[Ecommerce] UN/CEFACT Legal Working Group Meeting Report
James Love
James Love" <james.love@cptech.org
Fri Mar 1 16:22:05 2002
CEFACT/2002/LG05/Rev.1
Page 4
CEFACT/2002/LG05/Rev.1
Page 3
GENERAL
CEFACT/2002/LG05/Rev.1
19 February 2002
United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and
Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT)
LEGAL WORKING GROUP (LWG)
MEETING REPORT
Fourteenth meeting
18-19 February 2002, Geneva
SOURCE: The secretariat
STATUS: Meeting report
ACTION: For review at the fifteenth LWG meeting on
1-2 July 2002 in Cologne, Germany
Agenda item 2
INTRODUCTION
The fourteenth session of the Legal Working Group (LWG)
took place on 18-19 February 2002 at the United Nations
building in Geneva. The list of participants can be found
in the annex to this report.
Agenda item 1 - Welcome, apologies and administrative
matters
David Marsh, Vice-Chairman of the LWG, extended a warm
welcome to all participants and explained that as a
result of the unfortunate illness of the chair, Rob van
Esch, he would be chairing the meeting. Apologies were
received from Rob van Esch, Dan Hunter and Deana
Wickensheimer.
Agenda item 2 - Adoption of the agenda and the report on
the December 2001 LWG meeting
CEFACT/2002/LG01/Re Agenda for LWG 14th meeting (Geneva,
v.1 February 2002)
CEFACT/2001/LG15/Re Report of the September 2001 LWG meeting
v.3
CEFACT/2000/LG16 Action list resulting from the December
2002 LWG meeting
The meeting adopted the draft agenda, with amendments as
reflected in this report, and approved the report on the
previous meeting.
Agenda item 3 - General update and information
David Marsh noted that in view of the intensified work of
the LWG, this agenda item would be abolished, but if
there were issues of special importance for information
and discussion at the corresponding LWG meeting, they
could be raised as separate items on the agenda.
Agenda item 4 and 5 - Report by the Legal Rapporteur and
information on the restructuring of UN/CEFACT
Mr. David Marsh, the UN/CEFACT Legal Rapporteur, informed
the meeting of the further development of ebXML work and
the evolving relationship with OASIS which had led to a
restructuring of UN/CEFACT's working groups . The
consultation process on the restructuring, however, had
fallen behind schedule. He added that the LWG was
considered an important element of the structure and its
role was not expected to change. He noted , however, that
the names of the groups would be changed and the Legal
Working Group would be called the Legal Group. Hans
Hansell added that the final proposal for the
restructuring of UN/CEFACT was not yet ready but he
expected major movement ahead at the forthcoming
UN/CEFACT Steering Group (CSG) meeting on 25-28 February
2002.
Agenda item 6 - Promotion
David Marsh noted that the LWG continued to seek a
company to assist in the development of a software to
support the distribution of Recommendation 31, the
Electronic Commerce Agreement.
Action 1: Mario Apostolov will redistribute the high-
level specification for a software to support the
distribution of Recommendation 31 to the LWG
listserver, to Luca Palermo, to Dora Cresens and
to Jean-Claude Morand from RosettaNet.
David Marsh informed the meeting that he had made a
presentation regarding the LWG's work to a symposium on e-
commerce at the World Customs Organization in Brussels.
Action 2: David Marsh will send his PowerPoint
presentation on the LWG programme to the LWG
listserver.
Mario Apostolov informed the meeting that the UN/ECE
secretariat was considering the publication of LWG
Recommendations in a separate brochure, accompanied by
guidelines for their use in developing and transition
economies and elsewhere.
Agenda item 7 - Online Dispute Resolution
CEFACT/2001/LG14/R Draft Recommendation on Online
ev.2 Dispute Resolution (ODR)
CEFACT/2002/LG04 Comments Concerning Draft ODR
Recommendation
CEFACT/2002/LG07 ICC Comments on the Online Dispute
Resolution Draft
The Group reviewed the draft recommendation on ODR
submitted by ECP.NL and expressed gratitude to Ton
Wagemans for this contribution. Comments were received
from Irene Lyakova, PhD student on ODR in Hamburg
University and currently an intern with UN/ECE, Mr.
