December 12, 2000

1. ADR, a Japanese View December 12, 2000 Naoshi “Ozzie” Shima VP, Internet Business Development NEC Corporation E-mail : n-shima@cj.jp.nec.com

2. GBDe Objectives • GBDe: Global Business Dialogue on e-Commerce • Established in 1998 • Worldwide, CEO driven effort • Development of policies to promote global e-Commerce • For benefit of businesses and consumers everywhere <http://www.gbde.org>

3. Principle of Governmental/Private Sectors Cooperation 3. International Coordination 1. Private Sector Leadership Development Europe, Africa Americas Asia, Oceania 2. Stable Legal Environment Given by Government (OECD: October, 1998) e-Commerce

4. Global Policy Discussions Japan Japan-US Governmental/ Business Dialogues Japan-EU Governmental/ Business Dialogues Global Governmental/Business Dialogues USA EU Transatlantic Governmental/ Business Dialogues

5. GBDe Organization GLOBAL CHAIR REGIONAL CHAIR REGIONAL CHAIR REGIONAL CHAIR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BUSINESS STEERING COMMITTEE AMERICAS ASIA/OCEANIA EUROPE/AFRICA Issue Working Group Issue Working Group Issue Working Group Issue Working Group Issue Working Group Issue Working Group

6. Consumer Confidence Trustmark Consumer Confidence Jurisdiction ADR eGovernment Personal Data Protection Personal Data Protection Paperless Trade and Internet Payment Authentication and Security Cyber Security and crime Cyber Security IPR IPR IPR Contents and commercial communication Digital Bridge Digital Bridge Liability Taxation Taxation Tax and Tariff Trade Policy Trade Policy Information Infrastructure and Market Access Convergence GBDe Working Groups 1999 2000 2001 a a b b

7. GBDe Members (as of December,2000) Global Chair Fujitsu Korea Telecom Vivendi MIH America On Line Cisneros Group Regional Chair TD Financial Group Seagram EDS Intesa IBC Columbia Time Warner Telefonos mexico Grupo Carso HP RSL Communications Andersen Consulting Universo On Line IBM IG Mercury2 Children’s TV Network eMusic Walt Disney Telecom Argentina ALESTRA Fiera BCE Chubb Corp. Venezuela Analitica Editores MCI WorldComm Nortel Networks Caribbean Communications Network Gradiente Eletronica LG-EDS Singapore Computer Utili-Mode Sharp Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Hitachi Nomura Research Toshiba Mitsui Telecom Malaysia NTT NEC Joong-ang Daily Acer Everest SIC KPN Alcatel ABN AMRO Bank DT Siemens Deutsch Bank Daimler-Chrysler Bertelsmann FT Mediaset Nokia Brokat BBVA Telefonica TD Invest Standardata Egypt C&W BSC Members Americas Asia/Oceania Europe/Africa

8. GBDe Activities Calendar Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Brussels Business Leaders meeting NYC Global Business Meeting 1st Brussels Sherpa meeting ‘98 5th Seattle Sherpa Meeting 1st NYC BSC 2nd Tokyo Sherpa Meeting 3rd Paris Sherpa Meeting 4th LA Sherpa Meeting 1st Paris Plenary ‘99 6th Capetown Sherpa Meeting 2nd NYC BSC 7th Korea Sherpa Meeting 8th Paris Sherpa Meeting 2nd Miami Plenary 9th Taipei Sherpa Meeting ‘00

9. Recommendations from Consumer Confidence Issue Group, 1999 • Rec.1: Governmental support on development of trust and transparency for businesses • Rec.2: Governmental support on businesses • initiatives on security and privacy • Rec.3: Cooperation between Government and business to provide consumers with efficient remedy mechanisms instead of not necessarily effective national consumer protection laws • Rec.4: Governmental support on businesses effort to provide convenience for customers.

10. Recommendations fromJurisdiction Issue Group, 1999 • Rec.1: Government should promote development of ADR mechanisms • Rec.2: Cooperated policy for the development of self regulations, code of conducts, trust marks and seal program • Rec.3: Freedom of choice and freedom of contract • Rec.4: Country of origin principle in the absence of contractual choice of law • Rec.5: Country of origin principle for civil and criminal law issues • Rec.6: Free choice of forum in the absence of provision in a contract

11. Scope of Work of ADR WG, 2000 • Study ADR’s role in B2C disputes • For that, pre-study on the current status in three regions • Issue recommendations to Internet Merchants, ADR service Providers and Governments

