In previous policy activity (IIRC it was with the Red Cross / IOC CCWG) the group I was in had similar challenges. So in the final report issues and positions were broken down this way:
1) Consensus (rough rather than unanimity)
2) Strong support but significant opposition
3) Minority position
4) Divergence without clear direction
It's not unreasonable to do this, recognizing both majority and minority views. It might help to also readers to identify if opposition or minority views are held by identifiable subgroups (ie, members of At-Large who are also registrants or associated with contracted parties, or from a particular geographical region).
Consensus is great, but if unavailable ought not to be replaced with tyranny of the majority. We owe our community the honesty to recognize diversity, not just in the makeup of our leadership but also in the makeup of our positions.
PS: I want to thank Greg for adding the phrase "privacy fetishists" to my ICANN lexicon. It's a more useful phrase than it should be.
___________________
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
@evanleibovitch/@el56