Our mission is to create, on the Internet, a trusted and trusting community. Many may question the feasibility of this mission, but we are going to try it anyway!
Definition. Let us define trust for the purpose of our discussion. Trust as "believing that others tell the truth and keep their promises." Trust can be risky if our belief is wrong; if trusted persons do not tell the truth and do not meet their promises. We exclude from the definition "gullibility"-- unreasonable trusting and "faith"-- believing unconditionally, usually as a matter of religion.
Importance. Trust is important. Advanced economies, and in fact, each of us cannot survive without relying on others, to a greater or lesser extent.
Costs and benefits. Trust can be efficient when the cost of verifying other people's statements and reliability of their promises is higher than the benefit from the relationship. Thus, the cost of verifying the honesty of a money manager that controls my life's savings may be higher than the benefit I can derive from his expertise. In such a case I would engage this money manager only if I trusted him. Trust is even more efficient when the cost of my money manager in convincing me of his trustworthiness is higher than the amount that he would receive for his services. In this situation the gap between us would be too great, and we will interact only on the basis of trust. The use of cell phones, television, and the Internet has introduced a habit of trusting 'virtual people.'
Mobility and quick interactions among people blur the difference between friends and casual acquaintances. In the networking mentality of business circles, people often confuse exchanging business cards with time-tested relationships... People often assume that sharing the same occupation means sharing the same level of trustworthiness. These assumptions can be wrong. But it is too costly to check every person that one meets in conferences and business engagements.1
Trust facilitators. There are many private sector facilitators of trusting relationships. They verify and guarantee particular facts or actions of other people or organizations or situations. These facilitators include lawyers, accountants, advisers, commercial and investment bankers, rating agencies, and credit-card issuers.
There are organizations that check out and guarantee their own members' trustworthiness, such as physicians, lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, and broker dealers. Some organizations are themselves regulated by government agencies (e.g., the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers, and the American bar Association). Banks and insurance companies are not as organized presumably because they are strictly regulated and trust in them is very strong.
Internet "verifiers" such as Verisign and eTrust establish trust. Reputation, which can establish trust, may arise by networking, publicity through independent sources (e.g., newspapers) rating by customers (e.g., eBay and public polls) and inquiries of friends and acquaintances. A trust-creating program is LinkedIn, where users guarantee specific persons for whom they vouch to people who do not know them. The law is a weaker guarantor of trustworthiness in the virtual world that in the real world.
The question: what other mechanisms can be established to create a trusting and trusted community in the virtual world?
Re: Contest Discussion: Trust Communities
In today's rapidly globalizing information economy, “trust”—both as a conceptual standard and in all its practical applications—will be an absolute prerequisite to the establishment of effective and secure Web-based interoperability between attorney and client.
Ever since the first time an advocate hung out his shingle, the attorney-client trust relationship has been fundamental to the success of the legal profession. Internet-based legal advocacy not only magnifies the need to develop and nurture these unique trust relationships, it also opens up wholly alien territories in trust-building that must be explored and tamed if the profession is ever to make a full transition to the new information economy. Our failure to do as a profession means we risk becoming marginalized and irrelevant, as new forms of technology-enabled advocacy will certainly fill the gaps where we have failed to do so.
So, what does the legal profession need to do? First, we have to actually decide whether or not we are willing to commit ourselves and our profession to the new global economy. That means putting a whole host of outdated pre-Internet rules out to pasture, and replacing them with a global set of professional standards that recognize and embrace the real world faced by our profession in the 21st century.
In my opinion, new global economy attorney-client trust relationships will take root and flourish only after we successfully establish several separate yet inter-related “spheres” of individual and professional governance. These spheres of governance must address the issue of trust in the Internet Age at every point along the professional continuum: From the micro-level, where interaction occurs between the individual lawyer and her client (and who may never actually meet a single time in the corporeal form), up through the macro-level, where 21st century technology requires us to adapt to a world where changes in information, culture, clients evolve in terms of milliseconds instead of decades.
In my opinion, the spheres of trust development and maintenance all belong to a meta-framework that can be thought of as Universal Rules for Internet-Age Lawyering, but they can be sorted among three main branches:
Technology and Infrastructure
Governance, Regulation and Enforcement
Access and Education
I’d like to address what I mean by each category, and what I see as the components of each, in future posts in this thread. Hopefully, other people will find my ideas interesting and will point out what they agree with, what they don’t and what they would do differently.
A little about me: I’ve been practicing law for a little over ten years in both the public and private sectors. I currently live in a small rural town in Western Massachusetts, USA, which in many respects I consider to be the front line in the push to adapt a 21st century law practice to life in the Internet Age.
Cheers to all.
Re: Contest Discussion: Trust Communities
Hi,
Here we are aiming to create a new trusted online culture and, I think, as jmconway says, the willingness to commit to such culture is a foundamental factor. I think a group can only start by aiming the same goal and objective and in order to creat in-group sense, the group needs commitment from each member.
Unlike face to face (F2F) communication, online communication is not reliable or hard to be trusted sometimes because of the muliple and anonymous identities of parties involved. Jeffrey Aresty's paper on "Digital Identity and the Lawyer's Role in Furthering Trusted Online Communities" discusses the secure digital indentites (DIDs) and they will surely help us manage the multiple ids of parties. But as Prof. Frankel's Hutton's case demonstrates, the slope is very slippery even if a party has single identity and committed to F2F communication.
If we can create a trusted community in which members share their experiences, nurture their followers, and benefit by being honest and trustful, then the out group members may show interest of joining the community. One of the important factors of online community is that it involves people from different countries, cultures, ethnicity, and traditions as long as they have access to the internet. On one hand, there is a great potential for this type of community to grow quickly, on the other hand, the community will have danger of facing various types of threats.
One way to start such community is to establish universal codes of ethics and standards of practices of thie community. I am not saying that people have tendency to become bad faithed if they are not restricted by standards and rules. I think the online community is worldwide and every nation has cultural and traditional differences which need to be addressed. I have seen a case when an organization was created in the US naming themselves "international association" and invited members from different partsw of the world. Their codes of ethics and standards of practices, however, were only based upon American standards. Some members from different countries traditionally and culturally practiced differently. Thus these people could not acquire full memberships. There were frustrations among members because they called themselves "international".
Without knowing what people of the community do or aim to do, it would be hard to govern and educate. What is a universally trusted community and how can we maintain such trust and honesty worldwide?
Re: Contest Discussion: Trust Communities
Quick question:
Why do you consider your small rural town the front line of 21C law practice? (I'm sure I will agree with you on most accounts; I'm just curious as to your reasoning)
Best,
mdthorne
Front Lines
Dear mdthorne:
My apologies for the delay in this response...Living in a relatively rural area, three hours from Boston, MA (the closest big city), it sometimes can feel as if the legal profession here is still operating with only late 20th century tools: Fax, word processor, rudimenary email (that some local attorneys still refuse to accept as valid forms of communication) and telephone.
There are, however, a growing number of attorneys operating solo or in small firms that are using any and all of the newest technologies and business practices to make themselves as relevant and as up-to-date as the biggest, most technologically progressive law firms and corporate legal departments. such as:
domestic and overseas outsourcing of document review and paper management;
groupware for case management
hardware such as blade servers for more efficient and cost-sensitive use of computing resources; and
use progressive lawyering techniques such as arbitration/mediation in place of traditional adversarial litigation (for example, in a domestic relations or divorce case.
Re: Contest Question and Latest Posts
Hello group!
My name is Katherine Hartung, and I am in the midst of second year law school exams.
What drew me to this topic? I am interested in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and at twenty-five am a member of the dot-com generation. I am eager to hear your ideas on incorporating the world of law into the recent technology explosion.
As a young teen, I joined the then growing internet community. In the beginning, threats of internet predators and identity thieves were not yet imagined. As time went by, however, the dark-side of the internet began to surface.
Twelve years later, I fear giving out any personal information. In fact, I was hesitant to give my email address to this forum until I verified its academic merit. I don’t tell anyone where I live. I don’t send out pictures. I do research before shopping online. I look at every internet business with a skeptical eye. The trust is gone.
