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

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

I don't see that connection between percentages other than that is the 
percentage that you want :)

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 Ron Andruff
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 2:41 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] 5% versus 2%


God point, Jeff.  Transparency is another reason 15% makes sense.

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 7:51 AM
To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] 5% versus 2%


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