online dispute resolution, Essays (university) of Law

Download online dispute resolution and more Essays (university) Law in PDF only on Docsity! INTRODUCTION Humans as a whole cannot live in a society without being dependent on another. Interdependence among the people in a society creates numerous advantages but at the same time acts adverse as it might results in conflict of opinions among them and result in a dispute. Disputes are conflict or clash of interests which arise out of legal rights and duties. With increase in inter connected business transactions, it has been found continually difficult to be able to raise a dispute with a party, fight it in court halls, and get the final settlement. There has been an increase in inter-dependency between various business entities which necessitates continued business relationships for smooth flow of work. A single dispute can no more be a reason for completely ending commercial relationships with any particular person. However, in case of a dispute, any approach to the courts causes such severance of relationship which both parties wish to avoid. This led the parties to look for alternative processes which are more polished for resolving disputes and found the key to the door in certain interest-based solutions collectively known as alternative dispute resolution The use of ADR found favour in furtherance of business interests rather than enforcing legal rights in a strict way which may tear up an existing relationship among parties. It shows a movement from the jurisdictional theory to the party autonomy concept. As the concept gained acceptability at international level, rules were framed to make it more convenient for the parties to avail the facilities on an international level The 1958 New York Convention on enforceability of Foreign award, UNCITRAL Model Law, 1985 etc… pushed the concept of ADR further making it a more positive and realistic approach to dispute settlement. But all of a sudden things changed. Rapid increase in commercial transaction as a result of globalization required dispute settlement without the parties actually meeting in a particular place. The introduction of computers helped in inputting raw data and information which could then be processed into meaningful reports. Now, the Internet has taken up the vital role of a free information dissemination tool. It has acted as a communication tool and also a medium of commerce and trade. Two important changes have resulted as a consequence of this change. Firstly, there has been a universal acceptance of the use of computers and the Internet. Increasingly, people are getting 'online' and more numbers are making use of information technology. Computers have become a part of daily life. The concept has gained acceptance in a variety of arenas including, research, entertainment, communication, trade and commerce. There is hardly any area which has not been touched or effected by computer technology. Secondly and more importantly is the fact that the commercial world has accepted computer technology not only for the purpose of collection, assimilation and processing of data and information but rather made it as a tool for furthering their own business interests. This has been made possible by the wide usage of the Internet and more and more people getting 'online'. The phenomenal growth of e-commerce makes it clear that commerce via the Internet has been accepted at large both by the business world and the consumers. These changes also signify the possibility of rise in clashes in interests of the parties, that is, rise in disputes. More the people tend to get online and more the commercial world prefers the Internet as its medium to reach to the consumers and sell its products and more the consumers are willing to purchase goods and services on the net, there is a likelihood of certain disputes which inevitably arises in such commercial transactions from time to time. Therefore, with the coming and use of information technology, another area of dispute has sprung up which needs to be looked into and tackled. These kind of disputes have their own variety of legal hurdles like the issue of jurisdiction or the question of the law applicable to the dispute due to the cross-boundary nature of the Internet. Due to these issues popping out, the use of online dispute resolution has become the preferable mode of dealing with these disputes. All though ODR is a platform which can be benefitted by incorporating it in day to day court proceedings my scope of usage of the term in this project is mostly restricted to use of ODR as a means to settle disputes in a non adverserial setting MEANING OF ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The terminology 'online dispute resolution' (ODR) on the face of it have two meanings. Firstly, it can be viewed as resolution of online disputes. It would include the solving of by any means, either online mechanism or offline method including court adjudication disputes which essentially arises from an online transaction. This would include a dispute like a defect in a computer software purchased online where the payment was made online through a credit card and the software was immediately transferred to the consumer using the same online environment. Secondly, ODR can be looked into from the perspective of method of solving of a dispute using