Reflections

This is not what I thought would happen today, which again just demonstrates the ability of students to surprise me.

Things fizzled out, almost before they got going: the group suddenly seemed very drained and the outstanding issues evaporated. Bizarre this, since time didn't get to be an issue at all. Perhaps the lack of need to get a vote on a text contributed to the apathy.

From what I've seen so far, I don't know if there was very much engagement - most of the evidence seemed to point towards limited interest and negotiation, but I might be missing a whole level of discussions.

My comments about identification still hold - people didn't seem to get drawn into their roles today and at the end people just left, without going over what they did (maybe because WH had given them so much time to do this during the day). Even WH seemed not too bothered about writing up the rest of the text - indeed, looking at it now, there's still some red text on MEPP and my repeatedly deleted comments on the UN were never addressed.

So, I'm disappointed, but I'm always disappointed at the end. Maybe that'll change when I see the portfolios.

confusion

on my part - we never got a quickening of the pace, just a collapse across the line.

And close

At 3.18

obviously keen to leave

we're done.

directionless

not a clear discussion going on, nor full engagement by everyone (DHS are checking the Wikipedia entry for the Honda Accord...)

Middle east

Richard laid out some ideas, then Alex wearily asks for comments, as if everyone's been going hard at it all day. not much enthusiasm around the room

3.10 and back in business

Early indications are a 3.30 finish as no-one has any comments on Israel text.

a new strategy

not on Middle East, but on the wiki, of side-stepping several of the comments.

Still no text of foreign policy management.

drifting

in a more literal fashion - several people have left the room in this short break - NSA have just asked me if this is a break, which shows how clear things are.

Making it up

as we go along.

WH has done this several times - "we guess Obama will want to do this." Not a strong evidence base for some of these statements

still drifting

now talking about new fission reactors...

wiki war

Obama's comments on the UN text have been deleted twice by WH and replaced twice by me. Hopefully not their full strategy on getting a text, to ignore/delete comments...

chaos again

a couple of minutes lost here, with confusion about what's happening.

a very brief UN text on the wiki, which will need to be expanded.

Wrap-up protocol

FYI, about 15 minutes ago, I sent the following MSN to WH:


just to advise you: you decide when this negotiation is done today - it's your text, so when you're happy with it, then you're done. 'Obama' won't be adding any more comments, except on your text on UN and foreign policy management. However, you have to have dealt with all the red text before the end.

not sure if this was communicated beyond WH.

"that was my first proper argument"

says EPA's negotiator. he's right.

break chatter

now more about the negotiations

And on to climate change

But first, general chat.

WH summarises

accepts EPA promotion to Cabinet, says no to USAID.

not a great use of the time, especially when WH still has to release text on UN and foreign policy management, let alone discuss it.

at least they say what the topics after the break will be.

Still on EPA's status

One wonders why WH isn't halting this discussion...

less than 3 hours left

still no urgency, with even WH less stressy than before lunch....

More than 15 minutes

On the issue of whether EPA becomes a department. Must be a big important global issue.

EPA

people don't rate EPA as that important: worries about money instead. Even Energy's support is grounded on the up-rating to Cabinet post as a purely 'symbolic gesture', rather than anything meaningful.

now it's getting personal

EPA seems to be annoyed by Senate's attitude. Senate seem bemused more than anything.

Shhhh

A lot of the speakers are very quietly spoken. I appreciate that it's perhaps unfair to criticise a personal characteristic, but the art of speaking confidently and assuredly (and at least loudly enough that everyone can here) is a pretty useful one for life.

chairs

now a few more people have turned up (without any explanation for their absence this morning), we're pretty much out of chairs, but no-one's getting more from the other room.

talking of which, one of the two Commerce people is still on the wrong side of the room, and the other one has disappeared. odd.

and go!

Nadine calls the meeting to order: thinking back, it's been not very strong chairing (pace Rebecca), but the others have been much more relaxed than in the preliminary game.

Still people drifting in.

Now talking about foreign policy formulation.

EPA fugitives have gone, and the wiki text is much bigger.

end of lunch

but we've only got 10 people in the room, so still no urgency.

WH is posting up some changes now to the text, so no one will have had time to see/process them: not that anyone's looking.

