At this point, since ACR and IAM have essentially OK'd the current draft, I don't see a need for WMA to spend time on it. The intent of the Open Letter is to widen and deepen discussion concerning a change in the definition of mediation. The author reasons that the possible effects of the proposed change include loss of core mediator and process identity with concomitant loss of credibility. The second viewpoint, that of Nicholas Wagner, argues for not stating what some determine to be unnecessary and possibly problematical, namely the guideline of impartiality, which, if included, would exclude some processes to which the act might apply. He notes that the act includes elsewhere governance regarding conflict of interest.
Confidentiality is put forward as a more salient concern.
Biography Susan Dearborn has been a mediator and educator in Seattle, Washington since 1983. She will be presenting workshops at the upcoming NW ADR Conference and at the Toronto ACR conference on mediation diversity issues. She served on the drafting committee for the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators and frequently addresses ethical practice concerns. Impartiality could come about as much through the intrusion of a mediators' unexamined theories about a party, or about how problems can be resolved. Disqualification is a last resort.