The Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery is available for purchase at Gartner’s site.
I wonder whether the survey/research also considered Open Source ediscovery platforms. I suspect not from the free review at Law.com.
I also wonder whether the Magic Quadrant took into consideration the usage or the applicability of the products for edisclosure as in international arbitration and/or cross-border disputes. I suspect not.
CIETAC has announced that effective May 1, 2012, the CIETAC Arbitration Rules (2012) shall uniformly apply to the CIETAC and its sub-commissions.
CIETAC started the rules revision back in early 2010. During early 2010 I was in CIETAC (as reported in this blog) and had an opportunity to gain valuable insights into the workings of CIETAC, to which I am most grateful to the Director of the International Division. The approach taken on the rules revision was open and thorough via a working group.
As an arbitration institution, established since 1956, CIETAC has vast experience of not only arbitration but also conciliation (or mediation). In the (old) 2005 rules Article 40 allows for the combination of conciliation and arbitration (throughout the arbitration proceeding), a unique feature which the Western world finds rather alien. Alien as the role of a mediator is perceived to be different or separate from an arbitrator, and as such the potential for conflict of interests and/or impartiality issues. The (old) CIETAC rules have served the arbitration community well, and according to CIETAC, 20% to 30% of its annual caseload is resolved through this med-arb process. Furthermore, the new 2012 rules have incorporated additional safeguards (Article 45.8 and 45.10) to strengthen the combination of conciliation and arbitration provision. My guess is that these safeguards are to address and avoid the issues of impartiality, and to prevent a repeat of the case of Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Limited, whereby a Chinese arbitral award was enforced in Hong Kong after a failed med-arb (due to arbitrator impartiality). Also, Article 45.1 to 45.10 amendments to the old 2005 rules on med-arb are clearer in terms of separation of the role of CIETAC, the parties and the tribunal.
On the subject of ‘service of document’, the new rules have added ‘periods of time’ in Article 8.4 perhaps to clarify the starting (time) or commencement of the arbitration. The efficiency of document (paper intensive) handling and administration as performed by the staff at CIETAC are reflected in the new provision, Article 18 Submissions and Exchange of Arbitration Documents. This is perhaps another unique feature of CIETAC in that document exchange is managed by the Secretariat of CIETAC, unless otherwise agreed by the parties and with the consent of the arbitral tribunal or otherwise decided by the arbitral tribunal (Article 18.2).
For a detailed commentary on the rules changes, Herbert Smith provides a good breakdown.
I recently came across a content curation service, paper.li and decided to use it to gather contents via my twitter. According to paper.li ‘they love the semantic web’, a great start for an online paper.
Paper.li seems to use the twitter (or google+, facebook) handler/user to anchor the data stream and then allow tags/keywords to search/pull for the tagged content across handlers and their contents. Paper.li then sifts, sorts and aggregates (i.e. curate the cluttered web?) into the typical paper-style categories, with one interesting aspect i.e. allowing user-defined tagged-categories. The semantic web put into practise?
I have three twitter accounts, one for fun/social/friends, one for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) stuff, and one for ediscovery/edisclosure (edisc) stuff. So far, my edisc twitter has the largest followers and the largest klout. Currently my tags are cyber, agile, databreach, and cyberinsurance. I wonder what my paper, The Data Chain, will reveal if I use tags on edisclosure and ediscovery. Since I have the largest followers on edisc stuff, I guess The Data Chain paper will be choked with edisc stuff. These tags and also twitter lists will be use in the next edition of The Data Chain.
A publication – Aspects of Identity – from The British Computer Society Identity Assurance Working Group with foreword by Kim Cameron is available for download (pdf). From the publication: The BCS position is that individuals, not organisations, should remain in control of their personal identification, whether held by governments or other organisations.
Individuals, organisations, governments etc i.e. EVERYone who cares about their privacy should read the publication and decide what ‘identity’ to attach to (their) data. (Identity Governance for all).
This blogging site will be getting a new face lift over the next coming months.
The focus will be on law and technology matters related to data risks and challenges.
More to expect…
Thanks.
Cloud is here to stay (until another storm clears the current cloud), so might as well ride with the current cloud.
Like picking up any new technology or looking to make sense of the new technology, I start with looking at the new technology with references to established methodologies, approaches or techniques or simply methods. These established methods are still around, come cloud or no cloud.
I have heard references of cloud computing in terms of outsourcing or another way of addressing or outsourcing your computing costs. So folks also talk about cloud computing in terms of opex and/or capex. Is cloud computing new technology or another way to talk about outsourcing your computing costs?
After reading this excellent write up on Cloud Computing, my initial skepticism on cloud computing turns into childish delight! Ah! It makes sense to have the 4 letters i.e. SaaS, PaaS, IaaS to describe cloud computing in terms of services. It seems that cloud computing does resemble outsourcing except that with outsourcing one is led to address business function/activities instead of computing services. My next question -what services are offered by cloud computing that will radically change the way I work or use technology? An ediscovery question in cloud computing – will (or is) cloud computing radically change (changing) the ediscovery scene?
Right now I can’t think of any (cloud) services except that I will have to figure out what data do I consider cloud worthy. This sounds familiar in outsourcing too. The same question as what is core to my business, I keep in control and not outsource also applies to cloud computing. At the lowest level, is data core to my business? A tough question or a non question! There will be established or seasoned/reasoned questions which are irrelevant in cloud computing.
Businesses outsource their core function as ‘core’ is not an accounting concept or an IT concept. We don’t talk about core accounting costs or core computing/technological data or services. Do we?
It seems the focus is no longer on ‘core business’ or even services. Cloud computing is driving the way we handle or our ability to handle data – period. The signs are around us e.g. ‘Big Data’ and ‘BYOD’.
I am not interested in what cloud computing delivers, it is what data to ‘outsource’/give up to cloud service providers. There is data protection act (soon a law in itself) and privacy related concerns. It will be interesting to see whether the changes to the data regime will define further questions or will the changes redefine the way cloud computing is currently defined. I have not come across a piece of legislation that changes the way technology is defined (& hence it’s course of design, development and deployment). It is a known fact that law plays catch up in terms of technology. The ‘right to be forgotten‘ is probably the policy/rule makers’ way of acknowledging that computing is beyond ‘legal codifying’. Perhaps the policy makers in mixing data protection with privacy wanted to recapture the concept of privacy as defined by Judge Thomas Cooley in 1888 – The Law of Torts 29 (2d ed. 1888) – ‘the right to be left alone’.
So where does this lead to in terms of ediscovery, which is also here to stay whether cloud or no cloud.
One term that comes to mind is disruption as in disruptive technology with the intended consequences and (perceived) benefits.
Cloud computing is disruptive technology/computing for ediscovery at many levels as it touches on several areas where ediscovery is weak (in terms of uncertainty or complexity in data access and processing). Similar to the concept of ‘core’, ‘control’ and ‘trust’ are meaningless in disruptive technology. Meaningless in the sense that one invariably (even with contractual agreements in place) loses control of data (in the cloud). The issue with trust is – how can we trust cloud providers if we loses control of data? Control of data and issues of trust are interlock or meshed up as seen in the measures to deal with data protection and privacy rights. The emphasis on ‘protect’ data (as in data protection rather than ‘control’ ) seems to have lost its lustre in the attempt to address privacy of individual in the non physical data world.
So it is back to ‘handling of data’ which is essentially what we do when we do ediscovery. We ‘handle’ – as this cover all aspects of accessing or processing – as it is human that handle the data not computer.If this is not the case, why do we have ediscovery rules (CPR) that has description of ‘how to do…’ . Like all changes in rules/law, there will be disruption initially. So it is safe to say, changes in the data regime will disrupt the ediscovery rules or more accurately further disrupt the handling of data.
Can we define data in terms of services? It’s like defining personal and sensitive data (or secret data/info) as services for cloud computing. Maybe we are getting there in terms of 4 letters, as data is 4 letters too.
Have you notice that ‘B something’ is back in fashion?
‘Big Blue’ in the 70s or is it in the 80s?
Now we have ‘Big Data’ and ‘BYOD’.
In the ediscovery world, these two ‘B something’ not only add extra vocabulary but also highlighted that data is ‘Big-ish to the petra super server level’ and also ‘small-ish to the device level’.
Where do we start?
For those interested in my talk I did last November, the video is accessible (I hope! ) at http://bit.ly/x5h0IY and slides in ppt Have you heard of electronic discovery/disclosure?
click2ediscovery is now iedisc. Wanted a simple and short name with an ‘i’ as tweeted back in summer 2009. Twitter was my ‘diary’ then. Life has been hectic since summer 2009 especially as I moved to China in Sept 2009 and only moved back to my own home (in UK) last Sept.
I will eventually shut down this blogging site and move my blog to my new site www.iadrt.com
Thanks Twitter for keeping my ‘dairy’.
Looking for the gems in the surveys.
Symantec’s survey : Information Retention and eDiscovery Survey (international coverage)
Can’t locate the Year Review from Kroll Ontrack Inc. Notes at Businesswire.com
and at continuitycompliance.org (US coverage)
Fulbright’s litigation trend (US & UK)