The role of the consensors in consensus decision-making is a fairly new one, so a word or two on that.

They are independent and neutral, as would be a referee, and their role is three-fold. They therefore shouldn’t really participate in the debate, (and I apologise for the
fact that I did actually make one suggestion, just to help things get going).

They accept any ideas or suggestions which are relevant to the debate, (as long as those opinions conform to some agreed norm like the UN Charter on Human Rights).

When the time comes, they collate these ideas into possible options. Each draft option should be a complete policy proposal, as it were, ready to be adopted, in full, if it turns out to get the approval of all concerned. In addition, each draft option should be of roughly the same length, (so that the consensors show no bias). The range of options should represent the entire debate, and the ‘distance’ between each option
should be about the same, so that the list is balanced.

As the debate proceeds, they maintain this list of options. If a new proposal is made, they add this to the list, adjusting the list if necessary, in order to maintain the balance. If it is suggested that one option be removed, because the consensus of all concerned is that it is no longer deemed necessary, they reduce the list. And if the unanimous view suggests two options should be composited into one, they again adjust the list. (These last two acts are more easily done in the public meeting; they don’t really apply on a web-site debate.)

When the debate is done, the consensors draw up a final list of draft options. This is then presented to the participants, and if all of those who have formally proposed a possible draft option are content that their suggestion has been included, either verbatim or in composite, then the list becomes the ballot paper.

Finally, they act as the tellers for the vote. And that will be the subject of my next blog.