> 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