Lunch

as if to prove the point, WH calls for lunch for an hour.

agenda

WH seem to be making it up as they go along. have short breaks between topics, but don't tell the others what's next.

Positions

still a fair bit of groups just wanting to express their views and positions, without really then following through.

Not a whole of fisher & ury going on...

Israel

the issue here is that the WH is following the campaign statements of Obama, which were very pro-Israeli (as they were for all the candidates), but this doesn't mean that it is the policy he'd follow.

no-one's making the case for engagement in the Middle-East, nor noting the inconsistency of Obama's desire to engage with Hamas (which WH has mentioned twice now). Certainly no discussion of whether getting involved is worth the effort...

And finally, we have differences of opinion!

And who would have thought that Israel would be the subject!

Israel

WH presenting Obama's campaign views on Israel.

Energy kick things off...

EPA fugitives

still on the projector - why?

WH cohesion

still not a strong, coherent group - too collective to really make the most of the opportunities.

Front to back

Very little communication between the negtiators in each group and their back room teams. The right hand side of teh room (looking forward) is pretty much two straight lines, negotiators in front, others with laptops on laps at back. Just as I say that EPA lean back and start talking, around a laptop with wiki on screen - actually game related.

short break

chatter still not about the game.

A new Topic (UN)

so we're trying out one of my new topics - seems like a fair few groups have contributions.

again, I'm not sure whether the previous WH practice will work here, of having a discussion, then going away to write a text, then to discuss again. time-intensive.

Progress?

I'm honestly not sure whether we're moving forward here or not. Because WH is completely controlling the text, there's little stimulus to get arguments going, so we store up problems for later, possibly.

Energy (as a topic)

now talking about Energy, although it has no Obama comments, so again I'm not clear what these discussions are aiming to do.

energy again

making good points, but not really their area (i.e. relations with Iran). A reflection of frustration with the others?

Purpose

I'm not sure how this is working: are WH asking for advice, or just elaborating their position? is it just about the Obama comments, or other things too? what happens if no-one has anything to say?

Finance

Maybe it's my limited knowledge of US politics, or a statement about the rules of the game, but I've been surprised not to hear the phrase 'but how do we pay for this' appear more often. It was certainly the case as I read the text that it came to my mind quite often, and there were few statements along the line of 'we will do X by putting up tax Y or cutting back on spending Z or borrowing money AA' etc.

WH more focused now

seem to be more driven to progress, but haven't communicated this very strongly to the others.

still no agenda for the day, no any use of a speaker's list, nor any suggestion of a need to break-out some topics, nor a more visible wiki...

energy

being surprisingly vocal - not a problem, but a bit out from my recollection of the previous days

Iraq now

trying to work through the comments, but WH still hasn't increased the font, so hard to follow...

Beeping!

Annoying beeping from AGN box has started again

Commerce

are split in their sitting because 'there's no space' - suggested they move...

look forwards, look backwards

talking with steve in the break, the point came up of direction. Most people are looking back on what they've done ("how's it going?" means "how's it gone?"): but I'm looking at what still remains to be done. What's happened has been good, but I don't know if they've paced themselves properly: certainly no sense of urgency yet, nor any expressions of "we have to get moving here."

end of break

still issues around tidying up tea/coffee mess, which I like to think is reflective of a more general issue of focus in this game.

WH - Afghanistan

odd position with WH on not being able to challenge Biden-Lugar Act. Presumably, WH knows something that justifies this.

identification

one thing that hasn't been so pronounced this year has been personal identification with their roles: not sure why this might be, but possibly the Wednesday break has contributed, as has the relative lack of conflict.

wiki

we prompted WH to increase the font on the wiki, so people could read it. they don't know how to do it, apparently...

focus

on the plus side, much more focused now that there's discussion and the negotiators don't have laptops.

however, half of Commerce appears to be sitting with the lone USAID rep. odd.

structure

there isn't really one - we're not following the agenda, and WH hasn't indicated how the day will run.

obvious problem

because there wasn't much researching going on beforehand, there's little to say on the specific comments. might have to do some things to force them on this...

control

WH wanted to talk about Obama's comments, and immediately Treasury open it up with a problem on the language used in the trade section...

climate change

let's see if they notice my new comment on the need for a climate change text

and again, we're off!

laptops moved away, so back to the wiki and i think we're working through the comments.

once the tech's sorted - the EPA fugitives have caused problems

10 past 10

and no sign of anything becoming structured, WH group still with laptops, and EPA fugitives on the big screen

still nothing happening

chat and that's it

"We could have had another hour in bed"

sums up things so far today...