12. Overview of Dispute Resolution Mechanism on B2C NEGOTIATION CONSULTATION MEDIATION ARBITRATION LITIGATION Out of court Mediation Court based Mediation ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Informal ADR Formal ADR For B2C Our concern

13. Recommendations from ADR WG to Internet Merchants 1. Use of in-house customers satisfaction program prior to ADR 2. Clear notification on the website of readiness for ADR 3. Clear opened information on ADRs enough for the choice by the customer

14. Recommendations from ADR WGto ADR Service Providers 1. Autonomy and Impartiality of the organization providing ADR 2. Handling by qualified officer 3. Accessibility and convenience 4. Practicability of decisions in terms of cost and speed 5. Transparency of proceedings 6. No restriction on contests 7. Proceedings executable by proxy 8. Equity based, and 9. No binding force of decisions, unless pre-accepted

15. Recommendations from ADR WGto Governments (1/3) 1. Jurisdiction issue must be resolved regardless of having ADR 2. Necessary policy cooperation between government and private sector on ADR should be made 3. Promote public awareness of ADR 4. Encourage the use of ADR after negotiation and before the court 5. Encourage private sector to develop ADR services, including education and training for ADR Officers

16. Recommendations from ADR WGto Governments (2/3) 6. No discrimination among ADR service providers 7. Refrain from mandatory accreditation procedure 8. Allow ADR to function on the basis of equity, code of conducts or other rules 9. No requirement of lawyer qualification to ADR officers 10. Promote the development of globally applicable ADR

17. Recommendations from ADR WG to Governments (3/3) 11. Refrain from creating obstacles for the innovative use of technology 12. Binding arbitration to be made possible in certain cases 13. Minimum procedural and form requirement 14. Adjust existing offline based ADR to be capable of handling online dispute

18. Responses at the Miami Plenary • First Comprehensive report durable for the use in further practical study • No bureaucracy should be brought into the discussion of ADR • Some contradiction may exist in the paper as a whole

19. NEC Corporation (Asia/Oceania Contact Point) V 1.0 - 31/05/2000 Has binding force (as a contract) Has binding force (as a contract) Has binding force (as a contract) Court-enforceable (as a result of settlement contract) Court-enforceable (as a result of settlement contract) Court-enforceable (as a result of settlement contract) Court-enforceable (as a result of settlement contract) Court-enforceable (as a result of settlement contract) Court-enforceable (as a result of settlement contract) Overview of Dispute Resolution in Japan ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) An informal, private and flexible mechanism aiming at fast and economical settlements (as compared with litigation) NEGOTIATION CONSULTATION MEDIATION ARBITRATION LITIGATION Basic characteristic Carried out between the concerned parties Provision of expertise by a third party Moderated by a third party Judgement by a third party Judgement by a third party 《out-of-court》 《Court-based》 JIS Proposal (Complaint-handling management systems guide) Under applicable laws Under applicable laws Regulations/ Guidelines Under applicable laws Not regulated Not regulated Agreement by both parties Agreement by both parties Agreement by both parties On request of a single party Agreement by both parties On request of a single party Pre-conditions Agreement on results Mutual agreement Non- agreement Mutual agreement Non- agreement Mutual agreement Non- agreement Mutual agreement Non- agreement （Mediated Settlement record） (Settlement contract) (Settlement contract) (Settlement contract) Go to Consultation, Mediation, Arbitration or Litigation Go to Mediation, Arbitration or Litigation Go to Arbitration or Litigation Go to Arbitration or Litigation Binding force of results Has binding force Has binding force Has binding force Enforceability of results Enforceable under law Enforceable with court decision Enforceable The enforceability within Japan of settlements mediated through equivalent foreign systems needs further study Enforceability of foreign results Enforceable with court decision Enforceable with court decision

20. What’s found through pre-study in Japan • Most people believe in the good faith of merchants/manufacturers and try negotiation first when not satisfied • Most people hesitate to go to court and prefer consultation and out-of-court mediation when negotiation fails • Basic consumer protection law obliges local governments to establish the consultation center

21. What’s found through pre-study in Japan • In addition, central government, NGO and industrial organization based consultation centers already exist • These centers are off-line based and face lack of knowledge/experience/ skills issues on handling on-line disputes

22. Points under discussion • No possibility in selection of judge in litigation • Lack of specific business expertise/experience of judge in litigation • Deregulation in attorney law • Big difference between the power of consumers and merchants/ manufacturers in dispute settlement

23. Scope of Work of Consumer Confidence WG, 2001 • What we discussed in GBDe’s Taipei Sherpa meeting on December 3 & 4 are…

24. Thank you! http://www.gbde.org