Angela wrote:
I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute resolution process, mediation has failed, and the mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the mediation committee to make these referrals?
Let's not confuse recommendations by the entire mediation committee (majority vote) with recommendations by a single mediator. The first should be seriously considered, of course. But only so many cases can be worked on at one time so we still need to regulate the process.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 11:44, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Angela wrote: > I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in > mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute > resolution process, mediation has failed, and the > mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there > any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on > whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the > mediation committee to make these referrals?
Let's not confuse recommendations by the entire mediation committee (majority vote) with recommendations by a single mediator. The first should be seriously considered, of course. But only so many cases can be worked on at one time so we still need to regulate the process.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Firstly, as you as an arbitration body clearly wish to have an effective regulator for the process, why should you not give those who are to *be* the regulators enough authority to *effectively* actually *act* as regulators!
I have yet to see any suggestion that each and every mediator should be given the authority to solo refer a matter to the arbitration committee. And personally I have no objection at all that the arbitration committee police the mediation committee against overreach of authority.
But if there is *no* authority, there will not be anything other than overreach of authority, as the mediation committee, and its members will have to conduct their remit somehow, even if they lack authority.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Someone blocked my ip : 62.212.103.37. Why this is my home network gateway, did someone use this address for vandalism ?
Eric Demolli wrote:
Someone blocked my ip : 62.212.103.37. Why this is my home network gateway, did someone use this address for vandalism ?
No, if you read the blocking message you'd see "Your IP address has been blocked because it is an open proxy. Please contact your Internet service provider or tech support and inform them of this serious security problem.". Apparently your home network is an open proxy, either because you misconfigured it, or because a troyan horse opened it. The blocking was done automagically by the proxy blocking addition recently added into the software.
[[en:User:Ahoerstemeier]]
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 11:44, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Angela wrote:
I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute resolution process, mediation has failed, and the mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the mediation committee to make these referrals?
Let's not confuse recommendations by the entire mediation committee (majority vote) with recommendations by a single mediator. The first should be seriously considered, of course. But only so many cases can be worked on at one time so we still need to regulate the process.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Firstly, as you as an arbitration body clearly wish to have an effective regulator for the process, why should you not give those who are to *be* the regulators enough authority to *effectively* actually *act* as regulators!
I have yet to see any suggestion that each and every mediator should be given the authority to solo refer a matter to the arbitration committee. And personally I have no objection at all that the arbitration committee police the mediation committee against overreach of authority.
But if there is *no* authority, there will not be anything other than overreach of authority, as the mediation committee, and its members will have to conduct their remit somehow, even if they lack authority.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
I am confused about what you say here. I have the feeling that I am concerned by this comment, so I would like you to rephrase your comment :-(
As it stands we have an effective mechanism to regulate access to arbitration. 4 arbitrators must vote to accept the case. What is being talked about is some change which would bypass or abrogate that mechanism. Apparently Jimbo's wish, but not absolutely sure. One of his referals (Anthony) never got the 4 votes and he made no comment.
Fred
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: 30 Mar 2004 12:27:51 +0300 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Qualifications for referrals to arbitration.
Firstly, as you as an arbitration body clearly wish to have an effective regulator for the process, why should you not give those who are to *be* the regulators enough authority to *effectively* actually *act* as regulators!
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 15:22, Fred Bauder wrote:
As it stands we have an effective mechanism to regulate access to arbitration. 4 arbitrators must vote to accept the case. What is being talked about is some change which would bypass or abrogate that mechanism. Apparently Jimbo's wish, but not absolutely sure. One of his referals (Anthony) never got the 4 votes and he made no comment.
Fred
Hello, Fred.
I do sincerely think it would not be counterproductive to have an alternate forum for this kind of jaw-jaw, but that is one of those things that is up to your posse as are most things to do with the arbitration-mediation framework.
As regards to your effective mechanism to "regulate access", you probably meant to type "restrict access".
It is definitely the case that the perception is that the mediation process is not even a "hurdle" on the way to arbitration, but totally separate and "useless" in reference to it.
If there were a way to engender a perception that the mediation process was conjunct in some real way to the arbitration committee, this would not only improve the functionality of the mediation committee, but also *potentially* effectively _restrict_ the number of cases that actually flared up to a state that can only be remedied by arbitration. "A stitch in time, saves nine!"
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: 30 Mar 2004 16:03:42 +0300 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Qualifications for referrals to arbitration.
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 15:22, Fred Bauder wrote: As it stands we have an effective mechanism to regulate access to arbitration. 4 arbitrators must vote to accept the case. What is being talked about is some change which would bypass or abrogate that mechanism. Apparently Jimbo's wish, but not absolutely sure. One of his referals (Anthony) never got the 4 votes and he made no comment.
Fred
Hello, Fred.
I do sincerely think it would not be counterproductive to have an alternate forum for this kind of jaw-jaw, but that is one of those things that is up to your posse as are most things to do with the arbitration-mediation framework.
Your input is welcome. Fred
As regards to your effective mechanism to "regulate access", you probably meant to type "restrict access".
No. Fred
It is definitely the case that the perception is that the mediation process is not even a "hurdle" on the way to arbitration, but totally separate and "useless" in reference to it.
It is not meant to be a hurdle. It is an opportunity to settle disputes. Fred
If there were a way to engender a perception that the mediation process was conjunct in some real way to the arbitration committee, this would not only improve the functionality of the mediation committee, but also *potentially* effectively _restrict_ the number of cases that actually flared up to a state that can only be remedied by arbitration. "A stitch in time, saves nine!"
The intention is to resolve disputes without having to engage in a quasi-judicial procedure. Issues which are not resolved by negotiation or mediation can possibly be decided by arbitration, or not. (not includes trivial matters; matters which are rightly subject to policy determinations by Wikipedia as a whole; matters which belong in the courts--God forbid; and matters we don't know how to handle). Fred
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
Angela wrote:
I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute resolution process, mediation has failed, and the mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the mediation committee to make these referrals?
Let's not confuse recommendations by the entire mediation committee (majority vote) with recommendations by a single mediator. The first should be seriously considered, of course. But only so many cases can be worked on at one time so we still need to regulate the process.
Since mediation are usually done by only one mediator, how do you think we could do this ? It happened that some cases were discussed a bit with other mediators, for support, but since mediation is private; and what is said is private, how could the opinion of the full committe have more weight that the opinion of the mediator only ?
How are we supposed to give our opinion on a mediation we know little about ?