Please join us in congratulating Mediate.com for their recent ABA Award. As readers of this blog may know, Disputing is a Mediate.com Featured Blog. Mediate.com Receives Prestigious American Bar Association (ABA) Award Eugene, Oregon – Mediate.com, the leading mediation web site in the world, has received the 2010 American Bar Association (ABA) Lawyer as Problem Solver Award. The award is for the use of “legal skills in creative, innovative and often nontraditional ways.” The award presentation will be on April 9, 2010 in San Francisco. In awarding the Problem Solver Award to Mediate.com, the American Bar Association provides the following statement: “Mediate.com has been at the forefront of making the power of the Internet accessible to lawyers, mediators and dispute resolution practitioners. Mediate.com has been developing digital products and resources that have advanced the presence and depth of the field of dispute resolution in immeasurable ways and fundamentally altered the practice of mediation by making online strategies practical and available. “Mediate.com offers the field one of the most used information resources, replete with blogs, cutting edge articles, news of mediation and negotiation practice, as well as a place for interactive dialogue. The website is a practical tool for practitioners and helps them become more effective problem solvers. “Mediate.com applies the technology of the internet directly to lawyers and dispute resolution practitioners. The founders of Mediate.com had the foresight to see the importance and applications of the Internet and bring them to bear on a developing field of practice. This groundbreaking website has given tools and resources to the public and to ADR professionals to do their own problem solving in virtually every field of law.” James Melamed, CEO of Mediate.com, responded to news of the award saying that, “If ever there was a team effort, this is it. Mediate.com is the result of more 1,000 authors contributing their best work since 1996. As a result, we are able to bring the best of mediation to the broader world.” Mediate.com has been the #1 mediation destination site for 15 years and continues to provide world class content to consumers and professionals. In commenting on the Mediate.com award, Peter Adler, President of The Keystone Center in Colorado, said, “Mediate.com provides an enormous service to the vast community of people who share a passion for conflict resolution, who want to make the world a better place and who are doing this every single day.” Jeffrey Krivis, a leading California attorney and civil mediator, adds, “Based upon 15 years of passionate work, Mediate.com has become to mediators what Google has become to the Internet.” Mediate.com was founded in 1996 and has developed the most comprehensive mediator directory in the world with over 5,000 listed mediators. Through its 15 years of development, Mediate.com has elevated and expanded the mediation industry and helped to bring mediation to every computer on earth. More information about Mediate.com services can be found here.
Continue reading...by Holly Hayes I recently read a healthcare conflict resolution article in FOCUS, the newsletter of the Harvard Medical, Dental, & Public Health Schools. The article begins with the statement, “Everyone in health care, it seems, has a war story about conflict at work.” In an annual one-week intensive immersion course, Leonard Marcus, who directs the program for Health Care Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at Harvard, and his team teach conflict resolution skills to health care leaders from different organizations. The course adapts to health care the basic principles of conflict resolution described in “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton of the Harvard Negotiation Project. Marcus discusses why conflict in the health care setting is different from conflict in other industries and reviews the ‘Four-step Approach to Problem-solving’ used in the Harvard course: “In health care, we are passionate about what we do, and that’s a plus,” Marcus said. “When passions collide, that same drive can be a source of conflict. The stakes are high–life and death, large amounts of money, big institutions, reputations. Therefore, people fight hard which, ironically, becomes an obstacle in and of itself.” A Four-step Approach to Problem-solving Four negotiation steps developed by the Program for Health Care Negotiation and Conflict Resolution guide minor and major negotiations in health care. The structured multidimensional problem-solving process is called “Walk in the Woods,” after a famous story in which international negotiators at loggerheads over a nuclear arms treaty went for a walk in the woods near Geneva and discovered common interests that led to new solutions. Step one: self interests. Each participant articulates his or her view of key problems, issues, and options. They are encouraged to actively listen, question, and interact with one another. Step two: enlarged interests. The participants reframe their understanding of current problems and possible options with a wider perspective, based on the integrative listening and confidence-building that occurred in step one. Step three: enlightened interests. The group is ready to engage in innovative thinking and problem-solving, generating ideas and perspectives that had not previously been considered. Step four: aligned interests. Participants build common ground perspectives, priorities, action items, agreement, or plans for moving forward. Depending on the scope of the intended objectives, at this point they recognize the tangible contributions and opportunities accomplished through the meeting. Health care professionals at all levels who find themselves in a situation of work conflict can benefit from the “discovery of common interests” — after all, they share the overarching common interest of working together to provide patient’s with high quality care. The Harvard Four-step process can lead parties toward those “aligned interests” and enhanced teamwork. Technorati Tags: Healthcare, ADR, law, mediation Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.