technologies available which makes it possible to solve a dispute remotely. This means that new ways of solving a dispute are developed by making use of the online environment which can be applied to solve any kind of disputes. ODR in this context would include online negotiation, online mediation, online arbitration etc… This project is focused on ODR as a tool for solving of any kind of dispute by using technology available online and not in the sense of resolution of online disputes only. Therefore, ODR covers a variety of ways in which a party, by making use of the 'online environment', solves its dispute or clash of interests. Online dispute resolution (ODR) is a branch of dispute resolution which uses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties. It primarily involves negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or a combination of all three. Online dispute resolution (“ODR”) is conceived as a means to achieve some of the most powerful legal ideals of the Western legal tradition, which include: (1) Legal Certainty: In taking individual plans, decisions, and choices everyone is entitled to know what the law is in advance. (2) Access to Justice: Everyone involved in a dispute shall be entitled to an easily accessible redressal mechanism that provides for a timely resolution and effective remedies at reasonable cost. ODR is concerned with the peaceful resolution of disputes between private parties, and, secondly, with the prevention of such conflicts through the provision of legal certainty. National legal systems fulfill the former function by offering plaintiffs to litigate disputes before state But since the ESCP is a regulation and not a directive, it is argued that it has left too many aspects to the discretion of member states, it has created a vagueness for mutual and collective use of the regulation by all the member states. At present, India has 33.47 million cases pending in district courts, 4.46 million in High Courts; additionally, there is a 21.4% vacancy in district courts and 35.6% in High Courts. So, India requires an online administrative infrastructure for boosting the speed of court processes. Basic changes such as payment of fees, e filing of evidence etc.… can be done in the beginning and later can be improved. In 2005, when the action plan for implementation of an information and communication technology (ICT) in the Indian judiciary was released, the idea was that, within five years of implementation, the judiciary would have state-of-the-art ICT infrastructure. The plan, way ahead of its time and talked about video-conferencing solutions, e-filings, etc. Although the government initially seemed quick and active in implementing it , and within two years, had announced Phase I of the e-courts project, it has been 13 years since, and the judiciary doesn’t have the promised ICT infrastructure. ESSENTIALS OF AN INSTITUTIONAL ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE While ADR can work in an ad hoc environment, ODR necessarily requires an institutional backup. . This means there should be an organizational set-up which offers ODR services. It should have the following features: (a) A proper administrative infrastructure which would support the ODR services. (b) An up-to-date and user-friendly computer interface with a strong back-end support to enable the user to make the best use of the services being offered. (c) A panel of arbitrators, mediators, etc. who are impartial and independent and enjoy the confidence of the industry at large which will be required using the services being offered. It is of utmost importance that any institution providing ODR services must be able to generate trust and confidence among the users. Generating confidence online has been a problem every person wanting to create offer services on the internet has been facing. The primary reason for failure of many e-commerce websites offering various commercial services has been lack of trust. . The primary concern for any user of such online services is, apart from the authenticity and reliability of the service provider, possibility of fixing the responsibility on a single person in case of any deficiency of services. In such situation, not only the online service institution should be backed by an offline set-up, it should also follow the disclosure-based approach which further helps in creating e-trust and e-confidence among the users of the online system. Thus, to fulfill all these requirements the parties may find it very difficult to set up and undertake an online dispute resolution on adhoc basis as they may not possess the required infrastructure, difficulty in coordination etc… KINDS OF DISPUTES HANDLED IN AN ODR ENVIRONMENT ODR does not merely imply the use of online medium to solve disputes. It is a catalyst to help people solve their disputes. The dispute can arise either based on an offline affair or transaction or contract or online. Use of ODR is not restricted to merely solving of online disputes only. ODR is apt for solving of both online and offline disputes. The online method of solving disputes is not dependent upon the kind of disputes or the place where they are arising. If any dispute has arisen, then the parties can very well contact the ODR institution through its Web site services, submit its disputes, choose the method for solving their disputes and