550 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM If we start from this last classification and take it into consideration alongside the (r)evolution of the e-commerce phenomenon, the possibility arises of settling disputes through the exclusive use of telematic means. In other words, as a consequence of the development of new information technologies, not only the possibility of concluding contracts by electronic means is born, but also of putting an end by this means to the conflicts that arise once these have been perfected. Consequently, the extra-judicial means of online dispute resolution, known as Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), have appeared on the scene16. These ODRs present a diverse typology, which varies according to their origin. Thus, we can distinguish between the following: on the one hand, those out-of-court and electronic methods of dispute resolution that are based on the adaptation of traditional ADRs (e-arbitration par excellence); on the other, those that arise in parallel with the emergence of electronic commerce (the greatest exponent of this new aspect would be in the automatic negotiation system, which involves the process becoming completely electronic). The regulation to which both ADRs and ODRs are subjected from the perspective of virtual commercial relations, where one of the parties is a consumer or user, also known as the B2C (Business to Consumer) negotiation modality, is described below. 3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ALTERNATIVE CONSUMER DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES, IN PARTICULAR, ARBITRATION: REGULATION AND CHARACTERISTICS 3.1. European Rules of Origin At Community level, the ultimate goal of facilitating the free movement of persons and the proper functioning of the internal market has led to a growing institutional effort aimed at ensuring an adequate level of legal assistance through the development of out-of-court dispute resolution techniques, applicable across 16 CORTÉS, P., “Un modelo para la acreditación de los sistemas ODR en la Unión Europea”, en IDP: revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, No. 10, 2010, pp. 6 y ss.; POBLET BALCELL, M., “¿ODR 3.0?: lecciones desde Sri Lanka, la India, Kenia o Haití”, en IDP: revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, No. 10, 2010, pp. 43 & ff. Para un estudio más profundo de estos instrumentos, véase MADRID PARRA, A., “Electronificación del arbitraje”, en Riedpa: Revista Internacional de Estudios de Derecho Procesal y Arbitraje, No. 2, 2011, pp. 23-27; RABINOVICH-EINY, O., “Mejorar la responsabilidad y el aprendizaje en la resolución de disputas a través de la tecnología”, en IDP: revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, No. 10, 2010, pp. 25 & ff.; VILALTA NICUESA, A. E., “Resolución electrónica de disputas: primeras reflexiones en torno a la necesidad de un marco normativo internacional”, en IDP: revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, No. 10, 2010, pp. 16 & ff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==