What is the root of this evil? We may begin our analysis with a discussion of ethics. Not only the ethical problems such as those presented by the E.F. Hutton case, but also the ethical dilemmas faced by a new generation of lawyers and lawmakers attempting to rein in the unreliability of this faceless forum. We must create an atmosphere of trust to create a stable online economy for business to flourish.
Addressing problems raised by mogino, a good starting place is adding a face to the facelessness. I believe the future of internet communication lies in ADR. How can we facilitate communication without facilitators? Additionally, mediation is the most time and cost efficient means of dispute resolution, and arbitration is much more workable in an internet community than the already clogged court system.
In order to develop a new system of regulation, we must first establish a system of rules. As jmconway points out, a rule scheme that governs all the internet is a good starting place. A problem in creating laws for the internet is enforcement. Who has jurisdiction? I suggest making many of the transactions contractual with provisions for arbitration.
I would love to hear your thoughts. To be honest, I feel rather presumptuous proposing such drastic ideas to the legal community without a law degree, but I hope to learn as much as possible through this process!
Re: Contest Question and Latest Posts
as the Internet Bar is going to organize the conference, about Internet Mediation, I think it is better to take part to enhance the knowlege to teach the world community how to resolve the conflict/dispute by means of Internet Mediation.
If I get the chance, I suppose to take part in Hong Kong Internet Mediaton Conference.
Thanking You
Mr. Govinda Luitel
Pathari Morang
Nepal
Re: Contest Question and Latest Posts
I am a sensory person and my trust is generally based on my intuition, personal experience, and interaction with others. I am not a person who uses the internet to socialize. Although recently I joined a firm where I am not in constant face-to-face contact with my associates on a daily basis. So the internet and e-correspondence are a major form of my interaction with clients and people I am working with on long term projects. Honesty and trust are built over time-- communicating and building relations and understanding build trust for me. I expect that having some common "rules of engagement" (ground rules) that people agree and commit to respect will build trust. Defining terms so that the exisiting diversity and various cultures allow us to communicate from a place of accepting and honoring our differences. We can gain much from working together with many divergent perspectives. I honor and believe that differences add value to public conversations. The insights gained from various viewpoints frequently offers all involved a new perspective.
So I look forward to learning more from a diverse community and trusting the process.
I am a "reformed lawyer" who left the practice of law after 12 years and for the past 14 have been a mediator/facilitator involved in using dispute resolution skills to help people learn about themselves and others. I am presently involved in mediating and facilitating environmental and health issues, as well as community and interpersonal matters.
My committment and passion is working with people and learning more about myself.
Welcome from Jeff Aresty, president, Internetbar.org
At the recently concluded Fifth International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution, the following opening address was delivered for Daewon Choi. Mr. Choi, along with Professor Ethan Katsh of the University of Massachusetts, conceived the idea to start these forums several years ago, which now draw representatives from more than 30 countries around the world. He points out the importance of building trust in online communities engaged in e-commerce and justice. The mission of Internetbar.org is to build trusted online communities to support economic justice as well as all forms of fair online justice.
Fifth International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution
Opening Address
by Daewon Choi
Chief, ICTP, UNESCAP
19 April 2007
Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the Fifth Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), hosted by the University of Liverpool in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).
As you know, ODR is an important area as it is becoming a priority for governments eager to promote e-commerce and technological development. ODR serves to build trust in online and cross-border commercial activities through the smooth resolution of disputes that could arise from these activities: ODR is reducing the friction cost associated with electronic commerce and encouraging its growth.
ODR can contribute to a more open and non-discriminatory trading system – the key targets of the Millennium Development Goals approved by the United Nations General Assembly.
Yet, beyond providing viable solutions to the outstanding legal issues linked to the increased use of the Internet for business, I envision a novel and deeper role emerging for ODR as an agent of change to stimulate and accelerate structural and judiciary reforms in developing countries.
This would enable their legal systems stay up to date with the advancement in technology so that they could fully benefit from the Information Society.
Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Paragraph 13 of the Geneva Plan of Action of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) encourages "the ongoing work in the area of effective dispute settlement systems, notably Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which can promote settlement of disputes."
And the WSIS went further, as Paragraph 36 of the Tunis Commitment states that the Members States "value the potential of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to promote peace and to prevent conflict which, inter alia, negatively affects achieving development goals.’
We can thus consider ODR as a tool not just for economic dispute resolutions, but as a tool for peace, health and social development.
Government ICT policies will therefore need to have ODR not only to advance the Internet economy, but more generally to serve as a tool to combat and bridge the justice divide through e-justice.
The challenge now is to shape these new capabilities so that they can work in harmony with, and not in opposition to, the social processes at work in the physical world.
Governments also have a role in helping the development of norms and standards for ODR. This translates into reasoning at the outset that the United Nations has an important role to play in shaping the development of global ODR.
It will be a catalyst for the effective implementation of ODR around the world, as one of the tools to achieve the internationally agreed development goals including the objectives of the. Millennium Declaration
Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today’s meeting in Liverpool has a particular significance for the global ODR community. Indeed, our ODR Forum has completed a same journey of Vasco Da Gama, travelling half way the globe. The journey started in Geneva, proceeded to Melbourne, anchored in Cairo, and now culminates in our meeting here in Liverpool which celebrates its 800 years of foundation.
In December this year, the next ODR Forum will be held Hong Kong. It is particularly timely as ODR is already playing an important and increasing role in Asia and the Pacific. The region is home to more than 60 per cent of the world's population, and its e-commerce and online activities are growing fast.
In the Asia and Pacific region, ODR also has an enhanced role as an empowerment tool for rural and poor people who have little access to dispute resolution by other means.
In return, the rest of the world will benefit, as the next generation of online dispute resolution systems emerge from Asia and the Pacific, that will reflect cultural diversity of the region, its unique socio-political textures, and the specificity of its ICT, more mobile phone oriented than PC oriented. Thus, the Hong Kong meeting will learn and benefit a lot from this Liverpool meeting.
Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am confident that this Forum will be a tremendous success and significantly contribute to the advancement of ODR through discussions on current challenges, best practices and technological innovations.
UNESCAP stands ready to support the Forum in its goal to develop ODR systems which can contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and the vision of the World Summit on the Information Society.
Finally, my special thanks go to the organizers of this meeting who have committed and dedicated themselves for this new journey. While Vasco was travelling with lex mercadoria some five hundred years ago, we are navigating with lex ODRia. On this chartered journey, we may be scripting a new chapter in cyberspace.
Thank you.
Re: Contest Question and Latest Posts
Hello everyone,
I have a question to ask.
We can trust someone who keeps his or her words and all the forms in trades are based upon this. The credit history, credit record, feedbacks, trust seals, the recommendations from BBB, etc. But people will change. You never know.
But as as the greenpeacemaker says below, there is a side of intuition and chemistry to trust somebody. First, we need to communicate with the other side, and through the communication process, our intuition tells us whether trust or not to trust. Thus many websites have FAQ, mission statements, etc. This is an ongoing process and based on present interaction. But our intuition may be wrong.
Can we think of any other mechanisms beside these?
Creating Trust on line and across borders
First of all-- I use the handle "Greenpeacemaker" and I have no need to hide my identity-- I am Don Greenstein
I believe that one begins to trust others by taking risks. And yes, I agree that sometimes our intuitions and the risks we take are not what we think and we are "wounded" or we lose faith in a process. I believe that those of us who are willing should put out what we need and desire to begin building a trusted on line community and I believe that we can create one over time.
I'd like to know that those on line in this community are willing to respect differences and even though we can choose to agree to disagree we will listen/read and consider the information shared and agree to ask questions to gain understanding and not misuse the material shared in this community. Is this something that all engaged in this process would consider agreeing to?
What other ideas/principles do each of you want so that we can all agree or at least know where our differences exist at this juncture? i.e., What other "principles of enagement" do others want to begin the trustbuilding process?
