Annexe 1. Présentation de l'expérience de médiation d'Iris

L'expérience de médiation d'Iris a fait l'objet d'une présentation au cours d'un atelier de travail organisé par le centre de recherche de la DG INFSO de la Commission européenne. L'atelier s'est déroulé le 21 mars 2000 à Bruxelles, et a porté sur les méthodes de résolution alternatives de conflit. On en trouvera tous les détails sur le site, où figurent les copies des présentations invitées. Toutes les présentations ont été faites en Anglais.

A1.1. Overview of the presentation

  • Iris Overview
  • Motivations for Iris Mediation Experiment
  • Main Features of Iris Mediation Experiment
  • Some Figures
  • Analysis of the Experiment
  • Recommendations
  • Conclusion

A1.2. Iris Overview

  • French NGO, created in october 1997
  • Main objectives
    • Promoting individual and public liberties on the Internet
    • Promoting Internet access as part of the universal service
    • Promoting the use of the Internet for non commercial purposes and actions showing solidarity
  • Providing analyses and organizing on-line campaigns
  • Member of GILC (50+ NGOs, 15+ countries)
  • Member of a French network of NGOs and Unions
  • Active at French, European and International levels

A1.3. Motivations for Iris Mediation Experiment (1)

  • Demonstrate that a censorship system should and could be avoided
    • National context : many tentatives to make ISPs liable for content access and hosting (96 : Fillon's amendment, 96-97 : Beaussant Commission)
    • International context : hot-line and 'self-regulation' systems making decision on what is illegal (no contradictory procedure, no appeal)
  • Principles
    • What is illegal off-line is also illegal on-line
    • The ISP is only a technical intermediary with neither right nor ability to decide what is illegal
    • The content provider should be responsible for his/her content

A1.4. Motivations for Iris Mediation Experiment (2)

  • Avoid unnecessary court disputes
    • Many small conflicts between private parties
    • Individuals vs. large organizations or companies (unfairness)
    • Conflicts due in most cases to lack of knowledge of rights, or misinterpretation of law application in the on-line world
    • Long, costly process
  • More details at :
    • (1997 report)
    • (1999 report)
    • ... (all documents in French)

A1.5. Main Features of Iris Mediation Experiment

  • Conflicts between private parties only (non contractual disputes)
  • Process based on consent of both parties
    • No binding decisions (unless requested by both parties)
  • Mediators are volunteers
  • Multidisciplinarity (lawyers, technicians, others)
  • No fee
  • On-line process (forms, email exchanges)
  • Transparency and anonymized reports
  • Privacy

A1.6. Some Figures of Iris Mediation Experiment (1)

  • During one year (March 1998 - March 1999)
  • 288 requests
    • 125 mediation
    • 163 advice
  • 61 mediations with an effect (answer, action taken) - 50% without any answer
    • 53 successful mediations
    • 8 failing mediations

A1.7. Some Figures of Iris Mediation Experiment (2)

  • 53 successful mediations
    • 31 IP or trademark violation claims (27 personal web sites, 4 professional documents) - NB. Some were only caricatural imitations
    • 19 privacy violations or libel or insult claims - NB. Some were only legal criticism
    • 2 web site or domain name property claims (1 between individuals, 1 between companies)
  • 8 failing mediations
    • 6 : one party giving up after having accepted entering the process
    • 2 : no amicable agreement found

A1.8. Analysis of Iris Mediation Experiment

  • Successful achievements :
    • High level of amicable agreement found
    • Many lack of knowledge and even common sense among individuals ==> easy agreement
    • High level of advice request ==> no real intention to violate rights
  • Weaknesses :
    • Mediators couldn't be only volunteers (lack of time, lack of reports)
    • Lack of support from institutions and from ISPs
    • Lack of publicity
    • Some willing to force jurisprudence...

A1.9. Recommendations

  • Transborder disputes
    • Contacts between mediation systems in different countries (network)
  • National level
    • Mediation systems should be encouraged by Public Authorities (publicity, pedagogy effort, financial support)
    • Mediation systems should be multiple (no unique system)
    • Mediators should be multidisciplinary (not only lawyers ...)
    • Mediation systems may be specialized or universal
    • No fee should be requested, at least for individuals and non commercial organizations
  • Privacy and authentication should be ensured

A1.10. Conclusion

  • Mediation seen as
    • An alternative to 'self-regulation' (or 'privatized censorship')
    • A way of ensuring the access to rights and justice to all, at low or no cost
  • Mediation proposed as part of a whole mechanism
    • Mediation for small and private disputes, instead of privatized censorship
    • Cyber-complaints for criminal cases, instead of private hot-lines
    • Public availability of jurisprudence and law FAQ for pedagogical purposes
  • Objective : respect of fundamental rights on the Internet

Section VI

Retour au sommaire

Annexe 2


Avril 2000 -