2) Particularly amazing in this sense, was the entire first day of the conference. This was was comprised of sessions in which court system representatives shared their ODR programs, pilots, platforms and data with other court systems. They were pushing each other to adopt ODR, and supporting each other in doing so. Nobody from the ODR community – those of us who have been preaching to the choir or preaching to the walls for the past 15-20 years – needed to say a word. Anybody who has ever been on a soapbox, in ODR or in ADR, knows how revolutionary that is. 

3) I’m returning home very happy for my decision, about 4-5 years ago, to stop advocating for ODR and instead assume the role of a guide, teacher, and trainer, working with students, innovators and systems; and even more importantly, to adopt the stance of an enthusiastic ODR critic. ODR doesn’t need anybody to advocate for it anymore; it is a done deal. It does, however, need people doing their best to make sure that it is done right. Particularly, I think, courts need expert guidance on adoption and implementation that does not come solely from their internal members or from the ODR service providers who set up their platforms.  It's not that anybody is ill-intentioned; it is just that there are many potential pitfalls and a lot to think about - so much, that it is easy to get overwhelmed, take shortcuts, and make quick decisions. It is so important to spend energy and resources researching the problems you want to solve, before deciding on one ODR implementation or another, or any implementation at all!  ODR can be one of the most helpful developments of the 21st century – no, I’m not overstating this, unless you hate things like world peace. Do you hate world peace? – or it could be as benevolent to people as Skynet on a grumpy day.