My answers are from the expressed language in the Foundation’s Articles, and being a legal document, it must be faithfully followed or changed as provided therein (see, paras. 24 and 78).
Rank voting is not referenced in the Articles and has not been voted on by the ENS Tokenholders, as the method of voting. The legal interpretation would be the plain meaning of “vote”, as it is not defined, and “ranked voting” is a special type that goes beyond the plain meaning and would have needed to be expressed in the Articles.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree, because the definition of Council says ENS Tokenholders and not a portion (i.e. DAO), opening up the vote to a challenge.
The language uses “appoint” and “remove” and not “replace.”
I hate to be hypertechnical [I know lawyers], but the ENS Tokenholders have not yet voted to remove Brantly, who has not resigned, so there is a possibility he may not be removed.
All of this can be changed by a vote by the ENS Tokenholders, under paragraph 78 of the Articles, to alter the Articles to address all of these issues.