Continue reading...A single-member Panel at the National Arbitration Forum decided the domain dispute Microsoft Corporation v. TN Chen, FA0911001296240 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2010). The Complainant is Microsoft Corporation and the Respondent is TN Chen from China. The domain names at issue are <bing-wallpaper.com> and <bingimg.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. “Bing” is the name of Microsoft’s web search engine. ICANN‘s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be canceled or transferred: The domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. The Panel found that the disputed domain names both contain Complainant’s mark and add the generic top-level domain “gTLD” “.com.” The <bing-wallpaper.com> domain name also adds a hyphen and the generic term “wallpaper.” The <bingimg.com> domain name further adds the abbreviation “img,” which stands for image. The Panel finds the addition of a hyphen, generic term, letters, and a gTLD fail to adequately distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <bing-wallpaper.com> and <bingimg.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BING mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Because Respondent has offered no evidence, and there is no evidence on the record, suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <bing-wallpaper.com> and <bingimg.com> domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized or licensed to use the BING mark.Therefore, the Panel found that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <bing-wallpaper.com> and <bingimg.com> domain names. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Finally, the Panel explained that Respondent’s <bing-wallpaper.com> and <bingimg.com> domain names resolve to a website containing hyperlinks to search engine providers that compete with Complainant. Internet users may use a competing search engine instead of Complainant’s new search engine because of Respondent’s competing use of the confusingly similar disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names disrupts Complainant’s search engine business, which constitutes bad faith registration. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the disputed domain names to be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, arbitration, domain names disputes
Continue reading...Jose Antonio Garcia Alvaro, de Arbitraje y Mediación (ARyMe) reporta lo siguiente: Cataluña se adelantó –y sigue siendo objetivamente la Comunidad más avanzada y atrevida en materia de mediación de España—, pero Valladolid le sigue la pista en materia de mediación civil, si bien a nivel de proyecto inicial piloto de mediación civil adscrito inicialmente a dos juzgados. Así, Valladolid ha obtenido el visto bueno del Consejo General del Poder Judicial de España para poner en marcha la mediación civil como programa piloto anexo a los tribunales de esta ciudad. El principal impulsor de esta valiosa iniciativa fue, y es, el Presidente de la Audiencia Provincial de Valladolid, D. Feliciano Trebolle. Su propuesta fue, y es apoyada por Dª Margarita Uría, Vocal del CGPJ, que hizo hincapié en la novedad del programa y en la trayectoria de Cataluña en este ámbito. ¿Qué se pretende? A nivel de programa piloto no puede ser la pretensión tanto la “descarga a los tribunales”, como acercar la mediación a los justiciables, que de otra manera ni se plantearían la mediación por ignorancia sobre la existencia de la mediación como alternativa. Dos mil diez y esta es la realidad en España: ignorancia casi absoluta sobre mediación civil. Programas piloto de esta naturaleza cumplen con las Directivas de la UE sobre mediación de un lado; de otro, contribuyen a la modernización de la Justicia, que no todo han de ser ordenadores basados en z/OS mainframe; por último, se acostumbra a la Ciudadanía a, cuando menos, contemplar alternativas al juicio ordinario. Estos tres elementos serán los que en su día –y a largo plazo— contribuyan a la “descarga” de asuntos pendientes. Las Juzgados que se estrenarán en este programa piloto serán los de Primera Instancia 5 y 7. Como en todo programa piloto de esta naturaleza, serán los jueces quienes decidan qué asuntos en su opinión son idóneos para la mediación. Sólo será exigible que tras esta opinión inicial del Juez, las partes quieran someterse voluntariamente a un proceso de mediación. A diferencia de un creciente número de países, España no se atreve con la mediación prejudicial obligatoria, ni tan siquiera en programas piloto. La naturaleza de los asuntos que se someterán inicialmente a mediación serán “sencillos”, propios de juicios verbales, monitorios de muy poca cuantía, y relacionados generalmente con impagos de créditos y deudas en general, asuntos hereditarios, de comunidades de vecinos, etc.; es decir, asuntos civiles cotidianos, por expresarlo de alguna manera carente de tecnicismo. Se puede, o no, estar de acuerdo con la mediación como elemento reconstructor de la paz social, un eslogan relativamente reciente y persistente en sociedades que todavía están en fase de venta de las bondades de la mediación. Realmente, se trata de resolver disputas por una vía más sencilla, ágil y comprensible en la que las partes retoman el protagonismo, que en cierta manera ceden a los tribunales por el mero hecho de demandar lo que sea de quien sea. Lo de “hacia la Paz Social”, “cultura del acuerdo” y similares, es generalmente más propio de personas mediadoras que de personas mediadas hoy por hoy Margarita Uría insta al Ministerio de Justicia para que redacte/diseñe un “estatuto del mediador” con objeto de armonizar la legislación en materia de mediación en la totalidad de España. Quizás sea demasiado pronto, porque tiene generalmente poco sentido legislar lo que apenas se usa, a menos que el aburrimiento lleve miradas deambulantes a este ámbito. Un programa piloto es una taza; un estatuto corre el peligro de ser taza y media a destiempo. Quizás sea más acertado esperar y ver qué sucede, qué derroteros toma la mediación civil, qué elementos patológicos presenta, o no presenta, en nuestra realidad regional y nacional, que no en la realidad de ensayistas expertos tan adelantados en el camino hacia la mediación –no es sorna— que la sociedad civil ni les ven, ni les leen, ni les entienden. De otro modo, a escribir legislación de despacho, que es barato. ¿Es barato? ¿Es, sobre todo, aconsejable? Es de recordar el advenimiento de ODR a finales de los noventa y principios de la primera década de 2000. No ajeno a este fenómeno, el Colegio Federal de Abogados de los Estados Unidos de América se preguntó si merecía la pena regular o recomendar la legislación de esta forma de presentar ADR. Se contestó así mismo que no, que era demasiado pronto, que ninguna entidad ODR había madurado, que el modelo de negocio era embrionario, y que regular/legislar sería equivalente a no poder nunca comprobar desde una prudente distancia si la criatura que da sus primeros pasos se sostiene, o se cae. Optaron por dejar crecer a la criatura desde la vigilancia, pero sin reglas, aún habiendo podido elucubrar contra qué se golpearía, o qué podía haber roto, que es parte de la esencia de la mentalidad jurídica “continental”. En definitiva, a veces parece aconsejable animar y dejar hacer; la sorpresa no siempre ha de ser decepcionante, que es parte de la esencia de la mentalidad jurídica anglosajona. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law
Continue reading...Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.
Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.