RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] 5% versus 2%

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The issue with under 5% is that at least in the United States a shareholder 
that holds less than 5% has the right to remain anonymous so a public company 
would not necessarily know who owns 2-5%.  Thus, it would not know if it were 
violating the rule.

I have made this comment before and make it again in the public forum.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] 5% versus 2%


hi,

As I mentioned yesterday if the level is going to change, I am more comfortable 
moving closer to the Board's original zero and recommend 0.5%  as a response to 
the proposal of 5%.

So I do not know about majority, but you certainly did not have full consensus.

a.

On 20 Jun 2010, at 12:29, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 
> All,
> 
> Towards the end of yesterday's session I made the suggestion we had consensus 
> on a 5% minimum percentage.  There was a lot of push back on that, but I 
> don't think I explained myself well.
> 
> What I meant was that if we had a binary choice between DAG 4 language with 
> 2% and DAG 4 language with 5% the majority of us would choose 5%.   That was 
> my sense from the full group.  
> 
> Did I get that right, or are my atoms getting scrambled?
> 
> RT