Looking forward to getting to know others and learning about this process of trustbuilding on line.
Don
Hi Don, I agree that
Hi Don,
I agree that constructive controversy is a good way to start. I may need to start taking notes on everyone's ideas... Thank you for your feedback.
Madoka
Contest Discussion: Trust Communities
I agree that building trusted online communities is where technology is heading, but I feel that such a community would necessarily require defined terms and ground rules to avoid any misunderstandings that may naturally flow from a community of typed words. I feel trust comes from a gut feeling. When you are communicating with someone face to face, naturally you will take in cues, sometimes subconsciously, such as whether they are looking you in the eye, whether they are fidgeting, what tone they are using, etc. These cues allow you to determine from your gut whether you trust someone or not. There can be a big communication barrier when you don't have that face to face connection. Some people may get confused with certain phrases, others may not be able to express themselves as clearly and pointedly as they would in person, and still others may manipulate the forum and take advantage of others.
In sum, I think a trusted online community is possible and at its best with ground rules and defined terms, but I think that the in-person touch that is missing will be missed.
Maybe there would be a way to communicate via video as well, on occasion, videoconferencing options, maybe using a program like Skype?
Mechanisms that Establish / Create / Develop Trust
My research suggests that there are only three types of mechanisms that contribute to establishing (creating or developing) trust. They facilitate access to: extrinsic (subjective or authoritative - analogous to an expert witness) sources of trust for attaining "fast trust"; intrinsic (objective or experiential - analogous to an eye witness) sources of trust; and tools that empower relying parties (trustors) with freedom to identify and choose preferred sources of trust and take preferred action.
For an example of the kinds of mechanisms that fall into each of these categories see slides from a presentation I recently delivered to a legal industry audience at http://trustenablement.com/local/Building_Trust_in_a_Law_Firm.pdf.
For mechanisms that help to establish trust online, see a presentation I delivered at the McMaster University World Congress a couple of years ago at http://trustenablement.com/local/The_Challenges_of_Online_Trust-slides.p....
Since the question only asks about mechanisms that address half of the trust equation, namely those that establish trust, I won't use this posting talk about those that ensure (protect from a loss of deficiency of) trust.
However, I should comment on the role of a community in the trust equation. Although a community can help to establish trust between members, it's archetypal role is to "ensure" trust, as it is a motivator, the first of three types of mechanisms that protect from a loss or deficiency of trust (BTW, the other two are ability {or capability or proficiency} and risk transfer).
Finally, I would add that dispute resolution mechanisms also contribute more to "ensuring" trust than to "establishing" trust.
The Myth of Reality ;-)
Different cultures (let alone individuals) perceive behaviors differently so we have a hurdle to get past (or rather a very volatile substance to work with in addressing the question of this discussion) in terms of contrasting perceptions of what trustworthy behaviors are. In one culture it might instil trust for someone to be authoritative in manner, directing the conversation or dialogue online, laying down the law in terms of fixed ground rules and being very articulate using words that show learning and academic background. However, someone from another culture may perceive these very same behaviors as indicative of arrogance or threat and untrustworthiness. How does one work with/be sensitive to the multitude perceptions of reality out there in the ether/virtual world when working online with the written word only? At a bare minimum I guess it is imperative to be true to one’s word as it is all one has to shape not only our individual realities but those of the online community. I.e. be careful not to contradict one’s self; if one says one will do something, then do it. I think someone mentioned the idea of taking risks or making one’s self vulnerable. It seems to me that as a member of an online community I would model my behavior on that of others and would definitely feel a greater sense of trust if I saw signs of humility in the group’s culture. I would be more willing to share my own thoughts without strategizing about what I was going to say if I observed others taking that same risk. Giving participants of online communities the ability to Instant Message or Live Chat sessions is a good idea to encourage/enable more spontaneous flow of conversation so that there isn’t the sense that all participants are conniving, plotting, strategizing in between posts. LOL…I’m sounding paranoid, but hopefully this is a valuable point.
Greenpeacemaker invited this emerging community to make an agreement with eachother. That we are willing to respect differences. Made me think that the ability to attach buttons to posts online like in Outlook would be useful, i.e. Yes/No; Approve/Reject; Sign Me Up/ Are you kidding?…The other part of the proposed agreement was to agree to ask questions to gain understanding and not misuse the material shared in this community. My gut response to this request was are you assuming I don’t respect differences? do you not trust that I will ask questions? do you expect me not to understand? and are you anticipating me and others misusing material shared? Which surely was not the intention of your request, but just thought I’d mention it on the topic of words and how they influence trust or an individual’s perception of trust. The complexity of multiple realities created by individual’s perceptions is overwhelming. It means that each word is a powerful trigger for a multitude of reactions.
One other thought in terms of varying cultures. One of Hofstede’s dimensions of culture is uncertainty avoidance. “Cultures that scored high in uncertainty avoidance prefer rules (e.g. about religion and food) and structured circumstances”. (www.wikipedia.org :-)) So we might want to reconsider idea of setting ground rules and defining terms when those involved in the online virtual world are from cultures that are low in uncertainty avoidance. As the strict rule-setting could have the opposite impact in terms of establishing trust.
Mogino, I’m still thinking on your question, “What is a universally trusted community and how can we maintain such trust and honesty worldwide?”. It would be great if we could come up with a universally trusted community and take a look at how and why it is the way it is.
Reply to Shunter
Shunter stated: "The other part of the proposed agreement was to agree to ask questions to gain understanding and not misuse the material shared in this community. My gut response to this request was are you assuming I don’t respect differences? do you not trust that I will ask questions? do you expect me not to understand? and are you anticipating me and others misusing material shared? ... "
This is a wonderful exampe which reflects how our own cultures, values, and perceptions can be read into peoples words, and (in my judgment) we each make our own assumptions about what a persons words are saying (about the writer) which reflect our life experience and not the writers. You are 100% accurate when you continued by stating:
"Which surely was not the intention of your request, but just thought I’d mention it on the topic of words and how they influence trust or an individual’s perception of trust. The complexity of multiple realities created by individual’s perceptions is overwhelming. It means that each word is a powerful trigger for a multitude of reactions."
and I believe as Shunter has so aptly stated that intention is not always clearly stated. I believe even when we interact face-to-face words only account for a small amount of the communication that is occuring. And when we communicate by writing we lose the use of our other sensory modes of communication and the written word becomes the sole influence on our interaction. This limits the ability to trust the writer with whom we have limited contact. Over time, I believe trust can be built especially as we interact more freely and for a period of extended time.
Possibly having some on line "game" interaction or a discussion on a scenario, (informal and not value or judgment driven) that allows us all to share a little and get to know each other might help "break the ice!"
And I continue to learn from this engagement!
Please share this discussion with others who you know may want to consider participating! The more people we can engage now in this "experiment"the more opportunity we will have to see if we can create a trusted on line experience! Let's grow this opportunity so we all may benefit from the learning.
I look forward to hearing, reading and seeing more discussion on line.
Don
Shunter & Online Trust
Shunter, these are valuable points that you raise and they go to the very heart of what I believe to be our greatest challenge.
In my long post on Integral Theory I tried to create a context for some of the challenges you speak of in your post. And, in thinking of Mogino's call for defining exactly what a global trusted online community would be, I'll offer a few additional comments based on what you've written.
The current objective reality we have is the capability for building global online trusted communities--the technology exists and gets better all the time; but this is juxtaposed against a global population living in several different worlds, or world views, based on different levels of consciousness/awareness/ability to take perspectives.
If we envision a global online group and we wish to engender trust, we have to begin by understanding that some participants in this group will have extremely narrow world views, some will have relatively normative world views and some will have advanced or even enlightened world views. This holds true everywhere in human endeavor and one fact confirmed in study after study is that technology itself DOES NOT in and of itself increase any particular person's consciousness.
