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

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

Correct.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
To: Neuman, Jeff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun Jun 20 10:15:39 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] 5% versus 2%

Jeff,

I think you're saying a percentage below 5% would put a US public registry in a 
position where they could not monitor their own contractual compliance.     

Is that right?

RT


On Jun 20, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>