This caught my eye (and some other people’s eye too, got some
people asking about it):
"This simple negotiation tactic brought 195 countries to consensus"
http://tinyurl.com/qb4oyq9
It is about the climate change negotiations. Government negotiations
are not my thing in general :-) but this article points to a specific
negotiation style, Indaba:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indaba
"Instead of repeating stated positions, each party is encouraged
to speak personally and state their “red lines,” which are
thresholds that they don’t want to cross. But while telling others
their hard limits, they are also asked to provide solutions to find
a common ground.”
I’ve never heard of this particular technique before, have
other people run into it? Any experiences?
Having participants identify their "must have" versus "nice to have" versus
"don't care" items has been a common if not universal feature of the IETF WGs
I've participated in for as long as I can remember.
This is a helpful process but it is not a panacea. For one thing, there has to
be mutual understanding and common ground before this technique can be
effective.
Any more detailed
information? The reason that I’m asking is that it kind of sounds
like the way people should be voicing their opinions in an IETF
discussion, when that discussion is run in an optimal way.
Along with our rough consensus concepts, of course, and
drive to understand other people's positions.
Just wondering if this is essential what our rough consensus
process already is, or if there are further details that we could
consider learning from as well.
This isn't the quite same a rough consensus, although there's clearly some
overlap.
But I'm afraid I don't see anything new here either.
Ned