In other words, while it is laudable at one level to want to provide a laptop computer to every child in the world (though adequate food, shelter and economic opportunity would in my opinion be more valuable) we cannot assume that by connecting the world we are advancing the values of the world. This is easy to spot empirically: highly ethnocentric and mythic level people have access and have the cognitive ability to use advanced weapons for highly destructive purposes and of course have the ability to use the Internet to enhance their communication.
So the fact is that any global trusted community has to be globally inclusive--everyone has to be able to potentially participate; but it also has to be governed by the highest order of cognitive awareness--e.g. rules, policy and governance. Otherwise, we'll end up with the "wild west" conditions that several posts have discussed. So, how do we create the community Mogino envisions, within the constrictions based on cognitive ability and cultural differences that Shunter speaks of, but also taking into account the vast differences in world views that Integral Theory shows us?
To me, we have to begin by at least acknowledging these differences--this is basic plurasim: we're different and we need to get along somehow. But pure pluralism has a problem--it doesn't recognize or make distinctions in relative values. When a pluralist (or one might want to use the academic term "post-modernist") bumps up against widely different world views or values systems, he or she generally refuses to make a distinction--because the very making of such distinctions "seems" to contradict the pluralist's internal value system.
Therefore, my strong belief is that we have to go beyond merely acknowledging our differences; we must make value-judgments between different world views. If we do not do this, we end up with a "mish-mosh" of pluralistic contradictions. To me this is more apparent when we try to "balance" needs that, in my opinion are simply not equal and thus do not need balancing, but rather need to be stratified. For example, is the desire for freedom and autonomy equal in a universal sense to the desire for one group to have its particular fears and ignorance accorded equal value? My view is no. However, I can acknowledge that group's fear as legitimate in a relative sense, without according their view as equally legitimate. I can be open to where this particular view could be respected in a relative sense--in specific contexts. I can grant this viewpoint "some" relevance, without according it "equal" relevance.
These are difficult issues. We need to explore how to develop a global group that reflects the highest order of cognitive and other human development in its policy and governance, while not disenfranchising the less-evolved world views of some of its members. As I've acknowledged in other posts, this is an elitist view in some ways. But the alternative is what we have now--a complete mess.
As a brief exercise that you can contemplate--especially if my comments rile you in any way in terms of an elitist bent--imagine that tomorrow morning you wake up in a world in which every adult in the world has access to a computer and is able to cast one vote for a one-world government, including an executive and a legislature. Assume the system is free of corruption--everyone's vote would count accurately. Candidates from all world views are vying for election.
What kind of government do you think we'd have? Do you believe it would be a democratic body, simply because everyone could vote? Do you believe it would have enlightened values, as a whole, because advanced technology is giving every person a vote? Do you think the elected officials would be most focused on peace, justice and ecology on a global perspective? Or, do you feel that we'd likely elect a completely divided legislature based on our varied world views, and an executive who's values meet the prevailing ethnocentric world view?
If the Integral Theorists are correct, we'd have a completely powerless legislature representing all world views and giving each an equal vote, and therefore resulting in no coherent policy; and we'd have an executive with, at very best, strong ethnocentric values. Most likely, we'd have nothing close to democracy. We'd have something far closer to an authoritarian regime as the movie 1984 suggested. Sadly, technology would only enhance its coercive power.
As a final thought, my comments and particular view are that for peace, justice and egalitarian human rights to flourish in an online community and in the world, the structures we build must acknowledge all world views, respect differences, but be built and governed with the highest levels of awareness and perspective, versus being structured and governed by lower levels of awareness. As long as the values accorded greatest voice are fear, defense and protection of any particular in-group, we will never achieve the goal of an enlightened society. Those values have relative value and should be accorded merit as such--relatively important in various contexts. But they should not and cannot be accorded preeminent value if we are to create something that moves beyond what we already have in the world.
Edward Rholl
President, Transformative Law
www.transformativelaw.com
a new mechanism
Hi,
As Sscorza mentioned, videoconferencing or SKYPE eases a way to know the other side. F2F communication would enable us to have an intuition about the other party and verbal communication would give us more information than the email correspondence.
In Japan, local farmers sell their fresh organic vegetables in Japan Agriculture centers. And they put small photos of their faces and brief comments on their products. And this method is encouraged, because customers know who is producing and responsible for the vegetables. In some online conferences there are some participants who put their photos next to their comments or threads. What would you think of this type of mechanismwhen we have only written communication?
As trustenabler said, a dispute resolution mechanism which ensures trust among members will definitely be needed, because as
Shunter said the members of a trusted culture do not want uncertainty. We avoid them. (Thank you, You opened my eyes on this!) It could be said that the dispute resolution mechanism assures members about their future certainty.
Shunter's comment reminds me of Edward Hall's words which said that "culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants."
We all have different perceptions about trust, but one thing is clear, when trust is broken, it will take a very very long time to re-establish trust. And the only better way is to manage distrust. I think that is very sad.
Photos, Trust & Anonymity
Hi
I think the use of photos and other forms of identification and transparency is certainly valid and helpful in some contexts, especially e-commerce. Interestingly, in some contexts opaqueness can actually help build trust. As a Board Member for online therapy pioneer My Therapy Net (www.mytherapynet.com) I observed how clients were able to vastly increase the speed at which they could deal with and heal issues in online therapy sessions as opposed to in-office visits. When we researched the phenomenon what emerged from clients was the idea that they felt far more comfortable sharing personal information, especially regarding painful and embarrassing emotional issues, addiction issues, etc. within the context of an online session due to the perceived "safety" of speaking to a therapist without sharing the same physical space. The result was that clients often "opened up" and bared their souls to the online therapist in minutes or at least hours, rather than over a long course of in-office visits. Not only does this change the speed at which problems can be resolved, but it changes economic models in a big way!
This has really interesting application to the legal process. One can imagine the same ideas would hold true for children and other people faced with making difficult allegations or admissions in court. And, it may also generate a safer space for people in general to admit fault in some circumstances. When you combine this factor with more enlightened principles of justice, fairness and non-punitive legal process, you can see the beginnings of a legal system more grounded in truth-finding and healing. However, industry stakeholders who benefit economically from the current system will certainly not favor such changes.
My brief study of the Japanese legal system while in law school revealed to me that in a system (particularly the criminal system) based on facilitating admissions of guilt, but with far lower punitive repercussions, a very high percentage of defendants "come clean" which can of course lead to a healing far more profound for both victim and perpetrator than when a conviction is forced out by way of the American system where the defendant often never speaks. On the other hand, the American system may actually preserve individual rights better.
My point is that regardless of what the technology can or cannot accomplish, it will still be used "in" a particular system and therefore, it is the system itself--more than the technology--that will determine its value. One can imagine very draconian uses of the online justice system, as well as enlightened uses. That's why I believe our work is so important and has to be approached from the level of global consciousness and advanced notions of jstice, fairness and truth-finding. Our American system is, in so many ways, driven by economics. Those who profit from the current economic model of dispute resolution will have little interest in seeing its end. And, to protect their turf, are likely to play on the public's fear and mistrust of the Internet as a means to forestall any changes.
Edward Rholl
President, Transformative Law
www.transformativelaw.com
Certainly, one of the main
Certainly, one of the main constraints to the development of the Internet is the lack of trust of their users. Internet has gained an often undeserved reputation for being exclusively a source of spam, pornography and fraud. In addition, individuals engaging in e-commerce have quickly learnt that if they were involved in transactions where they were dissatisfied, they had little option but to accept the loss and move on. Clearly, new methods are needed to distinguish trusted online individuals as well as to resolve effectively disputes arising online. To date, one of the main candidates for this job was the development of trustmarks and ODR. These methods may come from public entities or private enterprises. Given the experience with TRUSTe and the difficulties encountered by many ODR pioneers I am more inclined to think that a public backing will be necessary.
Adding new technology into the law school curriculum
First of all, I would like to comment on the great ideas presented by the most recent posts. As I was reading TrustEnabler’s presentation on online trust, I was surprised to see my visualization of online trust analyzed as an exemplar of what businesses can do to build confidence online.
