The Names Council and others have a tendency to talk as if the question is "consensus in the names council" -- measured by 2/3rds vote -- rather than consensus in the impacted community -- recognized by 2/3rds vote of NC but also documented by a report and a real, demonstrable state of the world.
I have no doubt that some on the Names Council's believe "consensus" is a consensus in the council, not the community -- a view that I believe is shared by ICANN's outside counsel who drafted the bylaws specifically to make council votes a surrogate for documented community consensus.
But this particular vote was reasonably well documented, especially given the short deadlines. Eight separate reports were received from the General Assembly and each of the seven constituencies. (GA, NCDNHC, IPC, ISPC, Registrars, Registry, ccTLD, and B&C (attached to the NC statement). That's remarkable. In fact, a decent argument can be made that this is one of the best attempts by the NC to date to document the impact of a proposed ICANN action on the relevant community.
-- Bret Fausett