CPA composition creates an NDD for the CPA negotiation.

[Sacha Schlegel <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>]

Hi CPA negotation group

Here the scenario which leads to a question:

Assuming that two parties have a CPP as well as an NDD for their CPP. 

* CPP-A with NDD-CPP-A (CPP and NDD for CPP of party A)
* CPP-B with NDD-CPP-B (CPP and NDD for CPP of party B)

* Simplified NDD-CPP-A has one negotiation item, which deals with
element X.
* Simplified NDD-CPP-B has one negotiation item, which deals with
element Y.
* Simplified NDD-CPP-B has one negotiation item, which deals with
element W.

The CPA composition process takes all 4 documents and tries to get a
CPA.

Lets say there is a problem in element W, X, Y and Z and the CPA
composition cannot find a (simple matching) solution for those elements,
even with the use of the NDD's.

So the CPA composition process creates a CPA template and a new NDD for
the CPA template, called NDD-CPA.

In the NDD-CPA we suspect to find a negotiation item for element X and a
negotiation item for element Y.

The question is about the problem with element W and Z?

First question: Can the CPA composition algorithm put a new negotiation
item for element Z and W into the CPA-NDD?

I am not sure how the specification deals with this problem. I think the
specificiation rather points to the "no" way. I even think that the
specification does not allow the element z in the NDD because one party
does not want negotiate over it.

Pro (yes - supporing thoughts): 

- element Z and W are problem cases and have to be dealt with to
overcome these problems. Typically the CPA negotiation could help.
- an entry in the CPA-NDD would indicate the problems and thus parties
would not have to "search" for any problems again.
- if there is no change over element Z or W, there will never be an
agreement. 
- Long term the CPA negotiation might be used, as a first instance, to
negotiate over any problems and human to human negotiation, as a last
instance to negotiation over any problem.

Con (no - non supporting thoughts):

- element W is not listed in NDD-CPP-A so party A is not willing to
negotiate over element W.
- element Z is not listed in neither NDD-CPP-A nor NDD-CPP-B. This could
be interpreted as: neither party A nor party B allow to negotiate over
element Z.
- if an element XYZ is not mentioned in a NDD-CPP, that party maybe
cannot negotiate over that element, e.g. just does not have the
negotiation algorithm for that item. So a negotiation over that element
XYZ might be not possible.
- Short term the CPA negotiation might concentrate on limited
element/attribute negotiation.

Second question:

What if a party does not provide an NDD at all? Does this mean that the
party does not allow to negotiate about anything, or opposite, that it
allows to negotiate about anything.

Please let me know what you think, or what the specification suggests.

Kind regards.

Sacha Schlegel
-- 
------------------------------------------------
Sacha                                   Schlegel
------------------------------------------------
public key:            www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg
------------------------------------------------