We deal with issues concerning negotiation support for group decisions over influence diagrams, when the group members disagree about utility and probability assessments. We base our discussion on a modification of the balanced increment solution, which guarantees a final negotiated Pareto optimal alternative. As in standard decision analysis textbooks, we deal first with negotiation tables, then with negotiation trees, and finally with negotiation influence diagrams. We show through an example that a naive application of the balanced increment method at each joint decision node in a dynamic decision-making problem, and, more generally, of any standard negotiation approach guaranteeing Pareto optimality, may lead to an inferior solution. Therefore, our strategy proposes computing first the set of nondominated alternatives followed by negotiating over that set.