If mediation is not private, so-called open mediation, the Ombudsman can write a report that says what happened during mediation and what each party proposed, accepted and refused. The mediator should not give an opinion on whether he considers one of the parties «fair» or «reasonable». The Ombudsman`s report can be used by the parties when they go to court. The parties must know that this is the decisive moment to decide to end the dispute by agreeing to sign and respect the final agreement. A written agreement is not necessarily the barometer of successful mediation. Sometimes a certain dynamic develops, which pushes the parties to overcome their differences so profoundly that they do not feel the need for a written agreement. In the absence of an agreement, there will be no penalty or inconvenience – the parties would retain all the options available to them beforehand, including; (f) Notwithstanding the above, this agreement may be used for mediation and any written agreement reached and signed by the parties as a result of mediation may be used in any relevant proceeding, unless the parties reach a written agreement on it. Alias Mediation Agreements, Settlement Agreements, Mediated Settlement Agreements, Memoranden der Verstundung, Notes of Understanding or simply the Agreement/Agreement. Whatever we call it, it is the document that defines the nature and terms of the agreement reached by the parties. In family mediation, the result usually results in a «memorandum of understanding» signed only by the parties and non-binding, which they will then bring to their lawyers to be included in the separation/consent order for judicial separation or divorce.

Mediation is above all a non-binding procedure. This means that, although the parties have agreed to mediate a dispute, they are not required to continue the mediation process after the first meeting. In this sense, the parties still have control over mediation. The continuation of the process depends on their continued acceptance. Mediation is not an appropriate dispute resolution procedure in all cases. When it comes to forgery or deliberate piracy in bad faith, it is unlikely that both parties will cooperate. If a party is certain to have a clear case or if the objective of the parties or one of them is to obtain a neutral opinion on a question of actual difference, to set a precedent or to be publicly confirmed on a contentious issue, mediation may not be the appropriate procedure. If the parties decide to mediate in Geneva, WIPO provides them with a free meeting room and a party rest room (i.e. at no additional cost for administrative costs due to the WIPO arbitration and intermediation centre).

If the parties decide to mediate outside Geneva, the Centre will help them organize appropriate meeting places. The differences between mediation and arbitration all arise from the fact that, in mediation, the parties retain responsibility and control of the dispute and do not transfer decision-making power to the Ombudsman. In practical terms, this means two things: of course, not all mediations lead to an agreement.