|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Online Arbitration Services
at a Turning Point: An Appraisal Arno R. Lodder* Gerard A.W. Vreeswijk** * Head of IT law, Vrije Universiteit, and
director, Centre of Electronic Dispute Resolution (CEDIRE),[1]
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ** Lecturer at the Institute of Information and
Computing Sciences (ICS), Utrecht University, The Netherlands. 1.
Introduction
One of the most important changes in our society during the last ten
years has been the increasing use of networks and information technology for
communication and information processing.
This development has had a noticeable effect on dispute resolution. Electronic dispute resolution is a general term encompassing various
uses of information technology (IT) in resolving disputes, be it through
litigation, arbitration, mediation or other processes. The use of IT to prepare documents such as
complaints, responses, verdicts and awards is already commonplace. Video screens displaying virtual reality[2]
and internet access are playing an increasing part in hearings. Most dispute resolution practitioners now
exchange documents by e-mail on an everyday basis. Computerized systems for managing cases and workflow have proved
to be invaluable administrative tools. The introduction of IT in arbitration needs to be carried out with
prudence, giving preference to proven applications and taking into account the
desires of users, not least because of the size of the investment
involved. The IT project undertaken in
1999-2002 in the Dutch appeal courts offers a cautionary tale. This project, which cost 16 million euros,
turned out to be totally unusable.[3] The initial aim was to use the most recent
technology for managing cases and workflow.
Summons and verdicts were to be generated automatically without any need
for human intervention, and communications with the police and public
prosecutors were also to be partly automated.
However, the project was suspended, due to its complexity, and when it
was restarted its goals were more modest.
It proved to be impossible to set up a basic workflow management
system. Processes turned out to be more
complicated than at first envisaged, due to amendments and exceptions to the
law. One practical example is that if a
person who is taken to court for speeding pays the fine in the courtroom before
the proceedings start, the case is dismissed.
This is standard practice, although not formally allowed. Software
developers are therefore faced with the question of whether to follow the law
or practice. Another problem
encountered by the project was that users had insufficient knowledge of
technology and their input was too detailed and not attuned to their actual
needs. Where private methods of
dispute resolution such as arbitration and mediation are concerned, the need to
recover the costs of IT investments is crucial, so wariness should be the
watchword International research shows that computerized case-management systems
are widespread within the judiciary.[4] These systems have contributed to the
reduction of case loads and helped to reshape the organization of courts. In the United Kingdom, emphasis was placed
on implementing IT in the courts in the wake of Lord Woolf’s reforms in the
mid-1990s. Although the initial results
fell short of expectations, the courts became more amenable to the use of new
techniques.[5] In 2003, a breakthrough came with the
introduction of the so-called COMPASS system for the Crown Prosecution Service
in England and Wales. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith characterized the project
as follows:[6] The CPS COMPASS system is more than just a way of managing casework. It is a leading example of the kind of transformation that is needed across the Criminal Justice System if we are to achieve the truly efficient and joined-up justice that everyone wants and deserves. Another example is the introduction of IT by the Singapore judiciary,
which over ten years (1992-2002) gradually transformed a sluggish, entirely
paper-based system with a backlog of thousands of cases into a
smooth-functioning, modern organization.[7]
One reason for this success was the way in which the changes were introduced:
time was taken for the judiciary to become used to working with the new
applications before they were made fully operational. Although the main focus during these ten years was on case
management, several innovative techniques were introduced, including a
technological courtroom[8]
offering parties involved in proceedings access to the Internet and thus to
information stored in computers at their office. Modern technology is now commonplace in the Singaporean courts
and includes videoconferencing in courtrooms, mark up languages such as
eXtensible Mark-up Language (XML), wireless application formats (WAP), and
short messaging services (SMS) to keep parties updated. Case management systems are one of the obvious uses of IT in arbitration
too, as illustrated by the ICC International Court of Arbitration, which
decided to develop such a system as early as 1989.[9] A case management system is an
administrative tool to aid those who handle cases. In this paper we do not discuss this type of internal IT use but
concentrate instead on what could be called the external use of IT, that is to
say in interaction with the parties.
