The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) assumes that decisions are made roughly by consensus.  The IETF has carefully refrained from defining a mechanical method of verifying such a consensus, apparently believing that such codification would lead to attempts to “play the system.” Instead, a working group chair (WG) or a BoF chair should articulate the “meaning of the group.” Consensus decision-making is an alternative to the decision-making processes usually practiced in groups.  Robert`s Rules of Procedure, for example, are a guide used by many organizations. This book makes it possible to structure the debate and to adopt proposals that can be approved by a majority. It does not insist on the objective of a total agreement. Critics of such a process believe that it may be an adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions. This dynamic can damage relations between group members and impair a group`s ability to implement a contested decision in cooperation. Consensus decision-making aims to respond to the beliefs of these issues. Proponents argue that the results of the consensus process include: In addition, another joint ISO-IEC document (ISO/IEC Guidelines, Part 1, Procedures for Technical Work) indirectly identifies gaps in the consensus decision-making process: Japanese companies typically use consensus decisions, meaning that for each decision, unanimous support is sought within the Board of Directors.  A Ringi-Sho is a circulating document used to reach an agreement. It must first be signed by the lower-level manager, then upwards and may need to be reviewed and the process started again.
 The Quaker model has been adapted by Earlham College for application to secular environments and can be applied effectively in any consensus decision-making process. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia Article on Consensus The basic model for reaching consensus as defined by a decision rule includes: In 2001, Robert Rocco Cottone published a consensus model of professional decision-making for counselors and psychologists.  Based on the social constructivist philosophy, the model functions as a consensus-seeking model, as the clinician addresses ethical conflicts through a consensus negotiation process. Disputes are resolved by mutually agreed arbitrators who are selected at the beginning of the negotiation process. The group first chooses, say, three referees or consensors. The debate on the chosen problem is initiated by the moderator, who launches a call for proposals. Any proposed option will be accepted if the evaluators decide that it is relevant and in accordance with the United Nations Charter of Human Rights. Reviewers create and display a list of these options. The debate continues, with questions, comments, criticisms and/or even new options. If the debate does not result in a verbal consensus, the arbitrators create a final list of options – usually between 4 and 6 – to represent the debate.
If everyone agrees, the president asks for a preferential vote according to the rules of a modified Borda count, MBC. The arbitrators decide which option or composition of the two main options is the result. If its level of support exceeds a minimum consensus coefficient, this can be assumed.   Majority decisions cannot measure consensus. In fact – so many “pros” and so many “cons” – he measures exactly the opposite, the degree of dissent. In contrast, the modified Borda count, MBC, can identify the consensus of each electorate whenever such a consensus exists. In addition, the rules established for this procedure can be the real catalyst for consensus. To ensure that the approval or approval of all participants is appreciated, many groups choose unanimity or near-unanimity as the decision-making rule. Groups that require unanimity give individual participants the option to block a group decision. This provision motivates a group to ensure that all members of the group accept each new proposal before it is adopted. However, proper guidelines for the use of this option are important.
The ethics of consensus decision-making encourage participants to place the well-being of the entire group above their own individual preferences. If it is possible that a group decision will be blocked, the group and the dissidents in the group will be encouraged to work together until an agreement can be reached. Simply vetoing a decision is not seen as a responsible approach to blocking consensus. Here are some common guidelines for using consensus blocking: The consensus decision-making process often has several roles designed to make the process more efficient. Although the name and nature of these roles vary from group to group, the most common are the moderator, the consensor, a timekeeper, an empath, and a secretary or note-taker. Not all decision-making bodies use all of these roles, although the moderator position is almost always occupied and some groups use complementary roles, such as . B a devil`s defender or greeter. Some decision-making bodies rotate these roles through group members in order to enhance the experience and skills of participants and prevent a perceived concentration of power.  The consensus aims to improve solidarity in the long term. As a result, it should not be confused with unanimity in the immediate situation, which is often a symptom of groupthink. Studies of an effective consensus process generally suggest a rejection of unanimity or an “illusion of unanimity” that does not hold water when a group is under real pressure (when dissent resurfaces). Cory Doctorow, Ralph Nader and other advocates of deliberative democracy or the rule of law see explicit dissent as a symbol of strength.
The conclusions of the Special Committee on the Rationalization of Procedures and the Organization of the General Assembly, annexed to the rules of procedure, consider that “the adoption of decisions and resolutions by consensus is desirable if it contributes to the effective and lasting settlement of disputes and thus strengthens the authority of the United Nations” (A/520/Rev.18). Nglish: The translation of consensus for Spanish-speaking consensus decision-making or consensus policy (often abbreviated to consensus) refers to the group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim or requirement of being accepted by all. The emphasis on avoiding negative opinions distinguishes consensus from unanimity, which requires all participants to positively support a decision. Consensus comes from Latin and means “agreement, agreement”, which in turn comes from consent, which means “to feel together”.  The process and outcome of consensus building is called consensus (p.B. “by consensus” or “consensus”). If there is a vote and all Member States vote in the same way, the decision is taken unanimously. When a decision is made by consensus, there is no formal vote. A 2005 legal opinion distinguishes consensus as follows: consensus “is understood as the absence of objections and not as a specific majority” (A Juridical Yearbook 2005, page 457). Decisions and decisions taken by consensus are considered “adopted without a vote”, but are different from decisions taken under the no-vote procedure.
For high-stakes decisions, such as decisions of . B court decisions of the courts of appeal, such explicit documentation is always required. However, there is still a consensus that escapes fractional statements. Nearly 40% of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, for example, are unanimous, but often for very different reasons. .