Members of the opposition delegation said that the omission of Mr. Assad’s name was deliberate, continuing a strategy of presenting their side as more willing than the government to be flexible and adhere to the agenda of the meeting, which is based on the June 2012 Geneva I communiqué. That document does not call for Mr. Assad to step down, but requires the establishment of a transitional governing body “by mutual consent.”

Image Louay Safi, center, a spokesman for Syria’s main opposition group, at a news briefing in Geneva on Wednesday. Credit... Anja Niedringhaus/Associated Press

The government delegation did not respond to the opposition proposal, which also called for an end to all violence, the eviction of foreign fighters from Syria regardless of which side they support, and the dismantling of fighting groups and the integration of members into civilian life or the security services. It also proposed the election of a constituent assembly through a United Nations-supervised ballot, the approval of a constitution via a referendum, and then presidential elections.

“At this point we have not heard anything from the other party,” Louay Safi, an opposition spokesman, said after the meeting.

The Syrian deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, speaking minutes later, said that the opposition had “misused” the meeting by diverting attention from the need to combat terrorism, which the government insists should be addressed first, sticking religiously to a line that the government delegation has pushed since it first arrived in Geneva.

The opposition has said it was willing to discuss ending violence and terrorism alongside the topic of forming a transitional governing body. But Mr. Mekdad said parallel-track talks were “a delusional proposal” and “a recipe to kill the Geneva talks.”

Instead, the government presented a paper that listed killings and atrocities it said were committed by the insurgents, which opposition members said included attacks for which they blame pro-government forces. Mr. Mekdad said the paper was a retort to “the lies of the coalition.”