For this, the Internet is ideal as it is an excellent means of
disseminating information and communicating, which are crucial to any
arbitration procedure. Emphasis will be placed on a particular type of electronic dispute
resolution: online dispute resolution, or ODR.
ODR can be defined as any form of dispute resolution in which the
Internet is wholly or partially designated as the virtual location in which to
solve a dispute. It should be noted
that ODR does not necessarily mean that the entire procedure is conducted
online. Even occasional use of e-mail for communication purposes during an
arbitration may rank as ODR, although it will generally be considered as
low-profile ODR. At the other end of
the spectrum is a fully online procedure. This paper will begin with a brief introduction to online arbitration. We shall then look at the solutions adopted
by some existing providers with respect to case filing, which is where
arbitration starts. This will be
followed by some general observations on how dispute resolution institutions can integrate IT into their
procedures. The paper will conclude
with reflections on the future of online arbitration. 2.
Online
arbitration
Of all existing dispute resolution mechanisms, arbitration seems to be
the most natural to conduct online. One
reason for this is that the records brought into arbitration proceedings are
mostly in writing and can easily be replaced by electronic files as most paper
documents are nowadays generated using computers. However, doubts might be expressed as to the feasibility of
processing information electronically when, as is often the case in
international arbitrations, huge quantities of documents are involved. At the present time, limited bandwidth may
be an obstacle to communicating large volumes of electronic data. In this case, consideration might be given
to exchanging the bulk of documents at the start on CD-Roms or DVDs.[10] However, this is but a temporary problem, as
restrictions on bandwidth are likely to be overcome in the next couple of
years, opening up the possibilities foreseen in ICC’s NetCase project:[11] Practitioners need to work . . . during their
travelling time or at home . . . without being burdened with hard copies of
voluminous documents. As an alternative of carrying documents with them on
their laptops or CD-ROM, they will be able to access documents directly in
NetCase. The management of large quantities of electronic files, without hard
copies necessarily being available, would therefore seem an entirely serious
option. Indeed, the Court of Rotterdam is currently (2003-2004)
conducting a pilot project in which all documents relating to major criminal
cases are handled in electronic format only. A second reason for thinking that online procedures are particularly
suited to arbitration is that the parties are often far apart and may even be
on opposite sides of the globe. Such
physical separation becomes insignificant online. It is therefore not surprising that one of the first ODR initiatives was
an online arbitration project: Virtual Magistrate.[12] This project, which began in 1996, dealt
with only one case. It was brought by
American Online (AOL) and concerned spam on the Internet. However, the parties settled before a
decision was rendered. In 1994, prior to Virtual Magistrate, David Stodolsky had launched a
less well known project called Net Judges.[13] Coincidentally, the purpose of this
initiative was also to combat spam.[14] The mailing list JUDGES-L was created for
that purpose. Over 40 ‘judges’ were involved. One of the aims was to develop a program
that could determine whether a posting in a newsgroup was spam, and, if it was
characterized as such, to automatically delete this message.[15]
The intended basic activity of the list was to decide on a one man one vote
basis whether cancellations of postings in news groups were appropriate, and to
develop policies for cancellations. Regarding the former activity, mostly
referred to as arbitration, it appeared that the Net Judges were not only
interested in combating spam, but also in judging on content related issues such
as libel and copyright violations. Although the intentions might have been
noble, the usenet community was not waiting for these self-acclaimed Emperors
of Usenet. Amongst others because whereas a necessary condition of most modern
forms of ODR is an agreement to co-operate, the Net Judge decisions would be
enforced irrespective of the will of the parties.[16] This can be compared to the forced transfer
of domain names discussed below. A further and more successful example of online arbitration are the domain
name dispute resolution services offered by providers approved by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for its Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).[17] Like most online arbitration to date,[18]
the procedure is non-binding. It is
possible to initiate legal proceedings in respect of the domain name that is
the subject of the complaint not only after the panel has made a decision but
also prior to or during the arbitration.[19] Since the beginning of 2000 a total of some
5,000 cases have been handled, most of them by the Arbitration and Mediation
Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The awards rendered are not covered by the
United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), or at least there is no use in applying
the Convention, for either the decision upholds the existing situation (the
