From: <jheiskan(a)welho.com>
Look, folks. Can I make this very simple for you.
There are only two
powers a
mediator needs. One power is the power to convince
(through trust) that
everything revealed during the mediation process will be held strictly
confidential, and *never* brought to light otherwise.
I agree 101% with this -- the mediation process is a confidential
"negotiation"
between those who do not agree. That is all. If they come to an agreement,
great,
if not, nothing lost, maybe something gained (there has been some
communciation,
isn't that always a positive thing?).
The other power a mediator needs is the power to
suggest, convincingly,
that the
next step, and a next step much more traumatic, is to
bring in
*arbitrators*
with *much* more powers, and that mediation is much
better than
arbitration.
Mediation can be a stand alone procedure, so I am not sure where this is
coming from. I think that anyone who goes into mediation knows that if an
agreement
is not reached that there will be consequences, though some people do use
mediation as a stalling tactic, most see it as a good faith attempt to get
their
point across to those they do not agree with. The consequence of not
mediation
does not have to be arbitration. It can be arbitrary power (i.e. someone
decides
to ban if there is no mediation resolution without any kind of further
process
after mediation involving the persons making the disputed edits).
Alex756