Archive for the ‘’ Category

ODR CYBER WEEK 09: Web 2.0 Discussion

October 25, 2009

ODR WEEK 2009 Web 2.0: Going from OH? To KNOW!

Friday October 30th

2:30pm – 3:30pm est. (it will be archived too!)

Spots limited, see below.

Join Jeff Thompson ( & Centre For Peace & Social Justice) and an all-star lineup of featured bloggers:

Diane Levin (
Victoria Pynchon (
Tammy Lenski (
John Ford (editor,

They will be discussing blogging, writing articles, Twitter, Skype, ooVoo, LinkedIn and other web technology!

Find out how and why they do it (successfully!), the benefits and how it is has helped them. Learn tips and skills that can help your practice too!

***FREE*** But spots are limited: sign up by emailing Jeff @

If you are interested in submitting a question prior to the event for the panel, email me at the address above or simply post a comment in this post.

Go to for more info on this event and for more info on ODR Week, go to

This event is presented by EnjoyMediation & the Centre for Peace and Social Justice, Southern Cross University, Australia.

Who Doesn’t Like Free?

August 14, 2009

I just noticed over at James Melamed posted an article titled, “How to Get the Most Out of for FREE!

So, as someone who enjoys free things as much as the next ADR practitioner, I had a peek and this is what I found:

1. Get a Basic Membership

2. Access All Articles for FREE! (including mine here!)

3. Read Our Most Popular FREE Features

4. FREE Use of Directory

5. NEW FREE Access to the Video Center

6. The Results of “FREE”

7. Professional Development and Marketing Consultation

Read all of it [here]. Certification Follow Up

June 11, 2009

Jim Melamed Responds to My Post

In a follow up to my post [here], Jim Melamed, CEO of replied to the questions and concerns I raised. Below, and with his permission, I am posting his unedited reply.

A few responses:
First, what is doing with our new certification program is not an end-all, be-all answer, but a meaningful beginning, particularly for the private sector. Sometimes it is worth doing “something” in the right direction, even if imperfect, particularly when the leading option is doing nothing and our industry languishing or not being at its best.
Our ultimate goal is to create a context where the best of mediation is emphasized and preserved (voluntary, impartial, self-determination, transparency, disclosure, maximization), rather than mediation coming to be defined as simply another hoop, another cog, in the legal system. As there is no National Mediation Association nor an International Mediation Association to look out for the best interests of mediation, has found itself compelled to act. By our actions, I would expect we will break a bit of a log jam and all kinds of new, progressive geographic and practice area standards will emerge. This is all very good.
The world of mediation is so big, literally global, and also both within and beyond our traditional legals contexts of courts and administrative agencies. Because mediation is “everywhere,” it is nearly impossible to try to manage the movement from a “regulatory” quality control perspective. This is one of the reasons for so much inertia for so long.
Our most powerful driving force is to grow mediation in the private sector as a wise consumer choice. Our biggest fear is that the historic gatekeepers for resolving conflict, the courts and due process agencies, will come to swallow mediation the mediation industry. Yes, we need mediation programs in courts and administrative agencies, but we surely should not force people to file lawsuits and administrative complaints just to access mediation services. It makes no sense to force people to legalize and polarize so as to gain access to publicly sanctioned and subsidized mediation services. People should additionally be encouraged to seek mediation early, on their own, without the need to resort to a lawsuit. For this, we need a vibrant private sector of mediation services.
And, in fact, there is a huge amount of mediation (most mediation I suggest) that is taking place outside of the courts. Here the goal is commonly to avoid any kind of formal legal filing. So, it is absolutely critical that we do not look exclusively to the courts to define mediation nor mediation qualification standards. We need to encourage early mediation and we need to set in place industry infrastructure to encourage those who want to be mediators (beyond the courts as well as within).
Note such recent and large scale initiatives as foreclosure mediation, mass disaster mediation, marital mediation . . . we need to continue to provide a context and encouragement for all of this wonderful growth. This is’s goal: to grow the global mediation industry based on the intrinsic value that we “bring to the table.” We should not be exclusvely beholden to courts and agencies to sing the praises of mediation.
And so, it is in this context that I see to directly answer your questions:
Yes, the standards set a relatively high bar. In providing a certification to those with 100 hours of mediation training, 500 hours of mediation experience (and who provide comprehensive required transparency and disclosure), we have moved the bar higher as we think the credibility of our industry requires this. This is particularly the case as many community and court programs may only require 30 or 40 hours of training and perhaps 10 cases or the like. So, yes, we are raising the bar. We think that our industry will only be fully respected when we respect ourselves and setting higher standards is a part of this.
Note that we are operating in the private sector, so our assumption is that anyone can mediate and that “the right mediator is the one the parties want.” So, for example, we will continue to display all those who want to be in our directory and we continue to allow mediators to self evaluate as per our Qualifications Disclosure Program (see All of this is in the exact same directory as will display our certified mediators.
With our new certification program, for those who meet the standards, we are, in fact, providing (literally) a “gold star,” because it is our opinion that this dedication and experience deserve to be rewarded. We are assuming that there will be additional court, administrative, geographic (state) and practice area certification opportunities made available, and we applaud this. We see this as signs of a mediation industry that is maturing.
Now, as to cost, it is important that we develop a sustainable program. For certification programs to be developed and not continued would be a tragedy, and so we have sought to fund this program “on its own two feet (needs to pay for itself). You are correct that the total cost for the first year of Membership, Certification Review and Approval would be $349/yr total and then the annual renewal cost would be $249/yr total. We hope and believe that this is a most reasonable investment for those who want to be successful mediators, particularly in the private sector. We believe that brings huge value to the mediation marketplace and that it is a very reasonable thing for private sector mediators to be involved with as well as other leading mediation associations and initiatives.
One of my takeaways from Jeff’s comments is that is well-served to continue to think of the interests of mediation students, volunteers and those getting started as well. In our “defense,” does provide robust information (over 5000 articles and resources), video, etc., all for FREE to the entire world. now attracts an average of 14,000 daily visitor sessions. We are an effective bridge between private professional mediators and those who need and desire our services. It is through our membership and certification programs that we are able to fund all of this.
So, this is a long-winded answer to some very good questions. We think it critical to support private sector development of mediation, in addition to court and agency programs, and it is to help promote the best of mediation and to stimulate this private sector growth (critically including for those who are not attorneys) that we have chosen to act. We believe that it is critical that the mediation industry defines itself, at our best, rather than our being reliant or imposed upon by court or administrative definitions that to some extent threaten to turn mediation into just another docket management device.
We are learning and improving every day. This type of dialog is immeasurably helpful to as we seek to ever-improve. If nothing else, we hope that we have stirred the water so that more and more people can become engaged in the discussion of how mediation can be best supported on a global, society-wide basis.
Jim Melamed, CEO