Most-Wanted

most of the groups, including the WH, are now going through the most-wanted lists of the FBI and the EPA...

White House

WH has seemingly given up on dialogue with groups and all 6 of them are just staring into their laptops...

unfocused

no sense of urgency or focus in this informal session.

the missing

about 10 people missing today - a couple I know about, but the rest are MIA.

Stop!

now we're into the 'research'...

Start!

0909 - WH checks who's seen the wiki comments - only about half, so WH suggests a formal start at 10, until when groups will research and WH will come to talk to groups too.

filming

we have a film crew in today, to put together something for the feedback

Wiki text

China text went up this morning - still missing climate change

Thursday

0905 and we're just messing about, it seems

WH look like they might have an hour for 'research' on the new topics (Israel, UN, foreign policy community) that 'Obama' raised.

chat around the room concerns last night's drinks, rather than US foreign policy

Day Off...

It's been a day off today, but actually there's been a fair bit happening.

WH have responded really well to my requests about their text and what they've put up on the wiki has been really good. My specific comments have been pretty minor and of no consequence, but my additions might cause more problems, since the Thursday agenda is already pretty charged.

talking at the drinks this evening, everyone seemed positive and not too stressed, so that's good. Greg has had a haircut, which is less good.

Reflections

So far, this has been a rather shallow discussion. To illustrate, this evening I had my first email about a point of substantive policy of the main game.

I'm concerned that too much is being stored up for Thursday and that the final text will be rather thin (and brief).

Also, there's not been as much difference between groups as one might have imagined, so the scope for getting into topics has been limited: groups see they are pushing the same rough direction, so they don't bother to explore any smaller differences.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist and this is my usual disappointment at people not doing the things I expect, but we'll see.

And done in Room 1

Defense

not particularly happy about lack of specifics in the discussions - WH get fingered on this.

Also makes a good point about the problems of not allowing cross-linking of topics at this stage.

EPA bail

EPA ask me if they can bail - I've left them to decide, so off their (i.e. he) goes...

WH

I don't think the two WH groups in the two rooms don't really communicate with each other, either on MSN or otherwise.

Mixed metaphor

"Can I use the image of chess? Russia has played its move and now the ball's in our court" (USAID)

Uneveness

Quite a lot of groups aren't really participating. Will be interesting to see whether that's because of percieved lack of relevance to the group, or to dominance of others, or just fatigue.

Senate

does a lot of quoting senators. A good strategy, as there's bound to be something of relevance uttered by at least one member of FRC on pretty much anything.

End of the Day

This last hour is always the slowest - people clearly want to go home and the focus is missing.

Room 2 wrapped up very quickly

The biofuels discussion lasted about 30 minutes (including a lengthy break for WH write-up), then everyone left, so again, so obvious group coordination going on.

room differences

in the break, some students were noting the differences in rooms. Room 1 has 'all the security' and is the 'more important one'.

Hiatus

in room 1 and we're waiting. For something. no-one knows what.

WH now tell us they are ready....

and room 2 kicks in

Seems pretty settled and moving on.

Room 1 still in general chatter.

Slow re-start

Asked for people to tidy up tea & coffee mess - Steve tells me room 2 are more focused on first wives...

Room 1 done

Iraqi conclusions

WH reading out conclusions on Iraq - in process terms, hard to follow: in content terms, fuzzy and ambiguous.

MSN logging

Discussion on room 2 on whether MSN conversations are logged....Yes...Oh shit!

Lucky we heard that through our microphones!

Israel!

finally mentioned, then the WH immediately tries to change the subject back to Syria.

Room 2 done?

Looks like room 2 is done, already.

WH confirms this.

Another word cloud

Here's the word cloud (from wordle.net) of the draft negotiation texts that got deleted earlier today by WH:

Rules of Procedure

In neither room does there seem to be much proper application of the RoPs.  This isn't a problem in of itself, but it does highlight the relative lack of engagement in the negotiations by all parties.

