SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
                  PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a)
                    OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


Filed by the Registrant [ ]
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [X]
    Check the appropriate box:
     [ ]   Preliminary Proxy Statement
     [ ]   Confidential, for Use of the Commission only (as permitted by
           Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
     [ ]   Definitive Proxy Statement
     [ ]   Definitive Additional Materials
     [X]   Soliciting Material Under Rule 14a-12


                              NETRO CORPORATION

                (Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                              C. ROBERT COATES
                              ----------------

     (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement if other than the Registrant)


Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

[X]  No fee required.
[ ]  $125 per Exchange Act Rules 0-11(c)(1)(ii), 14a-6(i)(1), 14a-6(i)(2) or
     Item 22(a)(2) of Schedule 14A.
[ ]  Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
     1)     Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
     2)     Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
     3)     Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed
            pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on which
            the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
     4)     Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
     5)     Total fee
            paid:
[ ]  Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
[ ]  Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule
     0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid
     previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number,
     or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
     1)     Amount Previously Paid:
     2)     Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
     3)     Filing Party: C. Robert Coates
     4)     Date Filed: May 13, 2002


  (These materials are intended to be released to one or more shareholders,
    inconjunction with the previously supplied Definitive Proxy Statement
                currently on file, on or about April 05, 2002)
                ==============================================


                 MAJOR SHAREHOLDER WILL ASK THE SEC TO REVIEW
              NETRO'S 2001 ELECTION RESULTS AND PROXY MATERIALS

In an effort to ensure the fairness of this year's 2002 election for
directors, C. Robert ("Bob") Coates will ask the SEC to review Netro's 2001
election results.

Robert Coates said, "Last year Netro Corporation (NASDAQ: NTRO) mailed a proxy
statement to its shareholders containing a proposal to change the company's
state of incorporation from California to Delaware. This proposal served to
entrench the incumbent CEO and directors, making it very difficult to replace
them no matter how unsatisfactory their performance.

We are very concerned that Netro's CEO and directors are using the same
techniques in this year's election as last year. Last year's proposals faced
no organized opposition, unlike this year when Robert Coates and David Kennedy
oppose two incumbent directors.

We have documented that the 2001 proxy materials that Netro directors provided
to shareholders were marred by misleading and incomplete disclosure regarding
the reasons for the incorporation, the anti-takeover measures, the poison pill
and Delaware law.

The shareholders did not respond to the directors' proposal with enthusiasm,
even given the misleading and incomplete disclosure in the proxy materials.
Management and its proxy solicitation firm had to make at least two additional
mailings stressing the importance of the vote.

Even with all of these efforts, it appears that there were still not enough
votes to pass management's proposal. So what did they do? According to Netro's
10-Q filed on August 14, 2001, the directors adjourned the annual meeting
until the next day. We believe that the directors did this for the express
purpose of gathering additional votes so that they could claim that their
proposal had been approved by a majority of shares. According to Netro's 10-Q,
the margin of victory for the directors was less than 1%, even with the extra
day the directors gave themselves.  We are challenging the vote in the
Delaware court because we believe invalid proxies were counted.

It didn't take very long after last year's election for the directors to take
the next step towards entrenching themselves in power. On July 17, 2001, the
directors adopted a misnamed Stockholder Rights Plan--actually a poison pill.
The poison pill provides that any agreement, arrangement or understanding
among the holders of more than 15% of Netro's stock relating to the voting of
Netro stock may trigger this pill. In violation of Delaware law and the
company's own certificate and by-laws, Netro contends that the poison pill
precludes shareholders from even requesting and taking action at a special
meeting of shareholders.

By asking the SEC to review the events surrounding last year's annual meeting
and election last year, we hope to achieve two goals. The first is to put
Netro's directors on notice that we want a fair election on May 21. The second
is to overturn the restrictions placed on shareholders maximizing the value of
their shares and voting their shares."