proceed further. For example, if there arises a contractual dispute between two businessmen and they agree to have an online mediation, they can approach an ODR institution, submit their dispute, have an online mediator appointed, and proceed with the mediation process online. In case a settlement is reached at, it can be reduced to writing, signed and ultimately, can be enforced as a decree of court under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Similarly, if a company offers ODR services for its products or services offered, a consumer can very well lodge a complaint on the company's Web site and the dispute resolution process can be initiated. For example, a classic case of solving complaints is the online services of Supreme Court Cases (SCC). In case any subscriber fails to receive a particular volume/part/issue of SCC, he can go to the Website of SCC and fill up the complaint form. SCC, after checking its records and verification, gets back to the subscriber through email with any further clarification it requires on the matter and suggesting solution like sending another copy of the missing volume/part/issue and hence, solving the problem. This is a small yet feasible and working model of ODR where a subscriber instead of approaching the company through letters or personally can immediately log on to the Web site of the company, lodge his complaint through a standard online complaint form and through mutual negotiations, the problem is solved. It is to be noticed that here the dispute is not necessarily due to any online transaction rather any normal business transaction could lead to a dispute which is solved online through the company's Web site and use of e-mail services. Another side of this system of course is the solving of online disputes online. Many times, in case of a dispute which has arisen due to online transactions, consumers prefer that the dispute is solved then and there through online services instead of approaching the company through the process of writing letters, phone, etc. Any reliable ODR institution would be of great assistance to solve such online disputes. There might be a situation when the customer finds that there is a deficiency in service like excess amount being charged, etc. In such a situation, ODR is helpful especially if the company has its own in-house ODR service for online transactions to enable the customer to quickly have an online talk with the company representative and resolve the dispute mutually. In-house ODR services, if handled properly, can be quite effective with a higher customer satisfaction because the company representative not only understands the intricacies of the transaction but is also authorized to settle the matter. Another way out is to avail the services of an ODR institution. In case of any differences, the company gives the customer an option to approach an independent and impartial ODR institution through which the problem can be solved. Also, the types of disputes being solved can be divided into Contractual and non-contractual disputes; Contractual Disputes; Disputes between the business and the Internet Service Provider (ISP) or webhosting services provider, including disagreements over interruptions in service, breach in data security etc. Business-to-business (B2B) disputes between the business and its suppliers such as non- performance of contractual obligations, misrepresentations, and complaints from customers regarding services provided by suppliers. Online transactions wherein ODR may be employed to resolve disputes such as: Breach of Contract of business to consumer, consumer to consumer or business to government in matters such as unsatisfactory Service, payment Disputes, mismanagement of Goods ordered and delivered, poor performance of contract, misrepresentations, breach of the privacy policy, and breach of security of confidential information. It is between the business and its customers that lay the greatest possible scope for disputes. Non contractual disputes: These are the common kinds of non-contractual disputes that may arise in an online enterprise. Copyright – The Company might be liable for copyright infringement if it uses copyright material in excess of fair use, and without permission. Data protection – The Company may be liable for sharing or revealing confidential data on customers, as breach of Privacy even when the contract doesn’t specifically cover it but is against law. Online Defamation – The Company may be subject to defamation suits for defamatory material posted online. Like feedbacks on websites. Competition law, Domain Name Disputes – Business may be subject to trademark infringement suits, if it infringes a registered or otherwise legally recognized trademark. If the company has registered a domain name which corresponds to a registered or common law trademark, it may be subject to a complaint under ICANN„s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) ADVANTAGES OF ODR  Flexible: ODR is a, flexible tool of dispute resolution which is not governed by strict rules of procedure and evidence. This allows the parties to design or participate in a process which can be molded to suit their needs and encourages a mutual and peaceful approach rather than an adversarial approach.  