Iraq argument

all got a bit involved and silly in room 1, between Defense and Senate.  To their credit, everyone realised it.

but still no urgency.

room 2

struggling to remember that the projector runs off the sympodium computer, rather than their laptops...

Defense

Just questioned how to manage so much conflict with so few troops. Hands clutching cards fling into air.

Head count

currently 50 students here (25 in room 2, 24 in room 1, 1 in room 3), so 4 missing since this morning's sessions.

room 2 is currently in an informal mode right now, having apparently wrapped up negotiations.

Room 2 & MSN

WH just had to apologise for not listening to the debate, because they were on MSN...

timing issue

never fiddle with time settings - there's a post entitled 'Iraq' that should be about her.

Gift idea for Senate.

101 best cliches.

No, hang on, they know them all already.

Room 2 observation

"That was the most boring session ever. All they did is go round in circles reiterating the same thing, not really disagreeing"

Session 3 underway

both rooms going now, but lots of people not here.

still no sense of urgency.  nor does there appear to be a text for the Iraq discussion, even though one would short-circuit a lot of what we're about to go through.

room 2 done

all finished.  Again, but for different reasons, not sure what's agreed

WH observation room 1

"No one's really conflicting with anyone"

"hearts and minds"

there's a phrase I've not heard in a while - it feels surprisingly tainted these days, after Iraq and Bush more generally.  however, I guess it's still a valid approach, whatever the semantic issues.

room 1

for once, room 1 finishes first (apparently after much informal discussion).

WH Afghanistan position

WH have finalised their position on afghanistan, and looked to project it on the screen to run through. I suggested posting it to the wiki so teams could look (and even comment) on it, but no-go, stick to the screen.

Topics

As well as no israel, there's also no Middle East discussion either.

Evolution

room 2 started yesterday with a much more relaxed approach, using short breaks to break disagreement.  That then fed into room 1 in the afternoon.

Now room 2 has cut right back on the breaks (none so far in session 2) and have a much more confident discussion going on.  maybe this will feed into room 1 later.

Still all hampered by the lack of text.

Gambits

It's interesting watching people's gambits and ticks.  Senate have just used their 'when America gets a cold, the world gets flu' line again.  Katherine (WH) has a strangely impersonal third-person use of the "the WH agrees..." in her negotiating.

Perils of a hegemon

Because of the WH's dominance in this game, their engagement is central.  they are controlling all of the text here.  In addition, the others are letting them: I'd guess that if someone posted up an alternative text, then it'd go a long way, but I doubt anyone's even thought of doing such a thing.

Titles

As we get another 'chairperson', it's interesting to note that people seem to be struggling with titles a bit in this game: we don't seem to have such strong identities for groups, so quite a lot of umming and arring about who everyone is.

Good points

the temptation in this blog is to focus on problems (see my last post), so here's some good practice I'm seeing.

There is some excellent presentation and engagement by students on specific issues and on general interests.  there's some really good chairing.  There's good use of integrating new materials into discussions and blending the online discussions with the face-to-face.  Generally, people seem engaged in the process (even if they are not directly talking), so I'll take that as a marker of interest and immersion.

Room 2

Again, good flow of discussion and debate, but lacks much depth.

As yesterday, this is essentially an orientation debate, rather than one getting to grips with nuts and bolts.  Lack of a text drives a lot of this, which makes me wonder about Thursday, because they potentially have a lot to do.

Indeed, the removal of the draft text from the wiki at the break is actually a step back in this respect.  Today was the ideal opportunity to build on yesterday, but we end up rehashing things instead.

USAID back

USAID are now in the negotiations again, in both rooms

problems, not good things

inelegantly put, but listening now to the session on rebuilding diplomacy, the focus is on the problem areas, rather than on enhancing existing good relationships.  So talking about Iran, Georgia, NPT, China, UN rather than Israel, Europe, etc. 

Israel

No mention of Israel at all so far in this game.  Probably a reflection of our European bias...

break chatter

chatter about the short breaks not being much use, and about room 2 being more' informal' and room 1 'high pressure' [sic].

Wiki

Just talked with WH.  They say the wiki's not much used - I suggested that now they have text, it will be much more useful to them.