Over the years, we have watched eBay’s metamorphosis. From ePay to the fraud investigation program to Squaretrade, eBay’s dispute resolution system, eBay has lead the way in establishing trust on the internet.
Interestingly, many of eBay’s mechanisms for building trust are based on actions not character. As shunter points out, different cultures perceive behaviors differently. So how do we come up with a global trust network?
I propose a happy medium between the video conferencing suggested by sscorza and the capitalistic security measures explained by TrustEnabler. Video conferencing may help to give a literal “face” to interpersonal dealings on the internet, but as shunter explains, cultural differences become problematic. Furtherore, Security measures as used by large corporations such as eBay work well for mass commerce, but fail to promote working business relationships parallel to those in the “real world.”
I think the missing link lies with facilitators. We need individuals and firms educated in appropriate ODR. I use the term ODR to encompass relationships from negotiation through possible litigation. We need ODR at the transactional level to prevent conflicts in the future as well as to promote ongoing business relationships.
So how do we accomplish this goal? Conferences such as the International Forum on Dispute Resolution are a great start. But why not start even earlier by adding ODR to law school curriculum? As a current law student, I know how difficult it is to add requirements, but if we can bring the movement of ODR to the mainstream, concepts such as fraud prevention on the internet and online dispute systems may be incorporated into basic classes such as Contracts and Professional Responsibility. My generation is moving further and further into a technological system of capitalism, yet our curriculum remains stagnate.
What are your thoughts?
Hello, I also agree that
Hello,
I also agree that video conferencing and security measures will change our community, but many countries can not provide advanced technology to the individual level. I think, however, if we can connect cell phones with ODR systems or mechanisms, the online community will spread into less advanced countries. This is not a mechanism but it would be better to add cell phone features when we think about it.
What do you think?
Good luck on exams, Katherine!
My school offers Internet and the Law, so I have signed up for the fall course. I'm not sure how far into ODR it will go because two IP attorneys teach the class. I just finished up taking Labor and Arbitration, but my beloved processor is a technophobe whose online experience is limited to checking email. I think ODR would go far in unclogging the court system and would minimize the emotional turmoil of the process for the parties involved. How would you envision implementing such a large scale project?
jd2b
Tonight's Dinner with Tamar Frankel and others
I would like to share some of what we talked about at dinner tonight; our moderator and chief judge, Tamar Frankel, and several others who have been involved in internet governance over many years, all were at our dinner table. We talked about this contest and why it is so important.
How we build trust in cyberspace and whether we (civil society) can do it soon enough so that the normative culture of cyberspace is trusted behavior, is the reason for the contest. Clearly, many forms of behavior that are encouraged by anonymous internet structures are flourishing online- online gambling for all ages, pornography, including child pornography, criminal enterprise, even terrorism. It is easy to see why. When there aren't laws that govern a place (or, a space) effectively, for whatever the reasons, a wild west mentality takes hold. In cyberspace, noone knows which laws govern, and, when you combine that with anonymous behavior patterns, you have a recipe for disenfranchising law as a governor of behavor. What will replace law? The normative behavior of the community which emerges over time.
That is why we need you. We believe that you joined this contest because you want to build trusted relationships online. We believe that younger generations have a better handle on this concept, and, certainly understand the technology better than older generations. So we want to work with you to change the world by building trusted behaviors into the fabric of online behavior. Why?? Then we can promote economic justice online and bring the benefits of ecommerce across the digital divide as part of a campaign to promote trusted behavior online.
IBO's signature project is to promote economic justice by extending the reach of online payment systems to developing countries. Anonymity prevents that from happening in today's world. We believe we can change that. This conest is the first step in that direction.
Thank you for your participation!!
Everyone who has joined our contest, please post!!!
In the first days of our community, please suggest ways that you want to communicate with each other; we will adapt the technology as we can, to let you define how you want to demonstrate the nature of online trust, and to showcase your leadership skills in building online communities based on trusted behaviors. Threaded discussions, wikis... you tell us how you want to organize yourselves to inform us on trustbuilding behaviors in cyberspace.
Where is ODR going, to court or to college?
I must agree with khartung that the inclusion of ODR in law schools will increase our knowledge and interest in preventing disputes, as well as improving trust in the online communities. However, it can be argued that the most successful venture of ODR to date it has been the creation of new legal scholars to which I quite admire and enjoy reading.
It appears that ODR is in its infancy and it will be a question of time before it reaches every possible and reasonable aspect of the legal procedure (Colin Rule is able to envision a computer sitting on the judges’ chair!). I cannot know when and how will happen, but I think that the legislature have the duty of mandating the judiciary to offer online access to the courts, without imposing this online access to the parties. Once Internet users have access to justice, they might afford to trust the Internet; and law schools will not have the choice of ignoring ODR.
Second Life
In an effort to explore mechanisms that enable trust online, I started an experiment by forming a group in Second Life, called Second Canadians. It is still very preliminary, with only about 100 SL members. I have not done much with it so far, as it can be very time-consuming, except to post some preliminary (rambling) thoughts on a web page at http://www.igloo.org/secondcanadians.
My objective is to attract interest from similarly-minded individuals and organizations, so we can collaboratively create a model society online.
I would welcome your comments and contributions.
Power of Networks & Forums for Resolving Global Conflict
It feels like synchronicity that trustenabler spoke of Second Life. In an ODR weekend class taught by Colin Rule we spent quite some time exploring Second Life & There.com, musing on the possibilities with regard to using that kind of virtual world as a vehicle for conflict resolution globally. It got me thinking on using somewhere like There.com or Second Life as a safe secure space for facilitating mediations on a global scale. Or, the idea of using virtual realities to conduct wars so that no-one physically died and the world was spared all the atrocities and scarring.
A few days ago I was listening to NPR and the Managing Director of Forbes was talking about May’s issue which was highlighting the power of networks in the world. He spoke of the One Laptop One Child project (OLPC)
One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a non-profit association dedicated to research to develop a $100 laptop—a technology that could revolutionize how we educate the world's children. This initiative was launched by faculty members at the MIT Media Lab. It was first announced by Lab co-founder Nicholas Negroponte, now chairman of OLPC, at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland in January 2005. Here is the web site : http://laptop.org/ Thought it a fascinating example of emergence and the power of self-determining teams/global networks. Perhaps ODR Professional communities could reach out to Nicholas Negroponte and collaborate on conflict resolution programs in countries like Sudan & Uganda with OLPC as a subproject within a greater program to resolve genocidal conflicts in a There.com or Second Life space.
Leadership and model society
This is a chance for me to say that one of the most important points for running this contest is for InternetBar (IBO) to help organize that part of the 'model online society' most interested in reaching consensus on its most important values. IBO's organizational job is both to have the consensus building discussion AND to attract and get people to participate in the conversation about values. So is it possible for you to attract the second life community members you've attracted to your discussion to join our contest and carry on the 'values' part of the broader society discussion here?
Risk of partcipation in restrictive societies
I suppose that I am interested in the possibilities that on-line communities may offer to citizens of particularly restrictive societies. Indeed, in such nations, on-line communities may offer a much-needed source of expression and outlet with other like-minded people. I do worry quite a bite, however, about the safety/risk of being able to engage in on-line communities in repressive societies without being detected by governments.
Hi susananotar, I think your
Hi susananotar,
I think your concern has a point. If there is conflict of interests between members of an online community and the outside authority, the community may be threatened. If, however, we look at this from other angle, online citizens can create a one big voice against the outside authority. It depends on how we can collaborate and trust each other online. And in addition, we can deal without any physical violence in the virtual world. That could be the advantage, I think.
100th Monkey Effect - Reply to susananotar
I grew up in South Africa, my adolescence occurring at the same time as the rolling mass action leading towards the release of Mandela in 1990 and the unbanning of the African National Congress. I was 17 at that time. From the age of 14 I became very politically involved in an anti-apartheid organization called PUPA (Pupils United for Peace and Awareness) The idea of the name was imminent change and transformation. Our mission was to ensure that no white South African could ever claim with any validity that “We didn’t know what was going on”. So we spent most of our energy on distributing information illegally at the time about the atrocities being committed by the Nationalist Party in control against nonwhites. When I was 16 I became chair of this organization and hosted illegal meetings at my home for the ANC Youth and Western Cape Student Congress (WECSCO). The aim being to brainstorm ways of protesting to achieve desegregation. We collaborated with other organizations like IDASA (Institute for Democratic Action in South Africa) to host and put together Education Summits for educational specialists and students to address segregation of schools. These conferences were illegal at the time as any gathering including non-whites & whites was deemed illegal. We also worked closely with ‘young lions’ in the ANC Youth to organize beach protests. At one of these I witnessed extreme violence. Friends of mine in IDASA met with me to give me illegal pamphlets to distribute at my school exposing the propaganda of the regime and the prolific torture and atrocities occurring as perpetrated by the government at the time. These friends were subsequently arrested and tortured and asked for the names of people in PUPA. My house was bugged and constantly at every meeting there was always the presence outside of a white van with dark windows. My mother taught at ‘non-white’ schools which was frowned upon and was frequently harassed by the police at the time. Soooo…..susananotar, your post spoke to me in terms of repressive societies and the safety of engaging in on-line communities. It is strange, but I feel from my experience of participating in a revolution, that courage is a necessary ingredient for achieving/bringing about world transformation and that no amount of regulations, good intentions or planning or safety nets can take away that necessity for courage and for being prepared to do things that could result in harm to one’s self. It feels to me as if the energy behind speaking out despite fear of personal injury and desire for personal safety is the energy that fuels mass mobilization for change. Speaking out in the name of peace, justice and compassion in online forums could accelerate the ‘100th Monkey Phenomenon’ (mogino’s “One Voice”) in terms of human evolution whereby elevated thinking (Ed, I’ve caught the elitist bug;-o) or ‘second-tier moral consciousness’ as mentioned by Ed reaches a critical mass and mass consciousness shifts.
Shunter on Restrictive Societies
Shunter--thank you for sharing about your experiences in South Africa. I cannot even imagine being in such circumstances and I was really moved by reading your story of the willingness to go against clearly unjust law in order to move an entire society out of the Dark Ages.
I do not want in any way to diminish the very personal and poignant essence of what you wrote, but I do want to add that as I read your words I was also thinking beyond the actual events and people in South Africa and thinking about how nearly any entrenched power structure will, by definition, oppose change to the order of things that may destroy its hegemony. As we address the issues related to trust, e-commerce and changes in the legal profession, I think it will do us well to be realistic about the challenges facing us in each of these areas.
One thing we can do is consider who or what might actually benefit and want to see a continuation of basic distrust between people--online or offline? In addition, we might think about what interests are viewing global e-commerce from a predatory perspective versus an egalitarian, open-market perspective? Finally, we would do well to understand that many well-entrenched interests in the legal profession have little desire to see wider and cheaper access to legal information and justice.
When I think about these things I tend to look at those stages of consciousness I have been writing about. I don't see conspiracies and evil people or bureauocracies so much as I see levels and waves of consciousness naturally creating structures given by their own levels of awareness; then, like most other "living" things, protecting their turf. From this perspective, we can look for solutions which move the world beyond the lower-level consciousness structures in ways that don't massively and directly threaten to bring the current paradigm crashing down in a dramatic revolutionary manner. We can do this by doing what Ken Wilber calls "including and transcending" which simply means we find some aspects of the current paradigm that do have value and we include those things in the new transcendant creation.
However, when we move beyond theory and into practice, those of us--like you--who have had to act in the face of tyranny and oppression, clearly have the experience and wisdom to teach us all how to push the envelope when pushing hard is the only viable way forward.
Edward Rholl
President, Transformative Law
www.transformativelaw.com
Culture Understanding
Thank you so much for sharing your experiences. While I never experienced situations such as this in my own life, I did have the pleasure of living in Iran during the overthrow in 1978. That situation totally changed my understanding of what other people go through and struggle with. It struck me that in a utopian online community, there would be no barriers to shared consciousness. One thought I had is something equivalent to Wikipedia where a person could look up information on people of a country written by the people of that specific group. The only censoring would be by other members of that group and would be free from media spins or political and social bias. Knowing the customs and traditions of a country could help all members of an online community to communicate and better understand each other’s points of view and help to alleviate cultural misunderstandings.
Meet and Greet?
This discussion is hoppin’. I would love to do a live chat session to further our dialogue. Some of my favorite new posts: Don pointing out the major “tone” issues in the online world of communication. How do we fix that? Video conferencing or cell phones would be great, but I wonder if developing a new technology that combines the familiarity of traditional forms of communication with the ease and anonymity of the internet would be a possibility. After wearing a suit all day, I love to come home and work on the computer in my sweats. Also, I still do a lot of business over the phone. So where is the happy medium. Can we build trust without faces or voices? Do we need to inject personality into our business transactions? Thoughts?
Live Chat Coming Soon to InternetBarContest.org
Agaric Design Collective will make the feature of live chat for logged-in users of this site available shortly!
Integral Theory & Trusted Online Communities
Hello to Everyone!
I'm excited to play a role in this very important endeavor. As I view the many posts in the forums I plan to keep an eye on the level of Integral thinking that we, as a cross-cultural and cross-border community, can achieve. Integral Theory has been around for some time, but has gained most visibility through the work of Ken Wilber (www.kenwilber.com, www.integralinstitute.org). It is a complex and multifaceted body of knowledge, but at its most distilled essence it stands for the proposition that all of human endeavor, communication and development--including each specific instance--operates in four quadrants that roughly correlate to the basic perspectives that cognitively developed people can take: I, you/we, it and its.
Beyond these perspectives, Integral Theory incorporates the work of social demographers to create a kind of matrix of consciousness that can be seen empirically in extremely clear ways. When you put the two together you can clearly pinpoint the specific ways that individuals, communities and cultures view the world.
At this point in human development most of the world (roughly 70%) is at a level of consciousness (note: you may, but need not, relate to the word "consciousness" in a spiritual context to understand Integral Theory) that is ethnocentric or lower (lower stages include mythic, archaic, magic) and for that reason it is extremely difficult to communicate across these very real consciousness-based divides in awareness, understanding and perspective. Beyond this, one can see how difficult it is to create a body of rules, mores or written laws that seek to govern an activity that people of all states of consciousness have access to and can use for one reason or another.
The Internet operates in all four quadrants. In the personal, interior quadrant it is a personal tool we can use for work, pleasure, connection to others, etc. We relate to it based on our level of personal conscious development, which includes our cognitive development. The first quadrant is how you "feel" about the Internet and its role in your life and the life of the world. In the "it" quadrant--personal exterior--it operates as an "object"--a set of technological tools that is a kind of extended brain we can use. Like an organix brain it can malfunction. In the "you/we" quadrant it operates as a fundamental communication tool, and it is both an awesome power to connect us and a tool that can be used for abuse, crime, coersion, etc. In the fourth quadrant it operates as a cultural object--how an entire culture relates to and regulates this technology has EVERYTHING to do with the overall consciousness level of that culture.
The law operates most presciently in this fourth quadrant--especially with regard to building online communities populated, in the case of the Internet, with people from many cultures, with many values and with many different world views. As I said earlier, the prevailing world view on the planet today is ethnocentric ("I love my own and I hate you and/or fear you if you are not in my group"). This means that most people in the world see things from, at best, the perspective of their own ingrained cultural paradigms. In addition, a good part of the world lives below this level, primarily at the mythic level (Reality is "pre-given" by god or gods and we merely interpret what is right for our group based on the given logos) and we see this mostly with regard to religious wars and extreme myopic viewpoints.
What we have in our hands is a global technology, but we are trying to expand it, regulate it and use it across tremendously wide divides in consciousness, worldview, cultural norms and individual cognitive differences. Our challenge in this contest and in the greater commitments we have to creating a peaceful, trusting world (at least online) is to somehow cross these divides. There is a notion of elitism in this challenge. It has to be this way at first, because in order to create something of the highest order cognitively, socially, culturally, personally and spiritually, those at higher levels of awareness (which means those who can take and integrate multiple perspectives) have to lead the way. If they (we) do their jobs well, the new world created by their efforts will be available for use and enjoyment by all people, regardless of their level of development.
