Avri:

And that is sometimes the problem with consensus.  We agree to things we should never agree to.

Wolfgang:
 
In diplomacy governments have the tricky technique to have a consensus on the basis of "agree to disagree". They can continue with totally opposite positions in something what they called for years a "peacful coexistence", hating each other, fighting against each other, but agreeing in issues of "common interest" as the governments of the United States of America and the Soviet Union did during the cold war on SALT, Start, ABM and others. 
 
The conceptual basis for such an approach was and is the jus cogens principle of "sovereign equality" (or national sovereignty), enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, a legally binding document to all its member states. 
 
Can ICANN learn something from this mechanism of "peaceful coexistence" among "enemies" which live under the same unbrella called GNSO? If we see ICANN as the "United Constituencies" of the Internet, we have to invest more in thinking how the EC³ (enhanced communication, coodination and collaboration) works in the relationship among the various (sometimes opposing) constitutencies within ICANN. What would be the basic principles which would allow that ICANN constituencies with conflicting interestes keep their "sovereignty" (identitiy, uniqueness etc.) but are able to cooperate and share where common interests prevail and common sense (in the interest of its own survival) is needed? 
 
One way to channel unavoidable conflicts among constituencies is to have more precise legally binding procedures for inter-constituency communication in the Bylaws. This includes all kinds of inter constituency relationships: Within the GNSO, among SOs and ACs, and between the SOs/ACs and the Board. 
 
Probably a 5th (external) review panel which would look how the inter-constituency cooperation works within in ICANN, could be on the agdna of a forthcoming ICANN 3.0 .