Batnas

In this particular case, the first thing I noticed was that it differed from case number two in terms of compromise. In case number two the parties involved had no clear idea of what they wanted and did not have their BATNAs defined either allowing them to be more open minded in the agreement process. In this particular case, there were 57 stakeholders involved and each of them had their BATNAs and needs clearly defined. They knew exactly what they wanted and this made them inflexible and hard to please. It is pretty predictable that each stakeholder would stick to their own objective and be hard to bend if they were clear about their needs.

The second thing I thought was interesting was that the mediators divided the negotiation into three sessions in which they presented their ideas and solutions to the stakeholders . This was very helpful for them because it sort of gave stakeholders an ultimatum forcing them to choose one and eventually open up more to the different agreements and ideas that were being presented to them. I think it was the best way to go about the stakeholders' stubbornness and try and come to an agreement.

The third interesting point that I found was in Ensuring Proper Implementation. I think its very important that they clearly stated each regulation so that they would prevent problems in the future of people trying to add their own clauses to the regulation. It's important because in the future they wont have problems because if someone comes along and tries to change something they wont be able to because of how clear