The next obvious question then is how these decisions should be made. As indicated earlier, for bodies which are not based on the principal of democratic representation, voting is not appropriate, but consensus works well – though as also indicated earlier, in cases where consensus doesn't work, that should not be regarded as a failure. The United States and China will never see eye to eye on content regulation, for example – so it is appropriate for it to fall back to be dealt with at a domestic level.
There are three exceptions to the general rule that consensus, or to borrow the IETF's phrase rough consensus, should be the standard of agreement. First, the Advisory Council will have a defined membership that could fall back to voting if consensus fails, and it should select its own chairman as a facilitator. Second, it may be suitable for some working groups to be governed by meritocratic standards, so they should be free within reason to mold their operating procedures to their requirements so long as that is done by consensus in the first instance. Finally, the Secretariat should be able to act as it sees fit within the reduced scope of its authority, but even so its Director should be appointed by the Advisory Council, to ensure that it remains accountable.
The Advisory Council and the Working Groups should ordinarily meet in person only once per year at the same time as the plenary meeting, but ensuring they have the facility to work effectively online between meetings should an integral step in their formation.