So a quick post on what’s new in the Data scene. Check out the ICC’s site on news coming from the European Commission on changes to the Standard Contractual Clauses.

I was stranded for nearly one and half hour in a no power train yesterday and couldn’t help hearing several angry and frustrated mobile exchanges between couple of businessmen with the South East HQ customer services. The angry exchanges were mainly triggered because there were no communications (appeared to be no guard on the train either!) to the passengers on what was happening. The lack of visible actions on the train and the lack of reassurance from the HQ certainly did not help to calm the nerves of the passengers in a hot, broken down train in busy Waterloo tracks.

Is it difficult to relay basic information to passengers (who are entitled to be informed) the behind the scenes activities between the train driver, the engineers and HQ? I guess ‘the need to know’ (or walkabout alerting services?) by/to the passengers is not high on the HQ customer services list. No wonder train fares increases every year to pay for ‘unnecessary or avoidable’ situations – just a thought – but a rather annoying thought when one missed several business appointments!

In this age of ‘speedy and accessible’ communication (mobile connectivity etc.), customer’s expectation and fulfilment still pose challenges.

Is it also the same in the ediscovery/edisclosure world? I hazard a guess – a doubtless assertion (with the assumption that access to power/data is obtainable) – that the behind the scenes activities between the technical folks and legal and management team are exchanged too late to avoid aggros and costs. (Hence early confer/meet if this is available to parties).

In ediscovery/edisclosure, one of the behind the scene and less talk about (or blogged or written about) is evidence. This is highlighted by the use of generic term such as ‘information exchange’ in international disputes. The ‘e-words’ including ‘evidence’ are potentially culturally sensitive to use. Imagine having to describe the ‘e-evidence’ to all parties without getting cross-wired or inflicting cross-eyed to reviewers?!

For me, the term and usage of evidence in the context of international disputes requires behind the scenes re-assessment to make sense to me when dealing with ediscovery/edisclosure.

I guess evidence is also being re-assessed by folks in Asia. The ADR in Asia Conference 2009 in Hong Kong on 15th September has a topic: Interim Measures and Evidence – Emerging practices and movements.

Will e-disclosure surface under this topic?
I certainly would love to hear from folks who will be attending the Conference in Hong Kong this September. I will be in Peking University and may not be able to do the trip.

Enjoy!

I wish I can go to the Beijing Olympics…oh well…

Today, I heard over the radio (most likely BBC 3) advising visitors to the Beijing Olympic on what not to do?!

One ‘not to do’ is ‘not to ask what they do’ (i.e. avoid asking the Chinese what they do for living or their work).

Gosh! I have lived in Shanghai and Kunming (& have travelled to Beijing and other parts of China) and my advice to anyone going to the Olympics is not to avoid anything especially asking questions?! I guess it’s just radio commentary and not to be taken too seriously.

How about this ‘East meets West style of psychological integration’?

Professor Mok from the National University of Singapore gave a speech, titled “Ancient Chinese thoughts and modern leadership” at the Fudan University . Professor Mok’s suggestions are interesting. If his suggestions are adopted by the Chinese scholars in Fudan, soon all MBA students around the world (for the integration to be meaningful) will also have to study the ancient Chinese thoughts, i.e. Confucianism, Mohism, Taoism, Legalism, Military Arts .Whether future leaders will be able to grasp these ancient Chinese thoughts and think like Confucius etc. will be something I won’t be interested in.

What I am interested is how and why Professor Mok makes the connection between corporate decision-making with Taoism. This is indeed worth checking out. Would Taoism thinking helps with ediscovery/disclosure decision-making?

Maybe I ought to find a way to return or to Go East

Now this is what I consider really interesting…the article is also ‘meant as a guide for foreign investors and companies who seek to have an uncooperative opposing party or nonparty disclose evidence.’

A decent textbook of legal principles (mainly common law jurisdictions) and a fair selection of chapters/articles on digital evidence.

‘Guidelines will provide an appropriate framework to address how to conduct e-discovery, based on norms that the bench and bar can adopt and develop over time as a matter of practice. They are not intended to be enforceable directly, as are the Rules of Civil Procedure, although they may support the enforcement of agreements between parties or provide the basis for court orders. Mandating how e-discovery is conducted through the enactment of detailed rules, at this stage, could be counterproductive, and risk imposing a “one-size fits all” approach that may not be appropriate in different types of litigation or responsive to new technologies as they emerge. It could also add unnecessary complexity to the Rules, and lead to more disputes and related motions. Rather, the objective of these Guidelines is to educate the legal profession, including the judiciary and the practicing bar, on issues relating to e-discovery and how those issues can be addressed in practice.’