This will update the community as to the current work of the topic selection committee. Let me first remind folks that we have many ways to have members of the community help with the topic process. We are very much seeking community input. To lend your voice you can:

1) Leave a comment on the blog - These comments are regularly read and it allows us to keep an organized collection of comments, suggestions, links, etc.

2) Volunteer to help with the committee groups - Four groups (listed below) are working on each element of the topic. We need more help with each area and we need volunteers to assist. There are committee members on each group and our emails are listed on the website.

3) Write a wording paper - We have invited any member of the community to submit a proposal calling for specific wording to be used on the upcoming ballot. Any complete papers that provide a germane option to the Constructive Engagement to the Middle East controversy need to be submitted by May 13th. Any such papers will be placed on the agenda by the committee and voted on during the summer meetings.

The full committee update follows. Please let me know if you have any questions.

I first want to thank everyone for their feedback over the last week. I have tried to review all of the input provided on the blog, edebate and in private emails. I am confident that based on the totality of this material, and my review of our research, we can implement a plan that best prepares us for the final task of writing resolutions next month.

The basic approach is that we will have three large groups and one smaller group divide up the basic elements of how the Middle East controversy paper will develop into wording options. These groups will include the entire committee as well as volunteers. I reached out to a number of people who posted comments or otherwise offered assistance. We can always use more help, so let me know if there are other folks who are willing to help.

The group assignments and basic expectations follow. The groups should be in a position to provide a brief outline of their ideas by the wording paper deadline (May 13) so that way our agenda can be clearly organized. I will be setting the meeting agenda based on the original paper, community wording papers and our follow-up work. Because much of our work will be following up on the items included in the controversy paper we should be extra careful to highlight any new items or potential deviations from that work. The final work product should be ready for the start of the meetings.

Thanks to all for your hard work. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Group 1 – Constructive Engagement – Gordon Stables, Darren Elliot, Andrew Barnes.
This group should:
   * Explore the nuances of this specific phrase with an eye on the specific value of including the phrase as a modifier to economic assistance or security guarantees.
   * Be able to offer the significance of including or excluding this topic from a variety of resolutions.
   * Be able to identify the bargaining or negotiations inherent in such a term.
   * Be able to describe some of the implications of using constructive
     engagement with and without the ‘including’ modifier to specific types of constructive engagement.
   * Provide a recommendation on the use of ‘its’ constructive engagement polices.

Group 2 – Economic Assistance – Ryan Galloway, Joe Patrice, Candice Moore, Ed Lee
This group should:
   * Be able to identify the optimal term of art to express economic cooperation.
   * Provide a recommendation about the utility of a topic primarily, or solely, developed through economic assistance.
   * Explore alternate terms of art that could broaden or narrow types of topical programs (i.e., foreign aid, development assistance, reconstruction assistance, etc)
   * Identify which countries would be best included in an economic assistance topic.
   * Identify the optimal manner of phrasing the increase (or enhancement) in current economic assistance programs

Group 3 – Security Guarantees – Greta Stahl, Kelly Young, Michael Maffie, Hays Watson (working on specific wording paper).
This group should:
   * Be able to identify the optimal term of art to express security-based cooperation.
   * Provide a recommendation about the utility of a topic primarily, or solely, developed through military cooperation.
   * Explore alternate terms of art that could broaden or narrow types of topical programs (i.e., military assistance, military commitments, etc.)
   * Identify which countries would be best included in a security cooperation topic.
   * Identify the optimal manner of phrasing the increase (or enhancement) in current security cooperation programs.
   * Provide a recommendation on the use of regional vs. bilateral security guarantees (i.e., allowing security guarantees through a 3rd party not expressly included in the topic).

Group 4 – County by Country Recommendations – Steve Mancuso, Sue Peterson, Mike Davis, Julian Gagnon.
This group should:
   * For each nation provide a perspective on their potential inclusion, including
         o The utility of economic, security or other means of constructive engagement.
         o The presence of sufficient policy literature.
         o The current state of constructive engagement to these nations
   * Potential countries include:
         o Presumptively included
               + Afghanistan
               + Iran
               + Lebanon
               + Palestinian Authority
               + Syria
         o Potentially included
               + Egypt
               + Iraq
               + Israel
               + Saudi Arabia
               + Others (Try to have any new countries on the 5/13 outline so we don’t add any surprise nations at the
                 meetings).