Room 1 done

Don't really know what they've achieved.

Room 2 done

another speedy resolution for room 2.  Room 1 is still plodding through Iran.

Bluff-calling

Several groups asking what WH's back-up plans are in Iran.  This is a good technique, because it usually forces the group being asked to take a position they might not otherwise wish to have.  However, here the WH is simply refusing to engage with the possibility.

What's the problem?

OK, so this is struggling. Why?

1) Topic doesn't raise high levels of personal interest
2) WH group are less confident at leading the discussion
3) Students are tired/over-assessed at end of semester and just want to get out of here
4) Participation isn't really required for module assessment
5) Computers get in the way of the process of debate.
6) Any or all of the above?

Illness

Just had to send one of the Treasury team home, due to illness.  I sense this is also part of the reason for the lethargy: several people aren't firing on all cylinders.

Just to note, but the absences yesterday are here today - both are sitting rather quietly behind their negotiators.

Short break model

Following on from yesterday's observations on the use of short breaks, here in room 1 they don't even seem to being used by the WH for very much.

Back in a declamatory mode again.

Projectors

Both WH groups in the rooms asked me this morning to turn off the projectors, so neither room has a speakers list, agenda or wiki text. Very different to last year where the speakers list was the main structuring for ongoing debate.

Room 1 has now settled, with an ordered debate led by the WH.

Several minutes

of no obvious structure to the debate, it's now just a general chat.

Very slow

Room 1 doesn't appear to be doing anything at all - various conversations around the room, no guidance from the WH.

Room 2 is making some progress.

Room 2 preferred

General consensus chatting to the (few) students that arrived early this morning was that they preferred debating in room 2 because they were able to reach consensus more easily and thus leave earlier, they also noted its more informal nature.

I remarked that everyone in room 2 left as soon as their debate finished (exception of WH) and was told 'of course, we wanted to go home'.

No USAID

No one from USAID here yet and 4 other groups missing one person.

Room 1 kick-off!

still only patchy attendence here (19 group reps: no USAID), but slow kick-off by WH (Nadine chair, Rebecca negotiator).

No one seems very engaged.

Room 2 has even fewer people, and are still chatting.

Overnight

no contact from anyone overnight - WH sent out an email noting the posting of text and a change to the Agenda.

I emailed WH last night to tell them the wiki text would need to be in a fit state to show Obama (which is a news item this morning) and to publish: currently, it's just notes.

Otherwise, quiet here and no sense of urgency.

Tuesday

already 0905 and at most half the people here.

Iraq

So here we are, again.  WH is reading out a list of things, no-one else is noting them down, so we'll not actually find common ground/understanding (because the groups aren't so far apart).

Indeed, thinking about it a bit, the WH could just sit on this and impose its will on the others.

This is not terribly productive.

All done!

Day one , done and dusted.

Let's go home...

...seems to be the message now: State's ideas on a new topic are met with apathy, both as an issue and as another thing keeping people from their beds/bars/etc.

No sense of urgency now, or today more generally, but it's always been like this.

Gitmo

An interesting discussion about Guantanamo Bay in room 1, with a good amount of substance to it. However, it is going in circles somewhat, given that State is moving through new (internet) evidence, which is resulting in revisions of its (State's) purpose.

Highlights the difficulty of getting into detail: either it gets ignore, or misunderstood.

Confusions

Not sure that everyone either knows their real-world positions or the results of the discussions of the other sessions. Indeed, the latter is not really surprising, as we have no results to look at. If this isn't addressed in large measure tomorrow, then Thursday is going to be a very difficult day.

Security Community

Not sure how much the Security groups are working together as a whole. Right now, the NSA is backed up DHS, but on reflection this has not been a persistent theme of the day (in terms of NSA, DHS, DNI, Defense working together). Indeed, I can't remember DNI a contribution to anything so far today.

Room 2 done!

Room 2 have wrapped up China in less than 45 minutes and have almost all gone already. No sign of anyone hanging around to compare notes with their group about progress.

Nuclear disarmament

WH has just ditched nuclear disarmament, without any real protest by the groups.

WH then closed down the debate, by announcing a provisional decision, which 'couldn't be shared'...