Ryohei Asaoka from JASTPRO in Japan, and Ms. Aysha Hassan
from ICC. Ton Wagemans explained that the goal of the
draft was to give an idea what ODR was and to stimulate
Governments, to promote it. The draft contained examples
of ODR and a general description of ODR. Further, it
dealt with Art. 17 of the European Directive on
Electronic Commerce, The neutrality of the proposal and
its language were considered to be very important.
One of the received comments suggested the leaving out of
the examples because it was not certain how long each of
the mentioned forums would be active. One of the basic
objections was JAS/PRO's comment that the paper was
focused on the European experience and B2C, and would be
difficult to implement in Japan and other countries of
the AFACT region. The issue was how to change the focus
from B2C to B2B reflected in the European directive, to
B2B which would itself be mirrored in the focus of the
work of UN/CEFACT. Finally, some important choices had to
be made: (1) should there be an Annex (quite general,
giving an idea about the activities of the providers);
and (2) whether the tone of the recommendation should be
changed from B2C to B2B. ODR is used in B2C sectors, and
it would be slightly different in a B2B environment.
David Marsh stressed that the objective of the draft
recommendation was perhaps, properly, stating the
obvious, and reflecting the immense interest in ADR,
namely that UN/CEFACT might consider all steps in the
evolution of ADR schemes, and to suggest that Governments
should not pose legal barriers to ODR. He added that ODR
draws inspiration from B2B and B2C issues because of the
serious impediments to trade in those environments. There
were huge barriers because of the absence of certainty
regarding the applicable law and jurisdiction. .
Richard Hill reported that he had worked on the
development of dispute resolution mechanisms, and
stressed that in the current state of the art, they
worked online without encryption. He explained that a
serious problem was sometimes created in cases when
arbitrating parties went bankrupt. SquareTrade resolves
cases resulting from e-Bay auctions. In each case a
special website was created. The parties and the mediator
would communicate via email, and the website was password
protected. If one was dissatisfied with the services one
might place a public complaint on the web site. David
Marsh noted that the ICANN UDRP was, in practice, only
effective because its decisions were internally
enforceable.
Klaus Brisch suggested that one should identify various
scenarios of disputes that could be addressed by dispute
resolution mechanisms. It would be wise to concentrate
only on specific cases are capable of on-line resolution.
One example was the ICANN mechanism where the actual
exchange of documents was done in paper but the award
could be done online.
Renaud Sorieul expressed concerns about the development
of a draft recommendation based on such a very general
statement about the necessity of ODR. There were not many
successful cases to cite. He noted that it would be
difficult to show to governments of developing countries
what the Recommendation was advocating. He did not
consider it appropriate to regard UNCITRAL as associated
with the preparation of this Recommendation. Because of
the unclear situation in developed countries, UNCITRAL
was not convinced of the appropriateness of preparing a
general Recommendation on ODR. As regards e-arbitration
there were problems concerning the issues of the
arbitrability and due process requirements in B2C
environments, even if they worked in a B2B. Different
techniques should not be mixed. He considered the problem
far from being solved.
Ton Wagemans noted that the recommendation would be
brought to the attention of Governments that create
barriers to ODR. Richard Hill stressed that the work in
the UNECE was more didactic than creating actual model
documents, which was the field of UNCITRAL. In this
sense, he noted that suggesting to the outside world that
various issues existed and needed solutions would
perfectly fit the role of UN/ECE, UN/CEFACT and its LWG
as a catalyst. David Marsh noted that UN/CEFACT
concentrated on B2B issues but this did not prevent the
LWG from working on B2C or A2C issues.
Klaus Brisch suggested reviewing the draft by
reconsidering the definition of dispute resolution. David
Marsh noted that the recipients of the draft
recommendation are Governments rather than the business
community. He suggested defining the basic requirements
for ODR. .
David Marsh noted that the LWG Chairman, Rob van Esch,
had suggested that progress towards a draft
Recommendation should be measured leaving its preparation
for a period beyond the horizon of the UN/CEFACT Plenary
in May 2002. David Marsh stressed, however, his
conviction that the mechanisms can work if they have
practical applicability, as in the case of WIPO. The
inter-sessional procedure of approval could be invoked to
approve the draft on a later stage. Richard Hill
suggested that the recommendation might include a
statement in the preamble that ODR solutions would apply
to B2B, B2C or G2C environments and differentiate among
them.
