<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi,</div><br><div><div>On Aug 19, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:emorris@milk.toast.net">emorris@milk.toast.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: tahoma; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box; background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat repeat;">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given the group think mentality that pervades much of the current board
(apologies to Wolfgang) I can understand Avri’s perspective that it
might not make much of a difference whether the threshold is 50% or 75% to
enable the Board to disregard GAC advice. The thing is, we’re talking
about Bylaws here and Bylaws are designed to outlast any particular
Board.</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Yes…, of course. This is an important point. Our position on this shouldn’t be based on how the current board performs its duties or the current set of circumstances and context, but rather on by-laws that protect the process.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Amr</div></body></html>