Two rooms

There's some kind of implicit difference between the two rooms, which goes beyond the stylistic differences already noted. Despite the WH statement on their equality of importance, room 1 feels like the more 'serious' room, which is being supported by room 2. whether this persists remains to be seen.

Progress

Several people have talked to me this afternoon about how smoothly things are going and how everyone agrees on everything.

Given the debates I'm listening to, my impression is that this agreement is not necessarily very deep and differences will emerge when text appears and groups have to work to specific statements of intent.

Agenda

Looking at the agenda, while most topics are revisited, I've just noticed that China isn't a discrete topic again at all, so not sure how it'll be rolled into everything else later.

I wonder if anyone will notice?

flagging

Discussion in room 1 is being conducted almost at a whisper and without a strong direction (Alex is much less clear about controlling than Rebecca). Sense that people are ready to drop...

Mini breaks

I'm not convinced by these yet - seem to be more disruptive than constructive, as they are only to the benefit of WH. Other groups just sit around.

Session 4

walking around, it feels much quieter. a head count suggests about 5 people have disappeared since lunchtime. Room 1 has no reps for EPA or Energy.

USAID

good gambit by USAID to become a Cabinet-level post.

WH room 2

Richard's typing up some bullet points on the projector now, for discussion - why not do this sooner?

State

just advocated giving aid to Iran, which has caused some consternation with the rest, understandably.

I have the impression that we're not being too rigourous about fact-checking in this group

UPDATE: State have clarified their position, about using aid in Iran to support US aims, not unconditional aid.

Room 2

Can now see the potential problem with this approach. Richard clearly has a text, or at least some bullet points, but hasn't circulated this, so is just talknig about them and how he's planning to change them. however, it's very hard for the others to follow where things are

a slip

Senate asked about debt relief for Haiti - WH said they supported debt relief for all HIPCs and said they assumed Haiti was one of these. it's not, but no one's noticed...

Room 2 pace

good group discussion here. Chair's working through the speakers, keeping them in check: however, Rebecca's not being totally rigid about speaking rules, if it serves the debate. people are talking to each other, not past them. no breaks yet, but none needed.

Room 1 pace

Room 1 feels very well paced. The WH have just called a two minute break to gather their thoughts follows completion of the speakers list round of representations. All pacey enough, but unhurried, clear explanations of what's going on etc.

And then called back to order, and within seconds the chatter dies down, and the WH presents their renewed thoughts on the topic.

the afternoon dip

a couple of sleepy-heads here in room 2.

Room 1

is nowhere near starting, general singing and running around (1.37pm)

room 2

Rebecca a strong chair, managing the process well, working clearly with Richard (negotiator)

Session 3

In room 2 for this one, to try and watch the different approach Steve's already noted. Have some people from room 1 coming too.

NSA and Senate have moved their chairs around. Generally looks more relaxed as a setting, as negotiatiors sit next to each other.

lunch

everyone's pretty calm and relaxed. no sign that the SPSS deadline is causing too much other (which is good). several people saying they're enjoying it, asking if it's going OK (I've just if they think it's going OK)

Wrap up of Session 2

Room 2 finished about 10 minutes ago - Room 1 is finishing now. the latter doesn't feel like it's moved things on very far.

Energy

room 2 are winding up on energy, taking biofuels to the later session.

USAID

have MSN'd to ask why DNI aren't talking at all in room 1. I don't know why.

Structure of debates

Listinening in to room 2, the flow of debate seems very logical: define the issue, identify the sticking points, get the groups to work through the sticking points informally, back to plenary to confirm the outcomes, summarise, move on.

Room 1 seems muss less structured, often I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed or agreed or disagreed (but then I'm not giving it my full attention).

Room 1 speaker's list

now not being used at all, which seems odd. Nadine also seems to be both chairing and negotiating for WH

Role of WH

Interesting to listen to how the different rooms structure their debate. Room 1 is fomal debate all the way, room 2 uses lots of 2 minute unmoderated discussions to resolve details before returning to plenary. Room 2 seems to be moving on through things much faster.

Talking past each other

Defense is having a hard time in room 1 on Iraq, largely because there isn't a coherent debate, with each side making their point, without engaging with each other. It's the 'importance of listening' point.

11.35 and finally set up

It's 11.35am, and I finally think everything is set up the way it should be.