respondent remains entitled to the domain name), or the domain name is
transferred to the complainant. In the
latter case, the transfer is part of the procedure and is performed by the
registrar, so no cooperation is required from the opponent in order for the
award to take effect. Despite the existence of dozens of online arbitration providers, successful
ODR initiatives are rare and the number of cases arbitrated online, other than
those under the UDRP, is negligible.[20]
This is not, or at least not primarily, due to legal obstacles. Back in 1999,
Richard Hill concluded ‘that there are no
significant legal obstacles to on-line arbitration and that there is no need to
modify existing laws or international treaties’.[21] We believe that an important reason for the
failure of online arbitration services is the limited added value they offer
parties involved in arbitration proceedings. Most providers simply offer
facilities for storing case information electronically and for exchanging such
information via e-mail. However,
parties do not necessarily need an ODR
provider for that. Predictions vary as to the time it will take for the shift from physical
to virtual dispute resolution to occur.[22] Our feeling is that it is not that far away,
as the next five years are likely to see the emergence of high bandwidth
Internet connections through mobile devices using third generations systems
such as UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System or 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership
Project). However long it takes
to reach whatever level of IT use, the role of IT in arbitration is undoubtedly
set to increase in the coming years.
Whilst initiatives such as those taken by the ICC International Court of
Arbitration to adapt its working methods to such changes are therefore timely
and important, this development also invites reflection on the place and role
of ODR providers in international commercial arbitration. Our intention here is to prompt such
reflection by focusing on one particular aspect of arbitration procedure: case
filing. 3.
Case
filing in online arbitration
This is the first and most important step in any
online arbitration procedure. An
adequate intake form is crucial for it sets the tone of the arbitration
procedure and, if properly designed, helps to give the parties confidence in
the procedure. The provider must strike
a balance between asking too much and too little, and make sure that all
relevant information is obtained. We shall briefly
look at three providers of online arbitration that may be considered as a
representative selection: MARS, WIPO arbitration and Onlineresolution.[23] We shall compare the intake forms of each
provider and point out those aspects that stand out as particularly positive or
negative. On the basis of our observations, we shall conclude by suggesting a
few guidelines for the design of case filing forms in online arbitration. 3.1 MARS
MARS uses a single registration form for both claimant and
respondent. The personal information is
divided into two sets of similar entries, the second of which is preceded by
the following statement: ‘If you are the Claimant, please provide the following
information about the Respondent so that we can contact them.’ We believe that for reasons of clarity
different forms would have been preferable depending on the role of the party. Information about the dispute itself has to be entered into a single
field, which is preceded firstly by instructions intended for the claimant –
‘Please state the type of claim, a short summary of the reasons for the claim
and monetary damages sought.’ – followed by similar instructions for the
respondent. There is otherwise little
guidance for the claimant and the respondent.
We again believe that a distinction between the claimant and the
respondent would be preferable. Also,
the use of a single space for case information neglects the opportunity online
forms offer for structuring such information. 3.2 WIPO
Arbitration and Mediation Center
The WIPO registration form is, by contrast, almost overburdened with
details and instructions are provided for each and every field. Is it really necessary, for instance, to add
alongside the telephone, fax and e-mail fields the instructions ‘specify
telephone number’, ‘specify fax number’, and ‘specify e-mail address’? Another point worth noting is that some information has to be entered
more than once, which introduces unnecessary dependencies amongst data. For instance, the email address has to be
entered as many as three times: in the general contact details (3), when
specifying the preferred method of communication for electronic-only material
(5), and for the purpose of receiving electronic confirmation of the submission
(21). The form’s strong point is the way it structures information, with over
20 fields to fill in. For a claim to be
successful under the UDRP, three cumulative conditions have to be met:
confusing similarity with a trademark, no legitimate interests and bad faith
registration. Each of these central
issues is registered in a separate field. Additional information would have been better presented as a link rather
than appearing on the form. Such information
can be helpful in formulating the issues, but it should be left to the
individual user to decide whether or not to consult the information. Including
it in the form itself makes the form unnecessarily long and detailed. 3.3 Onlineresolution.com
Onlineresolution has a single intake form for claimant and respondent.