Action 3: Ton Wagemans will revise by 1 March 2002
document CEFACT/2001/LG14/Rev.2, Draft
Recommendation on Online Dispute Resolution
(ODR), in view of the comments received and the
discussion at the February 2002 LWG meeting. The
draft will be reviewed by the UNECE secretariat,
David Marsh and Rob van Esch by 29 March 2002,
and will then be distributed to international
organizations for review and comments, to be
received by the UN/ECE secretariat and Ton
Wagemans by 31 May 2002. Ton Wagemans will act as
the focal point for updating the draft
recommendation in view of further comments. The
paper will then be further considered at the July
2002 LWG meeting.
Agenda item 8 - Electronic signatures, cross
certification and the function of certification
authorities
David Marsh stressed that if different international
organizations deal with one and the same issue, they
should work together and not struggle for delimitation of
territory. Klaus Brisch noted that the UNCITRAL Model Law
on electronic signatures had appeared after Britta and
Klaus Brisch had drafted their paper on Cross-Border
Recognition, and expressed a concern that the the two
documents dealt with the same issues. Another concern was
that no substantive comments had been received on the
paper which he and Britta Brisch had drafted. He proposed
that UN/CEFACT's LWG should concentrate its work on the
practical issues.
Richard Hill brought into the discussion the issue of e-
voting in Switzerland and the canton of Geneva, where the
law allows this voting. Public key encryption was a
problem in the public environment. There was no way to
show if a vote was altered. There could be systematic
fraud that could not be detected. Britta Brisch noted
that a meeting of the European Commission regarding the
implementation of the Directive in the EU States showed
that most countries have their own laws on e-commerce,
but the technical practices did not fit the laws. The
problem was more clearly expressed in the private sector.
David Marsh agreed that there could never be sure a
resolution of the cross-border certification issue until
an international convention was adopted. He saw e-
signatures as a confidence-building factor in
international trade, but noted that in certain countries
there existed legislative barriers to the recognition of
foreign certifications. Richard Hill added that a uniform
law could also work. Klaus Brisch noted that the European
Commission is seeking a solution based on an
international convention. This was one of the possible
solutions but not the quickest one. Richard Hill
suggested that creating joint certification or an
international model recognition on the basis of
reciprocity might be a conceivable solution.
David Marsh noted that, given the serious problems of
cross-border recognition, the only solution would be an
international convention, but he suggested that the LWG
had no expertise to prepare that. Britta Brisch confirmed
that the preparation of a convention would take time, but
it might be possible to prepare first a recommendation
and then a convention. Mateo Mariani supported the idea
of developing a recommendation first and then injecting
it into the WTO process. David Marsh suggested that a
first step might be to send out an inquiry in all
international organizations about the need of a UN
deliverable on the issue, using an updated version of the
paper drafted by Klaus and Britta Brisch.
Klaus Brisch noted that there was a problem regarding the
legal value of cross-recognition, in particular
concerning compliance with forms, requirements, etc. In
the UNCITRAL Model Law there was nothing on this issue,
and this might be an area where an LWG contribution could
add value. He and Britta Brisch undertook to redraft the
paper, including a reference to reliability issues. An
explanation of the idea of a minimum standard should be
included as well. Britta Brisch stressed that they had
addressed the issue in a B2B environment and not on the
level of the individual in a B2C or C2G envoironment. She
asked whether the LWG would consider the issue of
evidential requirements of e-commerce. David Marsh noted
that in a B2B environment we should identify how a
contractual solution can be developed but he felt that it
may be inappropriate to expand the work to cover
evidential issues.
Richard Hill suggested an "Opting in" mechanism for a
Recommendation. He suggested that the LWG would add value
by preparing clauses that could be used in contracts.
Richard Hill pointed out that there was also the problem
of the formal recognition of e-signatures in situations
where there was an evidential requirement. David Marsh
suggested noted that the evidential requirements were the
internal business of each country. In B2B environment
there currently could only be a contractual solution in
order to accept a foreign signature in another country.
Technical people might consider that as useless because
of its uncertainty.
Action 4 : Klaus and Britta Brisch will revise the
paper on cross-border recognition by 29 March
2002. Mario Apostolov will distribute the
deliverable to ICC, WTO, UNCTAD, OECD, UNCITRAL,
the Hague Conference on International Private Law
and other relevant organizations for comments.