However, if the rules, regulation and use of the Internet is developed and enforced by lower levels of consciousness, awareness, worldview and cognitive ability, then the technology will never reach its ultimate utility and, in fact, is likely to be even more uncertain, dangerous, punitive and coercive than it is today. It is easy to work with, communicate and trust somebody who sees the world in the same way that you do. It is less easy to undertake these things with others who see the world in a completely different way. To work together and meet online together, we have to find a way to bridge this gap.
Most of us are stuck at an ethnocentric level of awareness and values. Yet, we've created a global communication matrix. Think of that! We've created a set of tools that allows for communication and collaboration globally, thus FAR exceeding the conscious awareness of the population using it--70% of which cannot even think, act or see globally. Our choice as a global culture is to either work for the development of the Internet AS a global cultural, social, professional and personal network based on global level awareness, principles and values, OR to allow prevailing forces to develop this technology primarily as a means for corruption, crime, coersion and exploitative commerce and misinformation.
Here's the rub: people living at a mythic or ethnocentric level of awareness cannot responsibly manage and set policy for anything (much less a highly technically advanced communication system) from a global-centric perspective, because they are not capable of taking a global-centric perspective on anything. This is the lesson the Integral theorists have demonstrated clearly and empirically. Ethnocentric awareness creates ethnocentric rules based on ehtnocentric values. This will not ever lead to a workable body of rules, regulation and best practices for a global technology.
Those of you involved in this contest as participants and judges would never even have been interested in this if you did not already have a higher level of consciousness--at least cognitively. Our task is immense, but the payoff is amazing. Whatever we conceive of here or in other initiatives with which we are involved is sure to meet with fear, anger, disregard and perhaps outright objection from certain corners--particularly those who's worldviews are tribal, ethnocentric or national-centric and grounded in fear, division and a desire to protect and defend. On the other hand, the ideas, concepts, models and policy suggestions we conceive of today can shape tomorrow as more members of the human race evolve into higher states of awareness. In fact, the Internet itself is THE great awakening tool, if it survives as such in a world challenged so deeply by division.
At any rate, I'm so pleased to take part in these discussions and I look forward to meeting and dialoging with many of you!
Regards,
Edward Rholl
President, Transformative Law
www.transformativelaw.com
Hello
Orna
Hello all, I am delighted to serve as a judge in this contest. I read the posts with great interest and look forward to continuing this conversation. I am an assistant prof. of law at the University of Haifa and am also a mediator and teach ADR-related courses. A few thoughts that come to mind as I read your posts - to what extent can we import those trust-generating mechanisms that exist offline to the online arena? what are the ways for generating trust online that are unique to the online setting? can you identify contextual elements that impact trust online? Good night for now from Israel...
Feedback + Trustmark = Trust?
Can the synergy of feedback and trustmarks contribute to increase online trust?
I am fascinated with the way eBay has achieved the trust of millions of customers by using a very effective feedback system. Unfortunately, we haven’t succeeded in replicating a feedback system for the global e-commerce market. Often, when we find a new website selling something we generally have concerns that the supplier may be a con, or that the product is not as good as advertised. I wonder if trustmark schemes could carry out these ratings for those enterprises which choose it.
The first likely obstacle is that probably many businesses would not want to participate in a trustmark scheme that could give them negative feedback. However, if the trustmark scheme is a reputable one (i.e. with public backing) and the business is a small enterprise that doesn’t have anything to lose by opening its product to the global market, it might be worth for the business to join. Perhaps, something like that would only work with small businesses, but that would be a step forward to improve the trust of the online community as well as the competence in the global market, which is still dominated by large corporations. What do you think?
Trustmarks
Hi Pablo,
I think you make an excellent point about trustmarks. I think much of the focus in e-commerce systems up to now has been related more to security in payment systems, which is obviously very important. But, now that SSL and intermediaries like VeriSign and others can handle much of the payment security issues (at least much of the time) I join you in hoping that more thought and attention is put into trustmarks and other forms of public approval or disapproval systems.
I think probably much of the reticence in businesses to a very public forum for voicing customer dissatisfaction--and where the company has little or no editorial control--stems from the fear of negative and widespread commentary which might be unfair, exaggerated or otherwise made for less than just reasons. In a sense this is what we are seeing in the world of blogs, where lambasting businesses and individuals often runs amok. In the US (and perhaps elsewhere now) the BBB traditionally played the role of rating businesses for good service and good customer relationship management. I've also seen several web 2.0 sites that encourage rating of businesses in a variety of ways.
One site, I believe called Ask Alice or something like that, allows people to rate their experiences with local contractors so that other members of the site can get in-depth information before hiring plumbers, electricians and others. If I'm a lousy plumber with poor customer service I hate this! If I have great customer relationships and provide good service I probably love this site. The fear, however, is what impact can one or two unhappy customers make to an otherwise excellent portfolio of clients? This is in my mind one of the big challenges to fairness in the online world that moves so fast and allows people to rant, castigate and condemn so easily.
Nonetheless, transparency--or at least shall we say "translucence" is here for good and companies will increasingly have to deal with at least quasi-public commentary on customer policy, product/service quality and corporate conduct. On the other hand, my view is that the public also bears a greater responsibility for being fair or at least factual in its commentary and evaluation of a company, product, service or customer service experience. By analogy, the rating system on Amazon.com seems to work fairly well. For the most part the reviews are at least well-reasoned even if the reviewer does not recommend a particular book or other product. I can say the same for www.epinions.com. There are always a few people who simply had a bad experience and want to vent, but by and large the reviews are fairly balanced.
When companies learn that basically they can trust the public I think more translucence will become the rule. I wholeheartedly agree with you in terms of the impact such a scheme could have for small businesses with less brand recognition. Like many people, I am one who more often than not purchases a product from Amazon or other sites I've come to know and trust, rather than from a small business website--if I have the choice. However, if that small site had some kind of "trusted company" designation then I, personally, would choose to support the small business directly and I think a lot of other people would as well.
Brand recognition means so much in a global marketplace. In the past when, I used to eat fast-food while traveling (ugh, now I can't bear to think of all the junk I once ate!) when I was driving and found a freeway exit I'd go for McDonalds or some other well-known brand 100% of the time. Somehow it seemed less risky than the local burger place because, I guess, I felt the name brand place would be more likely to be clean and have fresh food. In reality this was probably NOT the case (see Fast Food Nation) but the brand made the difference. In the online world I'm sure the same phenomenon is at least as prevalent. Yet, if the global marketplace ideal is to become a reality, then we all have to be willing to have at least some trust and affinity for the "small person" and perhaps your concept of trustmarks and some kind of global standard of trust based on public feedback is a great start.
If this can happen, perhaps one day the quote DeToqueville made about the U.S. in the early 1800s--"they are a nation of shopkeepers" will apply to the global online marketplace. If so, trust will be the foundation upon which it is built.
Edward Rholl
President, Transformative Law
www.transformativelaw.com
ratings and transparency
I believe that the online contractor rating site you referred to is Angie's list. I have had the personal experience of working on the development of another website which took that a step further. In order to promote fairness, they are not only using customer feedback for their rating system but allowing the service providers to respond to the feedback and have open dialogs with customers. This added step seems important to open exchange while also allowing for a degree of transparency or "translucence" as you mentioned. Not only are we exposed to the rating but we become privy to the contextual discussion about the specific incidence. I believe that a rating system in imperative in promoting some degree of trust that we lose when we move towards online interactions.
I also believe that in addition to being able to read and understand the ratings of online netizens, we must also be able to trust that the person will not just assume a new online identity in order to shed any negative ratings or comments that have been assigned. It is my opinion that the only way to create this trust is to incorporate a human aspect to the moderation of any community site. As a user, I need to know that somebody with negative rankings doesn't just create a new account and start over. There needs to be some monitoring of new members to make sure that legitimacy and integrity are maintained in the community.
