The dnso.org position is rather more nuanced than you indicate, and
consultation with the membership is required.
>From the merged draft:
"The DNSO will work towards rough consensus on all
issues."
"To the extent possible decisions of the Names Council shall be made
on a rough consensus basis, after consultation with the
membership of the DNSO."
"To the extent possible decisions of the Names Council shall be made
on a rough consensus basis, after consultation with the
membership of the DNSO. Such decisions shall be recorded as
"consensus decisions". Consensus will be assessed by the Chair of
the Names Council. If two Names Council members formally object to
the measure in question, the Chair shall determine that a consensus
has not been achieved, and shall call for a formal vote. [14]
"In such cases where consensus cannot be achieved and a formal vote is
deemed necessary, the matter shall be publicized before the DNSO for
15 days, and then a formal, public, recorded online vote of the Names
Council shall be taken."
And, from the end-notes:
A pure consensus decision rule grants veto power to a single
vote; rough consensus gives great weight to dissent, but requires
that there be multiple or "significant" dissenting voices.
Therefore, rough consensus rules still allow veto by a small
minority. This means that, it can't work in a situation where
there is a minority determined to block any action -- a very real
possibility in the DNSO.
For this reason, a body like the DNSO cannot operate totally by
rough consensus methods -- there must be a backstop method where
hard choices can be made. In this document there is frequent
reference, therefore, to votes with various majority criteria --
simple majority, two-thirds, three-quarters, four-fifths, and so
on, depending on the nature of the decisions involved.
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain