The PAB has basic requirements for open and fair participation and for thorough consideration of alternatives.  Within those constraints, working groups are autonomous and each determines most of the details of its own operation.

Working groups will operate through mailing lists as this allows for a much wider representation than in-person meetings.  Consideration will be given later to the provision of in-person meetings but these will not be for decision making but purely for the WG to report on progress.

Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. Nominet consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough.  It is up to the Chair of the working group to determine if rough consensus has been reached.

It can be particularly challenging to gauge the level of consensus on a mailing list.  There are two different cases where a working group may be trying to understand the level of consensus via a mailing list discussion. But in both cases the volume of messages on a topic is not, by itself, a good indicator of consensus since one or two individuals may be generating much of the traffic.

The challenge to managing working group sessions is to balance the need for open and fair consideration of the issues against the need to make forward progress.  The working group, as a whole, has the final responsibility for striking this balance.  The Chair has the responsibility for overseeing the process but may delegate direct process management to a formally-designated Facilitator.
 
Contention and appeals
Disputes are possible at various stages during the Nominet WG process. As much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be made, and genuine consensus achieved; however, there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree.  To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion.

Reviews will be conducted by the PAB on written request, as time permits.