Reduced litigation costs: The costs of the process or compensation given to the neutral evaluator are generally borne equally by all parties, providing all parties with an equal stake in the outcome and an equal sense of ownership. Also, expensive court fees and increase in expenditure due to lengthy processes in traditional form of settling disputes in the form of adversarial proceedings can also be avoided.  More efficient pre-hearing preparation ODR’s functionality improves the efficiencies in pre-hearing and hearing materials. An online document management system makes it much easier to manage documents, including when searching for, sharing materials between the client, counsel, experts and witnesses of fact. The lines in a hearing material can be hyperlinked to the COMMUNICATION MODES IN ODR One of the advantages of online environment over physical environment is the availability of various communication modes to a user. It becomes important to select the appropriate mode to conduct the ODR process since different kinds of disputes require different types of modes. E-mail: It is one of the most common and easiest ways of communicating today. It permits the sender to not only send messages but also attachments like, text files, graphic files, audio/video files, etc. The sender of the e-mail can send it to one or more persons using the "To:" or "CC:" option or even send a copy to a third person without any knowledge of the other recipients of the e-mail using the "BCC:" option. E-mail is useful for filing of pleadings, documentary evidence, communication between the ODR institution and parties on administrative issues, etc. This mode is also helpful when, in case of mediation or negotiation, the parties are unable to instantly take decision. For example, in case of an online mediation of a matrimonial dispute, a situation might arise where, due to family and social norms, one party, maybe the wife, needs to consult her parents before she can answer back. In such a situation, interacting through e-mail gives her sufficient time to think over the matter and also consult the elders of the family before giving a reply. Discussion boards: These platforms are used when there are many persons wanting to give their views on certain issue or issues. Discussion boards are a collection of messages from different people at the same place so that one can, at a single glance, view the entire discussion. Best example would be google classroom, slack etc.… However, this kind of communication too poses a problem specially if there are multiple issues with multiple parties involved. Each party will then want to give its views on each issue as per its convenience. Then rather than a simple discussion board, we switch over to the thread-discussion board. For example slack is beneficial for threaded discussion where a party can thread their reply to a issue In this system, if A gives his comment on Issue I and then B gives his comment on Issue II and then C on Issue III, if D wants to give its reply to the comment given by A on Issue I, D's reply would be threaded with the A's comment and would be seen under A's comment itself rather than at the end of the discussion. Therefore, on each issue, all comments and replies come under one heading to give a clear picture as what the parties think about that particular issue. This kind of communication mode would be useful in a commercial dispute where various issues are involved. Instant messaging: As the name suggests, it instantly sends the message to the recipient. In this mode, the persons who are sending messages are all online and connected to each other through a common instant messaging system like WhatsApp They can open a common window on which they can have a discussion and can even open up separate individual windows to talk to one or more persons privately. Messages are sent and received immediately. This mode is suited to ODR systems like online mediation where the mediator and both the parties can have a joint discussion. However, if the mediator wishes, he can also have a private session or with a single party, of course, after informing and taking permission from the other party. This mode is also beneficial in in-house ODR services of companies where the consumer and the company's representatives can instantly communicate with each other and problems can be solved. For example, in the SCC case discussed above, this can be a feasible solution. However, again, not only should the company representative have adequate data available at hand to solve the dispute but should also be authorized to do so. Audio conferencing The purpose of audio conferencing is to enable the users communicate real-time. As one speaks, the other person can hear. With the help of advanced telephonic technology available, we can have audio conferencing with more than two persons talking and listening at the same time, or a group of individuals on either side having a discussion. It is useful for almost all forms of online dispute resolutions. The mediator or the arbitrator can discuss the matters over phone with the parties or the parties themselves can talk with each other during the process of negotiation. Video conferencing Video conferencing is the best mode for ODR. Combining the advantages of audio and visual facilities, it is only one which goes somewhere near the face to face environment. This mode enables the players of the system to see and listen the others at the same time