The use of MSN as ever proves entertaining. I wasn't expecting room 2 to be using MSN as they didn't have provided laptops, but they wanted it, so have set up room2 accounts for all the participants. Also finally got the video link working (note for the future: don't set to frequency number 2, it screws up the wifi.)


The use of two rooms really does double the complexity of setting up, I'm finding myself looking for problems across both rooms which makes it harder to spot and intervene. The video link might help, or might just be a distraction.

WH Style

WH taking a very relaxed approach to Iraq discussion - letting the others talk it out, rather than pushing our views.

The missing

Just been checking around the groups: both Energy and NSA are missed one person (one ill, one unknown causes). Makes things even more tricky for NSA.

Room 2

are in informal mode again - looking like a structural issue, rather than highly speedy negotiations.

WH style

Both Nadine and Katherine are rather softly spoken, so everyone's having to pay close attention.

Internet problems in room 2?

session just about to start and their wifi appears not be working. possibly because of the video link Steve's setting up. looks like they're waiting for a resolution, rather than using non-electronic solutions...

End of Session 1

room 1 now done - good planning for next discussion of topic

room 2 wrapped up very quickly - Rebecca & Richard said they'd nearly run put of things to say after 15mins...

WH

isn't be rushed here - both rooms talking about bringing back text later, so will retain control, albeit at the price of having little time to discuss actual text.

Impressions

This is a finding-our-way-around session: WH hasn't really thought through the practicalities of the two rooms; the others haven't tired to push actual text, rather than generalities. WH also not very pushy - they risk losing a lot of ground here.

Inter-room communication

poor right now, on the evidence. WH isn't in touch with their other half.

room 2

general chatter here again now

Laptops

talking at the computers I can see, again a lot of use of materials from the groups' real-world counterparts, to bolster their discussions

End of the initial rush

both groups have stalled a bit here - room 1 has run out of discussion points (so you'd expect them to talk about text), room 2 got distracted by MSN log-ins.

Straggler

third member of USAID just turned up, so they've obviously not had anyone in room 2.

Negotiation Style

Mainly declamatory - reading off of statements, so I'm guess we'll not make big progress in either negotiation now on (finance/nuclear). Alex R making a fist of things in room 1, though.

Two rooms

works at least at the level of not being too crowded, as in previous years.

Timidity

WH a bit timid about their position (KW in room 1) - would have thought you'd want to put a strong stear on things early on....

Laptops

Again, we've got the thing of people just looking at their laptops, so might need to change that for the final day.

also means there's not much flow to discussions yet (room 1)

Basic confusion

I sense that there's a confusion about what groups should do. Either just focus on 'their' stuff, or make a play more generally.

Talking!

Both rooms now talking. Actually looks pretty settled, despite my previous concerns. Richard in Room 2 and Alex in room 1 both controlling discussion and nice clean ordering going on.

We're off!

Almost...

0915 and still no actual negotiations - WH had to set up and agree plans, not letting others into the rooms until 0905. Now it's technical issues.

Sunday night

Just getting things together for tomorrow morning

Now have about half the groups' updated position papers, so not if the rest have just forgotten to send them, or have forgotten to do them at all.

Looking at the WH chairing arrangements, interested to see how it'll work with a 'neutral' chair and a negotiator, especially since it's structurally giving power away to the others. We'll see.

Idle thought

Just realised the issue with the agenda: there's no opening session for everyone together. This means that the White House are going to have any even harder time trying to tame this game and reassert themselves.

It'll only be after the first session that there'll be the opprtunity to compare notes about procedure and process, and it'll be the end of the first day before any real substantive reconciliation within the WH group can take place. The question is how much the others try to take advantage of this, assuming they notice the problem (which one might expect for the usual chit-chat going on about comparative experiences).

Perfect opportunity for someone to pick up the agenda and make it theirs.

Let's see.

Wordle Cloud

Here's something a bit different: a wordle cloud of the text of the Obama-Biden website on Foreign Policy:

Welcome

Welcome to the first posting on PIPS POL2012 US.

This blog is to record my thoughts about the progress of the POL2012 negotiations on a new US foreign policy. The main negotiations run from Monday 15 Dec to Thursday 18 Dec, so read then for real-time updates.

Simon