<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- <br>
Hash: SHA256 <br>
<br>
Hello all,<br>
<br>
Jari has pointed to some interesting method of finding consensus. I
forward them here just for interest, not for any action.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<br>
- -------- Forwarded Message --------<br>
Subject: negotiation and consensus-finding styles<br>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:04:10 +0200<br>
From: Jari Arkko <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net"><jari.arkko@piuha.net></a><br>
To: IETF <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ietf@ietf.org"><ietf@ietf.org></a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This caught my eye (and some other people’s eye too, got some<br>
people asking about it):<br>
<br>
"This simple negotiation tactic brought 195 countries to
consensus"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tinyurl.com/qb4oyq9">http://tinyurl.com/qb4oyq9</a><br>
<br>
It is about the climate change negotiations. Government negotiations<br>
are not my thing in general :-) but this article points to a
specific<br>
negotiation style, Indaba:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indaba">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indaba</a><br>
<br>
"Instead of repeating stated positions, each party is encouraged<br>
to speak personally and state their “red lines,” which are<br>
thresholds that they don’t want to cross. But while telling
others<br>
their hard limits, they are also asked to provide solutions to
find<br>
a common ground.”<br>
<br>
I’ve never heard of this particular technique before, have<br>
other people run into it? Any experiences? Any more detailed<br>
information? The reason that I’m asking is that it kind of sounds<br>
like the way people should be voicing their opinions in an IETF<br>
discussion, when that discussion is run in an optimal way.<br>
Along with our rough consensus concepts, of course, and<br>
drive to understand other people's positions.<br>
<br>
Just wondering if this is essential what our rough consensus<br>
process already is, or if there are further details that we could<br>
consider learning from as well.<br>
<br>
(And: as always, any process can by misused if the participants<br>
do not care enough about the common good. I’m sure this<br>
never happens in government negotiations :-) but in the<br>
rest of the world… one example that I’ve seen in the IETF<br>
is overstating hard requirements, e.g., making particular<br>
solutions part of the requirements. Next time you discuss<br>
something in the IETF, please take a moment to reflect<br>
what your true needs are and what are just solution<br>
space options. Take also a moment to understand<br>
what the other people are saying, and try to build<br>
that into what you are suggesting, finding ways for<br>
other people’s needs to be also met.)<br>
<br>
Jari<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- <br>
Version: GnuPG v2 <br>
<br>
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWbsBWAAoJEA22tlbHMiYdqw8P/Rox4Gnik+usuQs/glYGuQwW <br>
0ubaTEODz0CjGcchtxMC0yxD4azKB7oMSGhdhWka1YxHICzMcHF1mZG6Q3s3tKaf <br>
c8t+BTJpRUEUyAi4NH8+p/aL2LVvohP10YmILNONi3MbJufxQjbtBTGN09yFdl8U <br>
ZGzHys5SHM80ptYsxpf/QHBHKsFmKU/NPLF4c7+bhV+S8rEgVSHSl7geCr3IvALm <br>
bX4RfefCuFJkzCRPATOVuNVGp2sMV5ZE25BhJaKo2WtDCfKmLmYtd5OaE5OkAe3q <br>
YxEDv/JyEZUVdvHiv1KuCjY05utivmrYmsU/+q4SRiKLdfyrve/4fKnTIAPupFiQ <br>
f6E3az+XTFr5+7JkPV1j43WCeHijgnM1kraLZKPjPB4HkG4dGyR0anotibXGqy8t <br>
TuJHsIqF01Mur8DeaClxUQ5HhlPXvM49233oftZo6sgHJRijc7+pY9q9tMgtMY8d <br>
gvIeewwBllPiCUTXpkVA84VVgLqAlNpzQ+zRqrIZKdEkaEFix76GDKR2f9ggOBu0 <br>
KGUQHRGJxU0uY+b7IL4EctCAZBOCtyvEs48+TnjySrlOvmNk6yeciBYRDGdG5esT <br>
WRCE48+Z5XYq71UWADzYHZDbvGrFUETNDf/iiupY+vVdP0ryFhyER2E/LhkCym4z <br>
lJJV640jtqtxuJuOTAFE <br>
=VA53 <br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>