and also able to respond. This mode is particularly useful in case of oral arguments as the video conferencing makes it feel as if the parties are presenting their arguments face to face. The problem, however, at present is of lack of required bandwidth to be able to have a smooth and uninterrupted video conferencing especially in underdeveloped and developing countries KINDS OF ODR MECHANISMS 1)Blind bidding or blind negotiation: 'Blind bidding' or 'blind negotiation' is one of the most innovative dispute resolution services currently available online. The common characteristic of these processes is that the parties submit monetary offers and demands which are not disclosed to the opposing party but are compared by computer in 'rounds'. If the offer and demand match, fall within a defined range (e.g., within 5% of each other) or overlap, the case is settled for the average of the offer and demand, the matching amount, or the demand in the event of an overlap. If the claim is settled, the participants are immediately notified while online or by e-mail.5 For example, cybersettle.com offers such service 2)Online negotiation: An ODR service provider which is mostly an institution providing alternative dispute resolution services, to help the parties reach an amicable settlement, creates an online environment. This environment is created by making use of technology which guides the dispute resolution process as and when required. For example, a company called Smart Settle aims to accelerate the negotiation process for any type of cases and allows parties to participate in appropriate combination of face-to-face meetings, conference calls and online exchanges in order to quickly find a fair and efficient resolution. The parties are provided with an apt atmosphere to be able to negotiate. The Web site generates suggestions to help the parties quickly reach a solution. Smart Settle works by contacting all parties and help them in engaging a single/multiple facilitator. A framework for agreement is built up. After this, the parties privately identify their best and worst options to scope a bargaining range for each issue. Parties then assign private estimates of the relative importance of each issue. The issues and expectations constitute the parties' optimum level of satisfaction. Next step is to encourage parties to create initial proposals with optimistic values that allow for concessions. Parties may offer visible concessions and/or request suggestions from Smart Settle. Any party may register a confidential acceptance of any suggestion made by Smart Settle. When both parties accept the same package, a tentative agreement is reached. When parties are ready to sign, the Framework for Agreement is filled in with the best solution found. Online negotiation-cum-mediation This kind of ODR involves the dual process of negotiation and mediation consecutively. The parties can initiate the ODR process by opting online negotiation and make an attempt to negotiate their differences and reach at a settlement. In case they are unable to do it themselves, a mediator is appointed which conducts an online mediation and helps the parties reach a settlement. For example, SquareTrade.com provides individual and business to business buyers and sellers an online negotiation-cum-mediation environment. The complainant files a case with Square Trade by completing an online form that helps identify the situation and possible resolutions. The other party is notified by e-mail and responds to the case. Communication from both parties is posted on a private Case Page. Then direct negotiation begins. During direct negotiation, the parties communicate with each other in a confidential, impartial forum. If the case is not resolved, Square Trade assigns a mediator from the Square Trade Network who helps the parties reach a mutually acceptable settlement. Document/e-mail arbitration As the name suggests, the whole process of arbitration is carried out through document/e-mail. Right from filing of arbitration agreement to filing of disputes with documentary evidence, written submissions, written hearing, closing statements are all done through e-mail. Interaction between the arbitrators and the parties are done through e-mail. In case the arbitrator wants to ask questions or parties want to make a submission or reply to other's submissions, e-mail is the mode used. WEBdispute.com currently offers Document/E-Mail Arbitration for disputes resulting from e- commerce transactions. Participants complete and submit an Agreement to Arbitrate and Oath of Participation. WEBdispute.com issues a schedule for submitting and answering disputed issues including statements of the case, documents and affidavits and sets a five-day e-mail Hearing. In recent times, a shift in the pattern of resolving disputes can be established as more and more ODR platforms have become operable in our country facilitating particular kinds of dispute resolution for many national and international companies. These ODR platforms have made easy the process of dispute resolution by combining the already existing process of ADR with cutting edge technology, making the process feasible and time convenient altogether.  