Greetings & a Reply
First I would like to start by saying hello to all the participants and judges of this awesome endeavour, which I am very excited to be a part of it. I am an undergrad in the Justice Studies program and am doing my course online so I appreciate the essence of what we are trying to accomplish here. When we began our course (which is a 2yr online program with two on-campus residential intakes) we started with 3wks on campus. This gave us the opportunity to establish some relationships and put faces and personalities to names. This to me has made all the difference. We also as a class came up with our own ‘code of ethics’ that would govern our interactions with each other over the next two years. Once this ‘code of ethics’ was written we all signed off on it and each received a copy. It is a simple code that enforces respect for one another and through that respect we are honouring the other person in their academic journey. A lot of great points have been brought up here so far and I look forward to dialoguing with many of you as through these ideas we seek to cultivate and shape a structure that will see the on-line world utilized to its greatest potential.
Looking at gravityman's comment on 'ratings and transparency' to me continues to enforce a fundamental principle (one that has already been brought up by many participants), and that is trust. Trust needs to be established before anyone will move forward in any substancial agreement. That is true of personal relations and public relations (in the sense of business interactions and the economy). In order to be able to trust that an promised interaction will take place we need to feel confident that if it doesn't their will be sufficient repercussions for the individual that breaches anothers trust. We also need opportunity and avenues in which to build that trust, which would enforce a sense of accountability.
Reply to Angelina
Hi Angelina,
Great points about trust and levels of intimacy/interaction between people. I'm curious, what do you think about the utility of things like video podcasts, IM and live webcast/web cam technologies as an attempt to replicate the physical world "closeness" one gets in face-to-face situations? Obviously, such tools cannot ever completely replicate what we can learn about one another from face-to-face meetings, but do you think these tools can bridge the gap effectively enough, at least in the business context, to help establish higher levels of trust?
Edward Rholl
President, Transformative Law
www.transformativelaw.com
Technology that binds
I think you bring up a great point by suggesting the addition of supplemental technologies such as podcasts etc. I think that one of the use of such technologies gives people another great method for communicating and making up for the visual cues that we lose in an online community. I believe that being able to hear a voice or see a person establishes a level of trust and familiarity that traditional methods have failed to account for. I believe that hearing a person’s tone or watching their visual cues gives up a better point of reference and a greater understanding about the message delivered.
Another point that I think is important is the viral marketing aspect of podcasts and video casts. With so many people using rss feeds for information and looking to sites like YouTube for real videos , alternative forms of user driven marketing results in other people giving more weight to the reliability and credibility of a online community.
I believe that these additional technologies are some of the elements missing in sites like second life. I have heard of some people having a really good experience and meeting likeminded community members but I found that the community was still very anonymous and required a high degree of trust in the way people represent themselves. If I have a choice between trusting a stranger in an online community or being able to listen to podcasts or watching video casts, I will look to the additional information every time in forming my opinions.
Hi Ed, After some thought,
Hi Ed,
After some thought, and in regards to the business context, I think a fair evaluation of whether such technologies would be an asset in bridging the gap that the virtual world presents would be ‘what is the type of relationship that one is seeking to establish?’. On a basic level of business transactions, such as a consumer ordering/purchasing goods online I think it would be an unnecessary step. When I make that statement I am considering only purchases that an average income consumer would make such as clothing, furniture, sporting goods, etc. In these cases having the option of live chat with a representative from the company available for additional help is very beneficial and sufficient. Looking higher up on the ladder of business transactions I think most cases would benefit from using technology that would allow for visual and audio contact. Such examples would be an international company seeking to establish relationships with global employees (and vise-versa), to secure a business partnership, or colleagues seeking to work together internationally. Andy p in “Technology that binds” brought up a key point that I have also been considering and that is the aspect of non-verbal communication that one looses out on in an online community. I think the more senses we engage the greater ability we have to perceive and evaluate decisions that must be made, and with that will come greater confidence to move forward with such transactions.
Sincerely, Angelina
Reply to Andy P
Hi Andy,
Great comments and I like the approach taken by the site you worked on. That is definitely what some would call a Resolutionary approach to problem solving and conflict resolution. As you pointed out, context is so important to presenting a valid overview of any situation. I tend to agree that in most cases where there is going to be a commentary-based interchange between people online that true identity is absolutely needed. I think in other contexts where, for example, role-playing is a part of interactions between people then anonymity is probably a useful thing. But for the vast majority of commerce-related connections between people to me transparency is a must.
Edward Rholl
President, Transformative Law
www.transformativelaw.com
Trust, Transparency and Business
Orna
One issue that seems to come up is the connection between transparency and trust and the related hesitance of businesses to become more transparent (thereby failing to strengthen trust). What these businesses often fail to realize is that by embracing technologies that enhance transparency, they not only gain trust from customers, but are also able to improve the business' products and services. Digital technologies - through real time documentation of activities and low cost easy to perform monitoring, enhance accountability and allow businesses to study their performance, methods, tools and outcomes. It makes economic sense for businesses to adopt technologies that simulatneously enhance transparency (and trust) and the company's performance. eBay got it. It may take other businesses a little more time, but in a reality in which news travels quickly across geographical borders they will eventually get it, or end up paying a price.
Building transparency & trust with the business communities
Orna: I believe that once we have experience on line and the uniqueness and positivity of on line communications can be recognized by all ODR and these processes will be more accepted by all who use it and the process will attract newcomers as well. I would encourage those of us in the ADR/ODR field to consider working with others who are new to it and find ways to educate the businesses that might not trust it. Building on line training opportunities, on line conferences, and allow people from all cultures and backgrounds to use this form of communications will begin to break down the barriers.
I believe that the biggest barrier are the economic differences that exist in the world today. Most who use on line communications are educated and financially independent. The people of the world who are unemployed or do not even know where their next meal is coming from have no access to this type of commmunication or engagement process. They lack trust in many processes and communicating with them is important as well. How do we educate and involve them?
Business communities are economically engaged and most are likely involved in internet communcation opportunities. I believe that businesses and people tend to follow the path of least resistance. Businesses generally don't undertake to make rapid changes unless they can perceive a major positive change in their organzation or an opportunity that does not exist without change. So from that perspective I would encourage all involved in this opportunity to put out how you build trust in a new process, how we engage others from all cultures and life experiences to participate and teach each other so we can learn together and become a world of people learning and trusting each other rather than a world of disparate parts that exist but fail to interact. The internet can help us build a stronger more connected world!
Namaste,
Don
Online businesses
I'm new on this forum and have been intrigued by the previous discussions that have been posted. Today I picked up Fortune Magazine and read an article about the Blue Nile Company, which sells jewlery online. As a successful leader of a virtual company, the CEO of Blue Nile explained some of the key components of keeping his organization prosperous. One of the problems he faces is that he can't see his customers, so essentially it's important for him to experience what his customers experience. To do so, every morning while he goes through the electronic reports, he also listens to the customer call center, both to ensure that his customers are happy online and also to make sure that the call center is doing its job. Just from the story, I've gained greater insight as to what it means to build trust; we tend to forget that there's a driving human component to creating a virtual corporate world. The internet company itself, in building trust, must encompass its values from a top-down or bottom-up management perspective, much like other corporate organizations that exist elsewhere. I agree, trust marks and ratings are a driving factor for building trust, but it's also important (as Orna noted in her previous post) that organizations build the same exact values within it's own walls.
Another interesting site I wanted to bring up for discussion is craigslist. Interestingly enough, the site remains a popular trading, bartering, and e-bay-like place for everyone or anyone willing to establish trust on their own. Friends of mine use the site to buy and sell items because they claim it cuts out the middle man (i.e. eBay). No extra fees, more convenient, and yep that's right---no ratings. So how come craigslist remains the local city site for a lot of people? I can't say I've got it right just yet, but perhaps its got something to do with the definition of established trust having completely different meanings between people from even the same society.