Hello Greg, Yes – I like the general principle of setting a 75% threshold. This certainly relieves the concerns that some have that there is no criteria established in advance for the removal of a director.
Any definition of supermajority relating to the GNSO has to take into account the bicameral nature of the GNSO.
The GNSO Supermajority definition in the bylaws is clearly lower than 75% no matter how you slice it. Thus, it would fail any requirement for a 3/4 supermajority.
If we want to (or are required to) be true to the 75% concept in the GNSO, then we will need to consider a heightened supermajority for these purposes in the GNSO. E.g.,
a) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of each House,
or (b) four-fifths (4/5) of one House and a two-thirds (2/3) of the other House."
Yes - I think the GNSO would take the 75% principle, and then create the relevant bylaws text that takes into account the bicameral structure of the GNSO. Regards, Bruce Tonkin