CADRE or Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution Excellence is a website-based platform for ODR. First, one party approaches the platform which then contacts the other party. If both the parties agree then an arbitrator is appointed and time-stamped intimations are sent through e-mails or WhatsApp. Usually, the parties do not meet face to face but they make contact electronically via video calls. The decisions that are legally binding come within 20-25 days of time. CADRE has been resolving tenant and rental contract disputes for Nest Away an online home rental startup recently.  SAMA is another ODR platform that facilitates easy access to high-quality ADR service providers and helps people to resolve disputes online. SAMA is being used as an ODR platform by ICICI Bank to resolve nearly 10,000 disputes with values going up as high as INR 20 lakh.  CODR or Centre for Online Dispute Resolution positions itself as an institution that administer cases online end to end.  AGAMI is another non-profit ODR platform that aspires to create a better system of law and justice by providing time-efficient and feasible dispute resolution methods.  YOUSTICE is an ODR service for handling large volumes of low value consumer complaints, relating both to goods and services, whether or not the purchases took place online. There are two tools. The first enables negotiation between parties. It provides assistance in framing arguments – parties are invited to describe their position by selecting from a series of phrases, with relevant icons for each. The site also suggests suitable solutions that again can be represented by icons  EBAY -A significant 60 million disagreements amongst traders on eBay are resolved every year using ODR. There are two main processes involved. For disputes over non- payment by buyers or complaints by buyers that items delivered did not match the description, the parties are initially encouraged to resolve the matter themselves by online negotiation. They are assisted in this by clearly structured, practical advice on how to avoid misunderstandings and reach a resolution.  (UDRP) & INDRP: The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) created by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).has developed a transparent global ODR process that allows trade mark owners to fight efficiently issues arising out of domain name in the internet world. The UDRP is used to resolve disputes between trade mark owners and those who have registered a domain name in bad faith for the purpose of reselling it for a profit, or taking advantage of the reputation of a trademark. Trademark owners accessing the UDRP must prove to the panel three circumstances: 1. similarity of the domain name to the trade or service mark; 2. lack of rights or legitimate interest in the registered domain name; 3. bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name. Similar to the UDRP in India INDRP deals with all domain name disputes which have.in as their generic top-level domain name but the UDRP has disputes similar to those present in disputes arising in e-commerce transactions. The main worry is that the evaluation the panel decisions often shows a lack of unanimous consensus in the interpretation of the UDRP. This may be due to a number of reasons, such as the lack of an appellative review and panels composed by members from a multitude of jurisdictions and informed by different legal traditions. On the other side, it is undeniable what ICANN with the UDRP has achieved in developing an effective ODR procedure. The UDRP providers have dealt efficiently with over 30,000 domain name disputes. Their success derives from two aspects: First, the UDRP deals only with blatant disputes, which are abusive registrations made in bad faith in order to take advantage of the reputation of existing trademarks. Secondly, it has incorporated a self-enforcement mechanism, which transfers and cancels domain names without the need for judicial involvement. This is a positive accomplishment for the development of e-commerce because it favours consumers' confidence in the Internet by reducing the number of fraudulent registered domain names.  The RBI has announced the introduction of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) system for resolving customer disputes and grievances pertaining to digital payments, using a system-driven and rule-based mechanism with zero or minimal manual intervention. As a step in this direction, authorized Payment System Operators (PSOs) – banks and non- banks – and their participants are hereby advised to put in place system/s for ODR for resolving disputes and grievances of customers. authorized PSOs shall be required to implement an ODR system for disputes and grievances related to failed transactions in their respective payment systems by January 1, 2021.If the grievance remains unresolved up to one month, the customer may approach the respective ombudsman. The Reserve Bank of India already has the Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions, 2019 in place. It is an expeditious and cost-free apex level mechanism for resolution of complaints regarding digital transactions undertaken by customers of the System Participants. For redressal of grievance, the complainant must first approach the System Participant concerned. If the System Participant does not reply within a period of one month after receipt of the complaint or rejects the complaint, or if the complainant is not satisfied with the reply given, the complainant