[Imc-communication] "Mediation" RE Germany's Belgium proposal

[andypie]

I would like to make sure we all "on the same page" (have the same 
understanding) here. My understanding of "mediation" is based on usage 
from the US based on a Labor Union context.  It is:

"Mediation" is a process where a mutually agreed mediator goes through 
a process to bring the 2 sides to agreement.  The mediator does not 
make a decision about what the agreement should be.  If the two sides 
do not reach an agreement, all the mediator does is announce that no 
agreement has been reached, without casting blame on either or both 
parties.

"Arbitration", on the other hand, is a process where the arbitrator, 
goes through a fact finding process with regards to the rules (laws, 
principles, precedents), and the facts (history) of the matter in 
question and reaches a decision.  The content of the decision does not 
depend on the assent of either or both the principal parties.  If it is 
"binding arbitration"  the parties have to abide by the decision, if 
not, the arbitrator announces their decision (publicly) and compliance 
is up to the will of each of the principal parties.

I would like to know if this is consistent with European usage.

I am bringing this up because I am worried that  some people may 
believe that a mediator is going to come in and act like a judge and 
settle the issues. That is not what will happen.

There is also the thorny question of what happens to the URL in regards 
to the Germany proposal if the mediator is unsuccessful in bringing the 
parties to an agreement.  Since the "neutralization"  is supposed to be 
only for the purpose of facilitating the mediation, in that event the 
URL would revert to its previous condition.  Is this correct?