with. Whilst the public key of a given signer may be known by other people, who will use it to verify the signature, the signer's private key remains unknown to them, thus preventing the forgery of digital signatures.

ODR providers should observe the fundamental requirements of online security and inform their clients of the security mechanisms they employ. The greater the level of security, the more trustworthy the process becomes. It should be noted that the widespread use of encryption technologies for security purposes could raise a problem at governmental level, as it may be contrary to certain governmental standards of law enforcement and national security. If so, this could pose a serious challenge to dispute resolution providers. The Alliance for Global Business, which is a consortium of leading international trade associations of which the ICC is a founding member, has issued recommendations for governments to remove all controls on cryptographic technologies and applications and to cooperate on a global level to ensure that secure exchange of information is facilitated. 36

Conclusion

Trust in online dispute resolution is built on a variety of related factors. Technology, far from undermining trust, has the capacity to increase it by offering powerful means of securizing information and thereby ensuring confidentiality. However, this potential still remains largely unknown and reticence to the use of technology persists in many quarters. Well-established dispute resolution providers like ICC could play a significant role here by setting a lead through their influence and experience. By embracing online arbitration, such institutions would help support the recognition and promotion of this promising method of dispute resolution. 37 Governments too have a responsibility to create the conditions that will help online arbitration to develop. Their recognition of electronic communications, awards and documents will be an important step in this direction. Under this impulse, technology will have every chance of fulfilling the potential it holds for dispute resolution in the future.

1
In this article, ODR is used to refer to dispute resolution processes that rely on information and communications technologies and are conducted wholly or substantially over the Internet.

2
See E. Katsh & J. Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace (Jossey-Bass, 2001) at 93-116. In some ODR mechanisms technology may actually become the third party, as in automated negotiation and blind bidding.

3
For a more detailed analysis of the perceived legal obstacles to the development of online arbitration see M. Wahab, 'The Global Information Society and Online Dispute Resolution: A New Dawn for Dispute Resolution' (2004) 21 J. Int. Arb.143.

4
R. Walczuch & J. Seleen, 'Psychological Reasons for Consumer Trust in E-Retailing' (Proceedings of the Research Symposium on Emerging Electronic Markets, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2000), <http://137.120.22.236/www-edocs/loader/file.asp?id=368>.

5
ICC, Resolving Disputes Online: Best Practices for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in B2C and C2C Transactions (ICC, 2003) at 12, <http://www.iccwbo.org/home/e_business/word_documents/DISPUTES-rev.pdf>

6
This is the KISS principle (Keep It Simple and Silly). See C. Rule, Online Dispute Resolution for Business (Jossey-Bass, 2002) at 232.

7
Security concerns will be addressed in more detail below.

8
Almost all ODR providers provide instructions, troubleshooting information and training on how to use the platform and software. Even allowing for the time and expenditure required to attend training sessions and practical demonstrations, ODR is still likely to be faster and cheaper than traditional offline dispute resolution processes. Moreover, the knowledge and skills acquired from such training can help to avoid delays when using technology and to ensure due process.

9
T. Schultz, G. Kaufmann-Kohler, D. Langer, V. Bonnet, Online Dispute Resolution: The State of the Art and the Issues, E-Com Research Project of the University of Geneva, Geneva, 2001 at 78, <http://www.online-adr.org/reports/TheBlueBook-2001.pdf>.

10
Disputes in Cyberspace: Update of Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in Cross-Border Disputes (Consumers International, 2001) at 44, <http://www. consumersinternational.org/document_store/Doc517.pdf>; New York Recommendations 2003 (Global Business Dialogue on Electronic Commerce, 2003) at 58, <http://www.gbde.org/recommendations/NYC_Recommendations.pdf>; Recommended Best Practices for Online Dispute Resolution Service Providers (American Bar Association Task Force on Ecommerce and ADR, 2002) at 3-5, <http://www.law.washington.edu/ABA-eADR/documentation/docs/BestPracticesFinal102802.doc>.

11
When institutional arbitration is conducted online, there should be an adequate procedural rule on reporting communication errors within a reasonable or prescribed period of time. A. Vahrenwald, Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement Systems for E-Commerce. Report on Legal Issues, Part IV Arbitration (2000) at 110, <http://www.vahrenwald.com/doc/part4.pdf>.

12
ICC has been actively involved in preapring and issuing a number of policy documents that address the role of governments in e-business. See e.g. Alliance for Global Business, A Global Action Plan for Electronic Business (2002), <http://www.iccwbo.org/home/e_business/word_documents/3rd%20Edition%20Global%20Action%20Plan.pdf>; ICC, ICC Road Map for Internet Governance (2004), <http://www.iccwbo.org/home/e_business/ICC%20Roadmap%20for%20Internet %20Governance%20final.pdf>; ICC, ICC Statement on Information and Communication Technologies and the Internet for Economic Growth and Social Development (2004), <http://www.iccwbo.org/home/e_business/ICC%20Statement%20on%20ICTs%20and %20the%20Internet.pdf>.