can file the complaint with the Ombudsman for Digital Transactions within whose jurisdiction the branch or office of the System Participant complained against, is located. E CONFIDENCE OF THE ODR SYSTEM One of the greatest concerns for an ODR institution is whether its services will be accepted at large by the online public. At the same time, one of the fears of the online user is whether the online institution is trustworthy. After all, if one is agreeing to arbitrate through an ODR institution, the very thought that the online arbitrator's decision would be binding on the person and can be enforced as a decree of the Court, is in itself very scary. The parties would never physically see the arbitrator and there is always a thought of partiality and bias. It is, therefore, a must that the ODR institution is able to generate e-trust and e-confidence among the users of the online system. To aid this process the American Bar Association Task Force on E-Commerce and ADR proposed Guidelines and Recommended Best Practices by ODR Service Providers to assist the party to a dispute make an informed and intelligent decision. 1.Transparency and proper means of providing information All information and disclosures should be accurately and completely stated, should be presented as clearly and simply in identifiable and accessible formats, and should present the most important points in an appropriately conspicuous manner. It should be printable and able to be downloaded electronically. 2. Minimum disclosures ODR providers should disclose the minimum level of information like contact and organizational information, terms and conditions and disclaimers for the service, explanation of services/ADR processes provided, any pre-requisites for use of service like geographical location or membership, etc. 3. Use of technology and the online environment for dispute resolution ODR providers should disclose the current availability of technology, like possibility of dealing with disputants' differences in language and culture, or incorporating audio and video streaming, or accessibility to persons with disabilities or with low levels of literacy, preservation of confidentiality and privacy of the parties, accessibility, back-up and arrangements for alternative emergency access. Further disclosures are required regarding training of the neutral parties in the system like the arbitrator, mediator, potential participants/parties, in the use of online systems. 4. Costs and funding Disclosures as to the preliminary costs for the process and what portion of the cost each party will bear are necessary. Equally important is to disclose the source of funding in case one of the parties is not required to pay at all. This is important in Business to consumer transactions where generally the company funds its own in-house ODR system. 5. Impartiality This is one of the important disclosures to be made by the ODR service provider to generate confidence in the user. ODR providers must disclose relationships with other organizations (like merchant associations), selection process of neutrals (eligibility and qualification of a neutral), ethical standards of neutrals (ethic rules, if any, by which neutrals are bound). 6. Confidentiality, privacy and information security ODR institutions should give their Privacy Policies, confidentiality concerning information about participants provided to the ODR Provider and concerning specific proceedings. 7. Qualifications and responsibilities of neutrals matter of the arbitration and not on the place where the arbitrator sits or renders the award or where the parties are established. 4. Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which states that tribunal is not bound by provisions of CrPC and INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT and so may decide upon the procedure to be followed in conduct of such proceedings thereby making online or live conduct well within the legal domain and no one can challenge such proceeding merely on the ground of being an online resolution proceeding. MAJOR INITIATIVES TAKEN BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT FOR PROMOTING ODR 1. In 2018, the Indian Parliament passed the ‘Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement Rules’ in terms of Section 21A(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, which makes it mandatory for commercial disputes over INR 3,00,000 rupees to undergo mediation before filing proceedings in court. 2. The Finance Ministry had introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, in the budget for 2019-20 with the objective of settling pending disputes of Service Tax and Central Excise as. Over 133,661 taxpayers had submitted their application by 31st December 2019 whereby the applicable tax dues of Rs 69,550 crores were settled at Rs 30,627 crores. 3. In May 2019, a high-level committee constituted by the Reserve Bank of India submitted a report on 'Deepening of Digital Payments' in India. The committee was of the view that payment systems should move towards using a machine driven, online dispute resolution (ODR) system to handle complaints expeditiously. 4. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission drafted the Consumer Protection (Mediation) Regulations, 2019 under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. These regulations set out the procedure for empanelment of mediators at District, State and National level consumer grievance forums, procedure of mediation proceedings, fees and costs. 