Agenda item 9 and 10 - Trading Partner Agreement and
contribution to the e-business work of UN/CEFACT
CEFACT/2002/LG02 Commentary concerning the comparison
between the TPA LGP and the EDI
Recommendation No. 26 of UN/CEFACT
CEFACT/2002/LG03 Danish comments Concerning the TPA
Agreement
CEFACT/2002/LG08 Comparison/Gaps between the TPA and
LWG's Recommendation 26 (in Excel)
CEFACT/2002/LG09 Frequently Asked Questions on the
Trading Partner Agreement
David Marsh explained that since Dora Cresens had joined
the LWG in September 2001, the LWG had decided to
consider the TPA within its programme of work. There
might be a number of different documents looking at the
same problem, and the problem was not whether one was
worse than the other but the issue of consistency of the
measures recommended in them.
David Marsh noted that Rec. 26 operates on the basis that
in 'traditional' EDI that the partners know each other,
while the challenge of new technology such as XML
comtemplatedthe ability to deal with new companies that
were not familiar with each other. Moreover, the
interactive nature of XML suggested the existence of a
new risk, and the issue of liability with relationship to
this risk had to be addressed. The parties to an
agreement would have to agree on the limitations of IPR
issues in agreeing to work with an XML repository. The
issue of liability with respect to the repository in an
XML environment was important. This issue was not
addressed in Recommendation 26, (as it was not relevant)
and was also not addressed in the TPA project. For this
reason he suggested the inclusion in the TPA draft a
'neutral' limitation of liability clause. In this clause
the partners would agree that they would not seek
recompense from each other because of the interactive
nature of XML.
Luca Palermo noted that the issue of liability was
important, but the TPA wanted to keep issues simple as a
tool covering a much broader field than simply EDI. He
noted that the ambition of the TPA was to create a
worldwide reference that might become a standard. The
general legal provisions were the core of the TPA.
Richard Hill noted that in the EDI environment there was
also a repository (TDED). Luca Palermo said that the
difference was that XML had a stronger penetrating
ability into trading partner agreements, and ebXML
allowed trading partners to meet for the first time.
Luca Palermo noted that the TPA team had gone through a
long development process, which had been approved by
industry consortia. They would need now a fast process of
achieving success for the TPA. Hans Henning underlined
that in the ebXML process the TPA is referred to
primarily in technical terms and a legal TPA was
necessary. He added that, in the framework of the open
development process of UN/CEFACT, it would be a good idea
to distribute the TPA to other industries for input.
The consultation process would result in a time framework
that would go beyond the documentation deadline for the
May 2002 Plenary, which is 15 March 2002. Mario Apostolov
explained that the TPA deliverable could go through the
inter-sessional approval procedure. Luca Palermo stressed
that the idea of the gap analysis was a very good point
of consultation.
Richard Hill suggested the inclusion of the mechanism of
a third party (a trusted third party or, TPP) in the
discussion on the TPA. David Marsh stressed that even if
the remit of LWG within UN/CEFACT covered both B2B and
B2C, there could be a reference to other environments in
its deliverables.
Hans Henning suggested the inclusion of the TPA into the
open development process of UN/CEFACT, more specifically
into the ebXML technical specifications framework. He
also reported that the former trading partner agreement
document in ebXML has been renamed and is now called a
"collaboration partner agreement".
David Marsh suggested the following way forward :
Action 5 :
1. The LWG will draft a document commenting on
the current draft of the TPA.
2. David Marsh will draft a limitation of
liability clause, and the TPA team will
consider including it into the TPA.
3. David Marsh will draft amendments on the FAQ
by 1 March 2002 and send them to Luca Palermo.
4. The LWG will launch the procedure of
consultation on the TPA with other
international institutions.
Agenda item 11 - Report on UNCITRAL activities
Mr. Renaud Sorieul informed the LWG that not much had
changed since the Lugano meeting of the LWG. UNCITRAL had
prepared a draft convention on electronic contracting.
One question was why it was limited to electronic
contracting and not expanded to all types of contract
formation. The documents UNCITRAL had adopted were
available on the web site of the Commission. At its
session in New York in March 2002 UNCITRAL would discuss
e-contracting, in particular contract formation on the
Internet, and would draft general provisions for a
document similar to a model law. There had been some
positive comments on the draft from the ICC, which worked
on contracting in general, and not only e-contracting.
