A consensus involves all parties. Indeed, much of what is advanced already reflects GNSO positions. So why is the lack consensus at this stage their failure and not yours?

It is not unreasonable to suggest that, since the NGPC is recommending a level of RC protection, that the onus is on those who don't like it to propose an alternative path. You're welcome to advocate outright rejection of any protection -- which appears to be the current position in the absence of an alternate proposal -- but I don't consider outright rejection to be in (my perception of) the public interest, and the ALAC position (and Board advice) is already on record.

I also don't think that a flat rejection at this stage -- years after the conversations, bullying  and eventual compromises began --  will succeed to influence the final decision making (as you know, consensus != unanimity). But the all-or-nothing gambit is yours to take.

- Evan