1. Confidence
and confidentiality
The names of the participants are kept
in confidence. This
is done at the request of some of the participants.
This is not to say that the Dialogues are
secret: the fact that they are being held
is a matter of public record. However, because
inappropriate interpretations have been
placed on this sort of dialogue in the past,
it is considered appropriate to be cautious.
Nothing is to be attributed. After
the Dialogues, it is not be appropriate
for anybody to say, "When we were together,
so-and-so said 'x' or 'y'." What is
said in the Dialogues is not for attribution.
This based on the assumption that participants
will feel free to express themselves openly
if it is agreed by all that there will be
no attribution.
No formal records (tapes, detailed transcripts)
are kept. At
the end of the meetings, the conveners prepare
a non-attributive, general 'sense-of-the-meeting'
memorandum that is circulated to all participants
with a request for corrections, clarifications
or comments. That is the sole documentation
of the Dialogues that will exist thereafter.
2. Open discussion
and Analytical discourse
Everyone should try
to understand the others' concerns. The
Dialogues presume that each participant
has different concerns and that these may
not be known by all. Participants are therefore
encouraged to seek mutual understanding.
This is different from what happens in a
debate, where the parties are addressing
and trying to persuade a third party such
as a judge, and do not listen with an ear
for understanding. The object here is another
kind of communication: the purpose is to
have an analytic, non-adversarial discussion,
i.e., not one dedicated to looking for things
about which to place blame, nor for whom
to blame, nor to analyzing historical or
legal positions and determining who is right
or wrong. However, if there is anger, fear,
or a sense of injustice, these should be
communicated. They provide important insights
for other participants.
3. All participants
are equal
Each participant's
concerns need to be addressed. In the external
reality, there are asymmetries and inequalities
in power, resources, knowledge, access to
information, even in perceived moral positions.
To be useful, the discussion must acknowledge
these asymmetries. But around the Dialogue
table, all parties are equal because each
participant's concerns will be addressed.
All are equal here. This Ground Rule is
especially important when dialogues take
place among parties with very clear asymmetries
among them.
4. The Dialogues
are not a negotiation
Participants are not
expected to reach any agreement, or necessarily
produce a visible, tangible output. The
expected result is not properly an output:
it is greater awareness and clearer (or
new) perceptions regarding the concerns
of other participants, that can inform each
participant's future work.
5. The role of the
third party is strictly facilitative
The members of the
third party are present to create an atmosphere
and promote a process of interaction that
will allow ideas to emerge. PONSACS' role
is to help select the participants, establish
the ground rules and norms, and keep the
discussion focused on the issues of concern
to the participants.
PONSACS does not pretend
not to have values or opinions. Nor does
it claim that those acting as the third
party are neutral in the sense of disinterest.
However, it is not the job of the members
of the third party to express opinions,
nor to debate, evaluate, mediate or adjudicate,
or otherwise become involved in the substantive
discussion by taking positions, but rather
to facilitate the Dialogues through impartial
interventions.
