Returning to the organizational consultations for the Symposium, we can observe the same logic repeated, participants noted that the process created "a respectful environment [...] as well a common focus on the task at hand" [4], and that it was successful "despite the diverse backgrounds, professions, and experiences of those in attendance" [5]. In other words, creating an environment in which participants assumed good faith, and worked toward deciding what was the ‘right thing to do’, the meeting was more successful than it would have been had everyone come to push their own present agendas. 

Consultations then are more than handing over conservation decision making to others, the real story is far more complex and nuanced, and although consultations do not exhibit any of the formal systems of consensus (blocks, stand asides, hand signals, etc.), their underlying logic appear to align. Intriguingly they also both rely on myth creation for their success. Within activist forms of consensus “the conditions for moral transparency can only be maintained by a kind of make-believe” [6] such as the necessity of never casting doubt on others intentions, where as, in the consultation process make belief additionally plays out in the concept of stewardship; a mutually sustained myth in which legal positions of ownership are ignored in order to produce an environment of equality; mythical as consultations ultimately have to mesh with hierarchical superstructures of museum boards, tribal councils, etc.

From 'Anarchism in Action: Methods, Tactics, Skills,

and Ideas'. Second Edition. Complied and Edited by

Shawn Ewald. http://aia.mahost.org/