5. Recently President of India Shri Ram Nath Kovind and Chief Justice of India Shri S.A. Bobde stressed on the adoption of mediation as a tool for dispute resolution and integrating artificial intelligence in judicial processes. 6. The Finance Ministry recently expressed the need for a new law to safeguard foreign investments by speeding up dispute resolution in the country. An unpublished draft of the Finance Ministry has proposed appointing an expert and setting up fast-track courts to settle disputes between investors and the government. 7. The Finance Ministry recently unveiled the Amnesty Scheme ‘Vivad se Vishwas’ in the 2020 budget for Direct Taxpayers to settle appeals pending at various forums. Under this scheme, the taxpayer will get a complete waiver on interest and penalty on the disputed tax amount, if the scheme is availed by March 31, 2020, now extended to June 30, 2020 in view of the current COVID-19 situation. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN EFFECTIVE ODR MECHANISM 1. Enactment of a separate legislative Framework should be considered 2. Steps to be taken for security measures in ODR and not completely relying on IT principles because they are framed for domestic purpose by each country. 3. Separate online arbitration procedure should be initiated. 4. Awareness among the people regarding ODR mechanism as an effective tool for settlement of dispute. 5. For proper and effective mechanism of ODR a proper infrastructure should be initiated with background support from traditional arbitration principles. 6. Need of specialized institutions that can provide training, education, research and policies for the success of ODR in India. 7. Develop a robust ODR platform, which is easily accessible, user-friendly, less expensive and efficient for resolution of disputes. The judiciary can refer pending matters to ODR platforms for dispute resolution. Lok Adalats must be encouraged to utilize ODR platforms to conduct online Lok Adalats. NALSA and state legal services authorities can be encouraged to engage with ODR institutions. This way, courts can focus on urgent matters. Practitioners and lawyers can focus on the more important cases particularly now, and it will enhance the livelihood of lawyers who can engage as neutrals on these ODR platforms. Court-mandated mediation under the Commercial Courts Act and the Consumer Protection Act can be hosted on ODR platforms for far more consistent and deeper reach across the Indian society. CONCLUSION The main features of traditional ADR mechanism such as impartiality, transparency in dispute resolution, neutralizing of power imbalances between the parties are all found to be incorporated even in ODR mechanism. This similarity between the two methods drives people to try adopting this more effective and reliable method of dispute resolution especially in the e-commerce business. ODR is a successful method when a combination of several factors drives interested parties to get the desired results. A few them are building trust in the parties to adopt to such method, identification of interests, ascertainment of facts, designing of solutions, monitoring of agreements and building on experiences. The historic forerunners of the odr mechanism such as e-bay and ICANN indicate that usage of Web platforms rather than emails as a medium to communicate and settle disputes is a preferable option. ODR is no more limited to deal with disputes arising merely out of online activities but also more than that Although ODR has been accepted and adopted only as a testing and experimental platform for dispute resolution, the seriousness in adoption of the mechanism will only augment when more awareness and institutional development takes place by its stakeholders. It is a common belief that ODR may initially succeed in resolving small claims related disputes as opposed to the high-stake matters as parties prefer to enter into arbitration and present oral arguments in physical hearings in high stake cases. The mindset of people will change when ODR processes get streamlined with the passage of time and initial reluctance to use ODR will fade away. For an ODR system to prove more practicable and feasible than litigation to a party, it needs to offer greater accessibility of technology, infrastructure, affordability, and convenience of use, flexibility, transparency apart from adequate security, impartiality, expertise and legal enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, propagation of ODR practices will involve spreading awareness, public-private partnership, IT training and education, bringing necessary changes to the legal frame work, and to the extent possible, developing an internationally accepted body of core principles with a substantive and procedural law for ODR practices. Thus, ODR holds a promising role in creating an efficient regime for dispute resolution using Information Technology and to promote growth of the economy as a whole. This process also shows how conventional hurdles of differences in traditional systems, socio-cultural, legal and psychological approaches can be flawlessly bridged by the use of technology Such is the power of technology but if only put to the right use.