*Shruti Bist

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms are procedures that assist parties in settling questions without formal court proceedings. Normal ADR forms incorporate intervention and assertion. There are several procedures that can be utilized to determine claims in dispute.

Online Alternative Dispute Resolution (ODR) systems have been seen as significant forms for settling worldwide Internet-related questions. Nowadays, efforts are being made to make accessible modest Online Alternative Dispute Resolution instruments for comprehending debates. Numerous Internet-related debates are without a doubt about people and organizations, who grumble about the online conduct of people or organizations on grounds that such conduct would supposedly contrarily influence them and against which they wish to act and get review often by mentioning the expulsion of the pertinent online substance.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; ODR AND CYBERSPACE

 ADR primarily focuses on moving dispute resolution away from the conventional litigation and court-based decision-making process. This process is further propagated by designing cyberspace as the forum to adopt traditional offline ADR processes such as mediation and arbitration. ODR is much more than just electronic ADR. ODR is regarded as a multi-disciplinary enterprise which provides secure and confidential dispute resolution processes. Commercial online dispute resolution services started off since 1999, with most ODR facilitators being based in the United States.

For the first time in history in January 2000, parties located in the four corners of the globe successfully resolved international legal disputes completely online. There were no real meetings between the parties, but documents, comments and evidence were exchanged which were produced before the appointed arbitrators of various countries. This dispute – concerning domain names – was arbitrated under the dispute resolution policy and rules of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This was administered by e-resolution – the primary organization providing a complete online resolution service relating to domain name disputes.

WIPO Guide to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

The WIPO Center acts as technical advisors to the ICANN drafting committee charged with finalizing the UDRP and its Rules. It has developed WIPO Supplemental Rules which supplement the UDRP.

This Guide addresses the most frequently asked questions about domain name dispute resolution under the UDRP and the administration of disputes by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the UDRP. The UDRP sets out the lawful system for the resolution of disputes between a domain name registrant and an outsider i.e., a gathering other than the enlistment center over the harsh enrollment and utilization of an Internet domain name in the conventional high level domains or gTLDs e.g., .biz, .com, .info, .mobi, .name, .net, .org, and those nation code high level domains or ccTLDs that have embraced the UDRP on an intentional basis. On October 24, 1999, the ICANN Board received the UDRP Rules setting out the strategies and different necessities for each phase of the dispute resolution regulatory strategy. The methodology is controlled by dispute resolution service provider licensed by ICANN. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is such a dispute resolution service provider.

 DISPUTES THAT ARE COVERED BY THE UDRP ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

The UDRP Administrative Procedure is available for disputes concerning an alleged abusive registration of a domain name; that is, which meet the following criteria as per Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP:

(i) The domain name enrolled by the domain name registrant is indistinguishable or confusingly like a trademark or service mark in which the complainant i.e. the individual or substance bringing the objection has rights; and

(ii) The domain name registrant has no rights or real interests in regard of the domain name being referred to.

The five basic stages in a UDRP Administrative Procedure are:

1. The Complainant will file a Complaint in WIPO Center with an ICANN-accredited dispute resolution service provider;
2.  The filing of a Response by the person or entity against whom the Complaint was made;
3.  A chosen dispute resolution service provider of one or three persons in an Administrative Panel will decide the dispute;
4.  The issuance of the Administrative Panel\’s decision and the notification of all relevant parties; and
5. The implementation of the Administrative Panel’s decision by the registrar(s) concerned should there be a decision that the domain name(s) in question be cancelled or transferred.

The Administrative Procedure normally should be completed within 60 days of the date the WIPO Center receives the Complaint.

CYBER DISPUTES MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION CENTER (CDMAC)

Many criminal cases have arrived up with the police and a large portion of them are pending examination since the police don’t have time and important expertise at all police stations to deal with the complex Cyber Crime cases. Therefore, it is necessary for the community and the Government to consider adopting the ADR processes for Cyber Disputes in a serious way.

ADR, as of now, is being utilized in certain spaces of Cyber Disputes. For instance, the vast majority of the E-Commerce Companies have been utilizing Mediation and Arbitration to determine their questions with the clients perceiving the debates as a “Customer Protection Issue”.

CDMAC will utilize ODR offices and this could be an incredible way to arrive at a settlement without the problems of individual hearings. Techno Legal specialist’s assistance will be taken by CDMAC who can decipher forensic discoveries and Cyber Laws.

CDMAC (if approached by the parties to the dispute) should take up mediation or a non-binding arbitration which is then submitted by the parties jointly to the Adjudicating Officer for ratification. If the parties come to an amicable settlement, the process can be closed at the CDMAC level itself. In case one of the parties has refused the terms of the mediation but there is a “non-binding arbitration award”, the party may prefer to refuse to abide and then the matter has to be taken up by either party to the Adjudicator.

The Adjudicator may completely ignore the prior proceedings under CDMAC and hear the issue afresh and take a decision, based entirely on its discretion.

To conclude the formal course of action of ADR, a more organized way to deal with all Cyber Disputes ought to be set up so that the dependency on adjudication and the police is reduced.

In conclusion, due to the benefits attached to it, online ADR is an excellent avenue in order to resolve issues in the cyberspace.

*Advocate, Supreme Court of India.