Another subject to be discussed in New York would be the
TRA 196 - in order to clarify the role of the model law
on the national level. There was no current work on ODR,
but there would be more activity, especially with regard
to the expected revision of the New York Convention, art.
2, regarding the establishment of an arbitration
agreement in writing or by exchange of letters. There was
more support on opening the NY Convention to E-Commerce
than there had been two years earlier. An interpretative
declaration was expected in order to open the NY
Convention to e-commerce. The admission of an oral
arbitration agreement would be discussed. However, the
group concentrating on this issue was not advancing as
fast as expected. Revision of art. 7 of the New York
Convention as well as work on a Model convention on E-
Commerce were items on the work programme of UNCITRAL for
the future.
UNCITRAL was changing its way of work: there was going to
be not just a one week sessions, but each session was to
be split into three topics. As consequence there would be
two one-week meetings per topic per year. David Marsh
asked who would be entitled to participate as an observer
in the UNCITRAL meetings, and Mr. Sorieul noted that
UN/ECE had always been invited to UNCITRAL's meetings.
David Marsh undertook to provide the url where the UK Law
Commission report on contract formation formalities could
be found.
Agenda items 12, 13 and 15 - Report on the AFACT and
NAFACT subgroups and Possibilities to Broaden the
Geographical Scope of the LWG
David Marsh informed the meeting about the work of the
AFACT sub-group. . He noted that the Sri Lankan
Government that had supported a lot the activities of the
LWG in the past, might well be able to be actively
involved in the AFACT LWG work again.
Further, David Marsh noted that Mr. Phil Nichols would
again be available to assist in the work of the LWG after
the end of his one-year secondment to the University of
Ulaan Baatar. Mr. Dan Hunter had expressed his
willingness to participate in the LWG, but was burdened
with other commitments. He reported that ITC had provided
contacts for five lawyers in Africa interested in working
with the LWG. Mr. J.J. Olumekun a CSG member had provided
the contact details of a Nigerian lawyer. Prof. Deana
Wickensheimer was making progress with the organization
of a meeting in Latin America.
Agenda item 14 - the International Forum on Trade
Facilitation
Mario Apostolov informed the meeting about the
preparations of the International Forum on Trade
Facilitation on 29-30 May 2002, at the United Nations in
Geneva. He noted that the goal was to provide a neutral
forum outside of the WTO framework, where the countries
had agreed to agree on trade facilitation at the next WTO
Ministerial Meeting in 2003. One of the possible
recommendations expected from the Forum was to indicate
that more work was necessary in the UN on recommending
measures to developing and transition economies in order
to improve their legal systems and facilitate
international trade.
Agenda item 17 - Any Other Business
Mario Apostolov will look into the possibility that the
UN/ECE secretariat invites EDIFICE to the UN/CEFACT
Plenary session in May 2002.
Dora Cresens invited the LWG to become an observer to
EDIFICE. The next meeting would be in Dublin. Information
can be found on the web site www.edifice.org
David Marsh and François Vuilleumier, Chairman of ISO TC
154, informed the LWG meeting about the idea of
organising a workshop on Intellectual Property Rights
issues concerning the ownership of the products of
international standards e-commerce work. .
