Micheal raises an interesting point. Because of the need for a global pay portal with reliable customer support in case of questions and/or disputes, I went with Kagi.com for my ebook sales http://globalsense.info/globalsense.html. Have not yet run into any disputes since the book went online, but I'd be curious to hear if people think this approach helps or hinders re. the core issues Micheal raised. Thanks, -- ken
Ken Freed Media Journalist mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Publisher, Media Visions Journal http://www.media-visions.com "Deep literacy makes global sense." ' >(original message) >From: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Hague Convention list > >> Dear co-Hague listers- >> >> I downloaded the Ausralian government's paper on Dispute Resolution in >> Electronic Commerce that Dan Svantesson kindly pointed us to >> (http://www.ecommerce.treasury.gov.au/) and have been studying it. The >> first thing that caught my attention was the prefatory quote from a >> statement by an FTC official: >> >> "A consumer is not going to purchase a product (online) if he or she >> believes that there's no way to get redress if that product is defective >> or, indeed, if the product never arrives. The problem is obviously >> compounded because of the cross-border nature of transactions and the >> fact that buyer and seller often � (are) very far away. And � everyone >> agrees on the goal, which is consumers have to feel safe. The question >> is how to do it. >> Traditionally, of course, the recourse has been to judicial remedies, >> administrative and judicial agencies �But as with all things, the >> internet forces us to confront the challenge of whether this >> traditional way of resolving these issues works in this new environment, >> and I think one of the things that we have to do is recognise that the >> technology that enables these transactions may also provide for >> a new means for resolving them in a quick, efficient and effective >> manner that makes the traditional ways of resolving them maybe >> second-best alternatives in this new environment. � >> �The OECD (in 1999) produced guidelines for consumer protection in >> electronic commerce that set a good substantive level of protection. >> (The OECD calls) for the development of alternative dispute >> resolution, and so really the next step is to say, okay we have got >> these protections, how are they going to be translated in a way that >> consumers really can make use of them? And that's your task today." >> (Andy Pincus, General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, United States >> of America. From an opening address to a forum on Alternative Dispute >> Resolution for Consumer Transactions in the Borderless Online >> Marketplace, Washington DC, June 2000) >> >> While I do not disagree with the apparent intention of this statement, >> however badly put, it strikes me as disingenuous for a number of >> reasons. >> >> First, Andrew Pincus was the general counsel for the US Department of >> Commerce when it was setting up ICANN, the US-approved regulator of the >> Internet domain name system (and much else besides). ICANN is a >> consorcium - a nice way of saying "monopoly" or "combine" - of >> representatives of big-business telcos, network operators, WIPO, and IP >> lawfirms that has steadfastly refused to give Internet users such as >> consumers any say in its operations. Yet, in spite of ICANN's rejection >> of the participation of consumers and other Internet users in its >> policy-making, the DoC and its general counsel Andrew Pincus approved >> ICANN and gave it sole control of the Internet's root database, which is >> to say, the Doc/ICANN can now remove any domain name they want from the >> Internet, including those of whole countries (they have done this) as >> well as of individuals and entities. This enormous power is presently >> wielded without any input whatsoever from Internet users and consumers, >> as the direct result of Andrew Pincus and the US DoC denying users and >> consumers access to the decision-making process. (There are documents, >> including written official statements by Andrew Pincus, to substantiate >> this.) >> >> Secondly, although it is not clear whom Mr. Pincus was addressing, the >> statement is apparently made on behalf of the US Federal Trade >> Commission. Now, just what has the FTC done until today to ensure that >> there is consumer protection in cross-border B2C Internet transactions, >> besides provide a room where consumer protection representatives can >> meet in Washington? I don't recall a single member of the FTC speaking >> out, at any of the Hague Convention meetings I attended, on the dire >> need for the protection of consumers' legal rights to be incorporated in >> the Hague treaty. On the contrary, the FTC has been, so far as I can >> tell, sitting by and allowing international business to lobby the Hague >> delegations to keep consumer protection out of the Convention, as it >> looks likely will now happen. >> >> What, in the end, is Mr. Pincus' and the FTC's interest in promoting, or >> pretending to promote, alternative dispute resolution on the Internet? >> Is it to help consumers in their struggle for some power to offset that >> of online entrepreneurs, with their unfair adhesion contracts, or is it >> to give business a means of escaping the jurisdiction of courts through >> some sham industry self-regulation process like the ADR process (the >> "UDRP") of ICANN? The blatant discrepancies between the statement of Mr. >> Pincus prefaced to the Australian government's paper, and the actual >> actions of the US FTC and DoC, give one legitimate cause to wonder. >> >> M.S.