Unlike MARS, the instructions do not distinguish between the claimant and the
respondent but are of a general nature.
A suggested improvement would be to display the address information provided
by the claimant when the respondent fills in the form. Although this would not change the form, it
would save the respondent from having to fill in the the claimant’s details as
well as its own. It might not even be
necessary for it to provide its full contact details if these, or some of them,
have already been provided by the claimant. Not all fields in the form have to be filled in, but only those that are
required (marked by a red R). This is a
nice feature as it accelerates submission by allowing unessential fields to be
left blank. Those fields which are
shared by both parties are indicated: ‘The dispute is regarding . . . This helps to make the form more transparent.
Although not marked as such, we assume contact information is also shared. The form uses a roll-down menu for the amount in dispute. One of five options may be selected, ranging
from less than 500 dollars to more than 50,000 dollars. A similar feature is also used for the date
on which the dispute started, with separate roll-down menus for the day, month
and year. These forced entries
facilitate input for the parties and the streamlining of information for the
provider. However, care should be taken
if fixed variables are used. For
example, the options available for the year in which the dispute started range
from 1998 to 2001, which reflects the recentness of the site. 3.4 Lessons
learned
Based on the above observations, we would make the following suggestions
for the design of intake forms: ·
Information should be structured in obvious fields with not too much
information for each field. ·
The instructions should be short; fuller instructions should be provided
by means of links. ·
A different form should be used for each party. ·
Information already known to the provider should be included on the
form. The guiding principle should be to provide adequate support for users
without creating undue complexity. 4.
Considerations
on the future use of IT in online arbitration
In the
light of the above analysis we will touch upon three issues that we believe are
currently crucial to online arbitration.
These issues concern the ownership and control of IT facilities for
arbitration, the enforcement and coordination of standards of procedure, and
the enforcement and coordination of standards of exchange. Who should own and control IT facilities for
arbitration? There
are two obvious approaches here, namely a centralized and a liberal approach.
With a centralized approach, the institution takes the design and development
of the various IT solutions into its own hands. Thus, software is designed and
developed in-house from scratch, with the help of the institution’s own
staff. Such an approach is motivated by
the wish to avoid external dependencies.
At the same time, however, a centralized approach places the entire
burden of the IT developments on the institution, from design through to
maintenance. This is the approach the
ICC International Court of Arbitration has chosen to adopt in its NetCase project. Alternatively,
it is possible to follow a decentralized approach, whereby the provision of
IT-solutions is left to independent providers that operate in a free
market. Such providers would of course
need to propose solutions that abide by the institution’s rules. According to this approach there is a clear
separation of concerns and a transparent division between legal and technical
competencies, with the technical burden being taken off the shoulders of the
institution. As a result, there would be five participants in the proceedings:
claimant, respondent, arbitrator, institution and online arbitration provider.[24] Enforcement and coordination of standards of procedure A second
issue is whether or not to enforce special procedures for specific IT
solutions. For example, an arbitral
tribunal could require parties who have indicated their intention to conduct
proceedings electronically to follow certain rules for storing and naming
electronic files.[25] Or when parties have agreed to communicate by e-mail, they could
be required to make printed records (hard copies) of their e-mails, and to
manually acknowledge receipt to all e-mails received.[26] There may be a requirement to
draw up special protocols to resolve technical issues relating to web site
communications.[27] It should be remembered, however, that the parties’ first
concern is to settle their case, which is a legal matter, not a technical
one. There is always a risk that the
need to set technical standards might hamper the progress of the arbitration. Although it is true that standards may
bring clarification and greater efficiency, it could be at the expense of time
and energy that might otherwise be devoted to the proceedings themselves. The solution might better be sought in the
structured storage of documents,[28] or left to each institution’s
information management system. It could
also be argued that the interoperability of web-based solutions makes it
unnecessary to stipulate operating standards for IT use. Such issues might indeed be better left to
external providers. Enforcement or coordination of standards of exchange A third
and final issue is closely related to the previous one, but narrows the problem
down to whether it is necessary to enforce commitments on a certain standard of
exchange. Here too, we would suggest that explicit commitments are not
necessarily required. For example, there is no point in agreeing to use XML if
there is no clear agreement on how the various XML documents will be
structured. Again, such an issue could
be left to external providers, which would then be responsible for the
appropriate management of the documents according to the applicable rules. An
ODR XML standard is under development, but considering the history of similar
standards in other environments the success to be expected of such a standard
can be doubted. 5.