Agenda item 16 - Rolling dates for further meetings and
possible venues
The LWG agreed on proposed meeting dates for the
following 12 months:
1-2 July 2002, Cologne, Germany
26-27 September 2002, Copenhagen, Denmark (to be
confirmed)
9-10 December 2002, London, UK, (to be confirmed)
Annex
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Members
Ms. Britta BRISCH Tel.: +49 221 95 780 10
Attorney at Law Fax: +49 221 95 780 11
SECUNET E-mail: brisch@secunet.de
Weidenauer Strasse 223-225
57076 Siegen
Germany
Mr. Klaus BRISCH, LL.M. Tel.: +49 (0)2 21
208070
Graf von Westphalen Bappert & Modest Fax: +49
(0)2 21 239255
Slierring 42 e-mail:
klaus.brisch@westphalen-law.com
D-50677 Köln
Germany
Ms. Dora CRESENS Tel.: +32 16 765440
EDIFICE secretariat Fax: +32 16 765358
Tiensestraat 2 Mobile: +32 75 854039
3320 Hoegaarden e-mail:
dora.cresens@edifice.org
Belgium web site:
www.edifice.org
Mr. Hans Henning ERIKSEN Tel.: +45 39 966101
Consultant, EDI & e-business, DANPRO Fax: +45 39
966102
Danish Standards Association Mobile: +45 20 932617
Kolegievej 6 e-mail: hhe@ds.dk
DK-2920 Charlottenlund Web site: www.ds.dk
Denmark
Mr. Arve FOYEN Tel.: +47 21 955500
Simonsen Foyen Advocatfirma DA Fax: +47 21 955510
P.O.Box 6641 St. Olavs plass 9 Mobile: +47 91
819962
N-0151 Oslo e-mail:
arve.foyen@simonsenfoyen.no
Norway Web site:
www.simonsenfoyen.no
Mr. Matteo MARIANI Tel.: +39 6 59932463
Ministero Commercio Estero Fax: +39 6 59932663
Direzione Servizio Studi e-mail: mc5826@libero.it
Divisione IV
00100 Rome
Italy
Mr. David J. MARSH Tel: +44 870 903 1000
(Vice Chairman of the LWG) Fax: +44 870 904 1099
UN/CEFACT LEGAL RAPPORTEUR Mobile: +44 7768 886891
Electronic Business and Internet Law E-mail:
djmarsh@netcomuk.co.uk
Wragge & Co. Web site:
http://www.wragge.com
3 Waterhouse Square
142 Holborn
London EC1N 2SW
United Kingdom
Mr. Carlos MORENO Tel: +41 22 917 20 65
Legal Officer Electronic Commerce Branch Fax: +41 22
917 05 04
SITE, UNCTAD
Palais des Nations E-mail:
carlos.moreno@unctad.org
CH-1211 Geneva 10 Web site: http://www.
unctad.org
Switzerland
Mr. Renaud SORIEUL Tel: +43 1 260 60 4071
Senior Legal Officer, UN/OLA/ITLB Fax: +43 1
260 60 5813
Secretary, UNCITRAL E-Mail:
Renaud.Sorieul@unov.un.or.at
VIC, P.O. Box 500, room E.0465
Renaud.Sorieul@uncitral.org
Wagramerstrasse, A-1400 VIENNA
Renaud.Sorieul@unvienna.un.or.at
Austria Web site:
http://www.un.or.at/uncitral
Mr. Ton WAGEMANS Tel.: +31 70 4190309
ECP.NL Fax: +31 70 4190650
Overgoo 11 e-mail:
ton.wagemans@ecp.nl
P.O.Box 626 web site: www.ecp.nl
2260 AG Leidschendam
The Netherlands
Invitees:
Mr. Richard HILL Tel.: +41 22 7305887
Councellor, SG 2 Fax: +41 22 7305853
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau e-mail:
Richard.hill@itu.int
International Telecommunication Union web site:
www.itu.int
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
Mr. Luca PALERMO Tel.: +41 91 6128617
CMM/SPI Program Manager Fax: +41 91 6128601
STMicroelectronics N.V. e-mail:
luca.palermo@st.com
Via Cantonale 16/E web site: www.st.com
6928 Manno
Switzerland
Mr. François VUILLEUMIER Tel.: +41 31 322 6523
ISO TC 154 Chairman Fax: +41 31 322 7872
Direction générale des douanes, CH e-mail:
fvuille@attglobal.net
c/o DGD, Monbijoustrasse 40
CH-3003 Bern
Switzerland
UNECE Secretariat
Mr. Mario APOSTOLOV Tel.: +41 22 917 1134
Economic Affairs Officer Fax: +41 22 917 0037
UNECE Trade Division E-mail:
mario.apostolov@unece.org
Palais des Nations Web site:
http://www/unece.org/cefact
8-14, avenue de la Paix, office PN 419
1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Mr. Hans HANSELL Tel. +41 22 9172457
Deputy Director UNECE Trade Division Fax: +41 22
9170037
Palais des Nations E-mail :
hans.hansell@unece.org
8-14, avenue de la Paix Web site:
http://www/unece.org/cefact
1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Irène Liakova, M.E.S, LL.M. (Hamburg) Tel : ++49 40 40
188 617
PhD Student in ODR Fax: ++49 40 40 188 618
University of Hamburg Mobile: ++49 172 40 87 330
Legal Department e-mail:
cogitum@justice.com
Seminar for Civil Procedure
Ottersbekallee 21
20255 Hamburg
--------------------
James Love, mailto:love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176