13
T. Schultz, 'An Essay on the Role of Government for ODR: Theoretical Considerations about the Future of ODR' in E. Katsh et al., eds., Papers and Proceedings of the 2003 United Nations Forum on ODR (University of Massachusetts Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution, 2003) at 3-5, <http://www.odr.info/unece2003/pdf/Schultz.pdf>.

14
Most recently, on 2 April 2004, the Philippines enacted the Republic Act 9285, or Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, which, in section IV, gives ODR and other web-based applications a concrete legal basis by providing for the inclusion of cases covered by the ECommerce Act of 2000.

15
In some cases, ODR providers may be capable of directly enforcing the decision rendered due to the existence of enforcement mechanisms. For example, under the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the registrar will enforce decisions rendered by the panel and the disputed domain name will be transferred to the winning party. However, the drawback is that the losing party has the option of initiating court proceedings at any point, which emphasizes the need for judicial and legislative recognition of awards rendered online.

16
Three parallel levels of trust may be distinguished in online dispute resolution: trust in the medium (where security is a prime concern), trust in the process (where recognition and expertise are important factors) and trust in the provider (where impartiality and confidentiality weigh most heavily).

17
L. Trakman, 'Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration' (2002) 18 Arbitration International 1 at 5.

18
J. Paulsson & N. Rawding, 'The Trouble with Confidentiality' (1995) 11 Arbitration International 303.

19
See Article 30 of the LCIA Arbitration Rules and Article 37 bis of the CRCICA Arbitration Rules.

20
Article 34.

21
See A. Vahrenwald, supra note 11 at 125

22
Annex 1 to Commission Recommendation of 19 October 1994 relating to the legal aspects of electronic data interchange, OJ 1994 L 338/98.

23
With the notable exception of ICANN, see below.

24
See e.g. Online Resolution <http://www.onlineresolution.com/confidentiality.cfm>; Cibertribunal (Article 9 of its Code of Ethics) <http://www.cibertribunalperuano.org/ingles_prin.htm>; WebMediate <http://www.webmediate.com/privacy.html#confid>.

25
e.g. SettleTheCase.com <http://www.settlethecase.com/arbitration.html>.

26
See e.g. the privacy policies of Word&Bond <http://www.wordandbond.com/images/Privacypolicy.pdf> and NovaForum (The Electronic Courthouse) <http://electroniccourthouse.com/privacy_policy_revised.php>.

27
T. Shultz, V. Bonnet, K. Boudaoud, G. Kaufmann-Kohler, J. Harms & D. Langer, Electronic Communication Issues Related to Online Dispute Resolution Systems (Paper presented to the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference - Alternate Track CFP: Web Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, 7-11 May 2002) [unpublished].

28
ibid.

29
Article 16(b) of the ICANN Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The current ICANN-approved providers under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy are: WIPO, the National Arbitration Forum, the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center and the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution.

30
Cybersquatting generally denotes the registration of, trafficking in, or use of a domain name in bad faith in order to profit from another person's name or a trademark belonging to another person.

31
S.J. Franklin, 'Arbitrating Technology Cases: Why Arbitration May Be More Effective Than Litigation When Dealing With Technology Issues' Michigan Bar Journal (July 2001) 31 at 33, <http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article286.pdf>.

32
The OECD has prepared an action plan aimed at securing effective privacy protection online and building trust in business-to-consumer electronic commerce by encouraging the adoption of privacy policies and the use of PETs, whose prime purpose is to help implement privacy principles. See OECD, Privacy Online: Policy and Practical Guidance (2003), <http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/9303051E.PDF>.

33
There are two main types of encryption: asymmetric encryption (public-key encryption), which is a cryptographic system that uses a public key known to everyone and a private key only known to the recipient of the message, and symmetric encryption, where a single key is used to encrypt and decrypt the message.

34
Firewalls are designed to prevent unauthorized movement into and out of private networks. They provide complete control over traffic into and out of computers, stopping unauthorized access by intruders, as well as unauthorized traffic from computers. They thus reinforce authentication systems, restricting access to private networks to authorized individuals. Also, firewalls prevent malicious programs from entering protected computers. Hardware firewalls may use network address translation (NAT) to conceal the computers in a workgroup network behind a single IP address. See OECD, Privacy Online: Policy and Practical Guidance, supra note 32 at 263.

35
Digital watermarking enables forged copies to be identified. A watermark is introduced throughout a document using an encryption algorithm - or computer instructions - based on a very large prime number. This large number is the key needed to retrieve a watermark. The algorithm selects certain sentences in a document and subtly changes their syntactic structure. See 'Purdue Team Develops Watermark To Protect Electronic Documents' Science Daily (27 April 2001), <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010427071702.htm>.

36
Alliance for Global Business, A Global Action Plan for Electronic Business (2002) at 31, <http://www.iccwbo.org/home/e_business/word_documents/3rd%20Edition%20Global%20Action%20Plan.pdf>

37
It may be noted that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators offers a number of ODR schemes, including an arbitration scheme for the travel industry, a mediation-arbitration dispute resolution scheme for the Musicians' Union, an online climate change adjudication scheme, an online construction adjudication scheme and an online communications and Internet services adjudication scheme.