Concluding
remarks
The use of the Internet allows
an arbitration procedure to be conducted more effectively, by offering access
to case information at any time and from any place, by supporting both
synchronous and asynchronous communication, and by allowing large volumes of
files to be handled. Additionally, it
is expected that videoconferencing will soon become a standard tool capable of
greatly reducing travel time and expense.[29] Thus, from a technological point of view there will
be virtually no restrictions to ODR practices. Despite the wealth of
possibilities offered by modern technology, one of the major challenges in the
design of future ODR platforms will be to develop a technology that does not
simply mimic offline practices. Colin Rule rightly observes:[30] When designing or choosing an online
dispute resolution platform, it is important to think outside the box so that
the tools selected are not merely copying offline practices. One example is the use of
argumentation to structure the exchange of information.[31] This means
that the claimant and the respondent are put in a situation where they have to
react to each other’s contributions. For example, if the claimant states that
the respondent delivered contaminated goods, then it is in the interest of the
process, and ultimately in the interest of both parties, that the respondent
takes note of the claim and responds to it.
Such structures have been studied for quite some time in the field of
formal argumentation, and a number of dialogue systems have successfully
implemented this kind of argumentation, showing it to be viable. Of course, not
all concepts are equally suitable for dispute resolution. Argumentation is
primarily aimed at ‘the desire to be right’, while dispute resolution is
solution-oriented. The authors are currently
experimenting with an ODR system called GearBi[32] in which argumentation is a crucial component. It allows participants to mark (highlight)
each other's contributions and respond to the marked phrases with a reply. Initial experiments have shown that this
concept integrates well with the overall negotiation process as it articulates
the needs of all parties at the proper places in the web-environment. The experiments also suggest that the lessons
learned in the area of formal argumentation are ready to be applied in the
field of ODR. Conceptual
innovations such as that described above are just a moderate beginning. We believe that if developments of this kind
are pursued, online arbitration will have a bright future ahead of it. [1] See http://cedire.org. The Centre started in the
summer of 2003 and focuses on legal and technical issues regarding the use of
technology in dispute resolution, either by the judiciary or in alternative
dispute resolution (negotiation, mediation, arbitration). The aim of the Centre
is basically twofold: (a) to carry out joint research projects on Electronic
Dispute Resolution, in particular ODR (b) to disseminate
information (about people, organisations, events, etc.) and knowledge (online
papers, book references etc.). [2] A. Narayanan & S. Hibbin, ‘Can Animations be Safely used in Courts’, AI & Law 2001-4, p. 225-269. [3] A.R. Lodder & A. Oskamp,
‘ICT-toepassingen in het strafrecht’ in B.J. Koops, ed., ICT en strafrecht (Den Haag: SDU, 2004) 215, and several examples
in M. Fabri, ‘Italy: practical perspective’ in A.R. Lodder et al., eds.,
IT Support of the Judiciary in Europe
(Den Haag: SDU, 2001) 17. [4] M. Fabri & F. Contini, eds., Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT is
Changing the Judicial Business (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001);
A.R. Lodder et al., eds., IT Support of the Judiciary in Europe (The Hague: SDU, 2001); A.
Oskamp et al., eds., IT support of the Judiciary in Australia, Singapore, Venezuela, Norway, The Netherlands and Italy (TMC
Asser Press/Cambridge University Press, 2004). [5] P. Leith, ‘The UK: practical
perspective’ in A.R. Lodder et al.,
eds., supra note 4 at 55-68. [6] See PublicTechnology.net. [7] Y.S. Thian, ‘Singapore’ in A.
