I also think we should clarify the definition of "Consensus" .As I know,there ara always some persons who oppose each proposal,no matter the proposal is relative to him or not.But sometimes the chair seems to be hard to decide whether the proposal reaches the consensus or not.So I hope we can reach consensus about the definition of "Consensus" at first.
we've been through this in the other rirs, the ietf, nanog, ... if we could have a fixed algorithm, we would not need humans involved. think of it as job security for humans :-).
but, as you point out in another message, this one clearly lacked consensus.
and, as chanki so well illustrates, the process clearly needs work if one special interest thinks it can impose its will on the vast majority by bluster.
Another question is if a proposal does not reach consensus, does it mean there is no problem at all or the proposal is not worthy to continue discussion.
i like the way this works in arin, the rir which seems to have the most formalized process. if there was essentially zero support for the proposal, it is gently put to sleep. if there was support, and especially if the non-support said things like "if only X than it would be supportable," more work clearly needs to be done and, after it is reworked, expect to see it before the members again.