【導(dǎo)讀】下一步將一一討論自主解決機制的方式，并將說明計算機技術(shù)和遠程通信。關(guān)的消費者對這種糾正機制的信心問題。第五部分將討論為制定監(jiān)管框架所應(yīng)做出的努力。應(yīng)最終建立嚴格的規(guī)范架構(gòu)，以確保正當程序的適用，但目前還很難做到這一點。此，糾紛當事方之間通常相隔甚遠。通過法院訴訟和執(zhí)行這類糾紛由于增加的費。的矛盾是原告和被告的管轄。一個管轄機構(gòu)，該機構(gòu)可給任何一方提供便利。別是跨國交易雙方。1996/1997年在美國和加拿大在第一次提。只適用于雙方在實際情況已基本調(diào)查清楚的基礎(chǔ)上提交書面意見的糾紛。相比之下，在美國，消費仲裁條款通常是強制執(zhí)行。和相關(guān)軟件發(fā)生糾紛，根據(jù)仲裁條款應(yīng)提請國際商事仲裁法院予以仲裁。美國的案例表明，對于消費糾紛仲裁的收費必須與其債權(quán)價值相當。書面意見和書面證據(jù)做出決定，只是該項決定不具有法律約束力。團進行民事審判。種高度自愿的程序使各方充分表達自己的意志和主張。

　　

【正文】 cheme and representation of consumer interests on the board of the scheme. Unfortunately, these requirements are rarely implemented in the existing schemes . Furthermore, the individual arbitrators or mediators should be obliged to observe a code of professional ethics. Such a code should oblige them to disclose any personal interests and to avoid conflicts of interest. The job security and pay of third parties must be sufficient to guarantee impartiality . Information as to pliance with these requirements should be provided to the user . Finally, the allocation of third party arbitrators/mediators should be made randomly. One party should not be allowed to choose the individual arbitrator or mediator. Publicity and Transparency Traditionally, secrecy and confidentiality have been an important factor in favour of the parties39。 choice of an outofcourt procedure. By the same token, therefore, the parties may expect that the ODR proceedings are kept confidential. To the extent that ODR enables the settlement of private disputes and no adverse public interests are involved, ODR should equally allow for secrecy and confidentiality. However in the consumer context, there may be wider public policy concerns 15 involved. For example, in cases of widespread business malpractice on the mass consumer emerce market, the public should have a right to know. Equally, looking to the future, if ODR bees the dominant form of dispute resolution in emerce disputes, ODR arbitration decisions should form a body of law as there will be few court decisions and otherwise the rights and obligations of parties in emerce will be uncertain. It can be argued that the law governing emerce will not develop further and be not transparent, unless decisions are published. Obviously this argument only applies to binding online arbitration, as online mediation does not produce authoritative rulings. Unless there is sufficient transparency ， Nevertheless the question arises to what extent publication of results is practicable. It is to be expected that suppliers will resist the publication of results. For online mediation, because of the informality of the discussions and solutions reached, publication probably has to be limited to general statistics such as the number and kind of disputes . In the ideal world, in the case of consumer online arbitration, however, the decisions should be published. In practice, most ODR providers have not implemented publication of results and, of course, there is no legal obligation on them to do so . Finally, for the purposes of transparency, the ODR scheme should also make clear the type of rules, standards or law (such as legal provisions, equity, codes of conduct) serving as the basis for the settlement or decision . Language Barriers Only few ODR providers have given sufficient attention to the problem of cultural and linguistic differences. At present, most ODR services on offer are conducted in English and only very few offer a bilingual or multilingual service . Right to be Heard, Right to Respond, Fair Hearing The right to a fair hearing means that each party must be given an opportunity to state their case and to hear and respond to the other party39。s submissions . Online Dispute Resolution schemes usually rely on written (webbased or ) submissions by the parties. The parties should also be given a fair time in which to respond . To the extent that the ‘hearing’ is conducted in writing only, signs of nonverbal munication will be lost. Applicability of the Due Process Requirements This part looks at the essential question whether it is realistic to demand that high standards of due process be observed in all cases. In many instances, consumer 16 disputes are trivial and factually straightforward, so that ODR has to be very low cost and efficient. For access to justice to be ensured, the cost of dispute resolution should be proportionate to the amount at stake. The cost factor is clearly one of the important advantages of ODR pared to offline litigation or ADR. The use of worked technology makes dispute resolution much cheaper. However, for consumer disputes over very small amounts even ODR (involving a human mediator or arbitrator) might still be too expensive, since, obviously, skilled and experienced mediators and arbitrators will charge for their services. In these instances, simple forms of online mediation and Complaints Assistance are apposite to solve the dispute. Highly automated plaints procedures and some form of ‘money back guarantee’ with an insurance pany backing the supplier may be the only viable solution for very small value consumer disputes . Thus, for the determination of due process standards the procedure has to ply with, a distinction must be made between on the one hand simple, low value disputes and more factually plex or high value disputes. Whereas the former can and should be highly automated and informal, the latter should ply with stricter standards as to the criteria of due process and fairness. In higher value or plex disputes, more quality may be needed . Thus, the approach to consumer ODR has to be scaled: the higher value or the more plex a consumer dispute is, the more strictly the ODR mechanisms should ply with certain standards of due process set out in this paper. Having e to the conclusion that at least some consumer ODR procedures should ply with standards of due process, the next question arises as to how these standards should be implemented. of Standards for Consumer ODR (omitted) 6. Conclusion Two conclusions from an examination of consumer ODR are clear. Firstly, it can be concluded that ODR schemes forming part of the guarantees given by a trustmark or ODR schemes forming part of the services of a marketplace are more effective. Secondly low value eme