Oskamp et al., eds., supra note 4 at 45-70. [8] Courtroom 21, a project that started at the beginning of the 1990s; see F.I. Lederer, ‘Technologically Augmented Litigation-Systematic Revolution’, Information & Communications Technology Law, 5 (3), p. 215-226. [9] M. Philippe, ‘NetCase: A New ICC
Arbitration Facility’, see hereinafter p. ** ff.. [10] cf. P12 of ‘The Standards’,
hereinafter p. **. [11] M. Philippe, supra note 7. [12] For further information on Virtual
Magistrate, see F. Gélinas, ******, hereinabove at p. ** ff. [13] L. van der Wees, ‘Internet@spam.Rechtbank’, Computerrecht 1995-1, pp. 44-45. [14] Spam still is a problem, see
‘Explanatory Notes on The Standards’, III.2, hereinafter p. **.. [15] This can be done by a so-called
forged cancel, which is generally accepted in case of spam. [16] In case of spam it could be argued
that the very act of posting a message in a newsgroup implies acceptance of
‘Netiquette’. [17] E.C. Anderson & T.S. Cole, ‘The
UDRP: A Model For Dispute Resolution In E-Commerce?’ (2002) 6 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 235;
R.T. Mitchell (1998), Resolving Domain Name-Trademark Disputes: A New System of
Alternative Dispute Resolution is Needed in Cyberspace, (1998) 14 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 157. Very
critical, B.G. Davis,
‘Une magouille planetaire: The UDRP is an International Scam’, (2002) 72 Miss L. J. 815. [18] One exception we know of is the
WIPO arbitration of Dutch domain names, in effect since January 2003. [19] Article 18(a) UDRP. [20] It should
be said that information on ODR activities is not always made known. One reason for this is the confidentiality
of arbitration proceedings. Another may
well be that such information would reveal that there have not been (that many)
cases. We are sure this will change in
time. [21] R. Hill, ‘Online Arbitration:
Issues and Solutions’, (1999) 15 Arbitration
International 1999 www.umass.edu/dispute/hill.htm. [22] M. Philippe estimates it will take
three to five years before procedures are conducted exclusively using
electronic means; see M. Philippe, supra
note 7 at. A.R. Lodder believes ODR
will be the central method of dispute resolution in 10-15 years time - a
prediction based on observations by D.A. Larson, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Do
You Know Where Your Children Are?’, Negotiation
Journal, July 2003, pp. 199-205,
and E. Roelvink, ‘The Future is Here’, <www.emediation.nl>; see A.R.
Lodder, ‘De toekomst van
geschillenoplossing: aandachtspunten en de onstuitbare opmars van ODR’, Nederlands Juristenblad, 2004-16, pp.
832-838, <http://pubs.cli.vu/pub143.php>. [23] <www.resolvemydispute.com/>,
<http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/>, and <www.onlineresolution.com>. [24] For an interesting analysis of the
different three party agreements or contracts involved in the case of
mediation, see B.
Yunis, ‘Rechtsfragen der Online-Mediation’ in O. Märker & M. Trénel, ed., Online-Mediation. Neue
Medien in Der Konfliktvermittlung - Mit Beispielen Aus Politik Und Wirtschaft (Berlin: Sigma, 2003) 201. [25] cf. P4-P8 of ‘The Standards’,
hereinafter p. **. [26] cf. E5-E6 of ‘The Standards’,
hereinafter p. **. [27] cf. Section 3.3 of ‘The Standards’,
hereinafter p. **. [28] See M. Philippe, supra note 7. [29] E. Schäfer, ‘Videoconferencing in
arbitration’ (2003) 14:1 ICC ICArb. Bull.
35. [30] C. Rule, Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2002) at 253. [31] A.R. Lodder & P.E.M. Huygen,
‘eADR: A simple tool to structure the information exchange between parties in
Online Alternative Dispute Resolution’ in B. Verheij et al., eds., JURIX 2001 (IOS
Press, 2001) 117. G.A.W. Vreeswijk, ‘A simple scheme to structure and process the information
of parties in online forms of alternative dispute resolution’, ADR Online Monthly, October 2003. See also G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Studies in Defeasible Argumentation, PhD thesis, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1993;
A.R. Lodder. DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical
Models of Argumentation (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1999). [32] http://www.cs.uu.nl/~gv/arbitration |
||||||||||
