Hi
Thanks for reply.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel(a)titley.com> wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 14:43, Lu Heng wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nigel:
>>
>> Thanks for sharing this.
>>
>> Correct me if I was wrong, to put in plain english for this long formal
>> thing:
>>
>> most pay 2k-2.5k, large ones pay 4-5k, and very small one pay 1k. per year
>> base.
>
> Yes, correct
>
>>
>> If that is the case, then only the current "small" category people's
>> fee are raised, is that correct?
>
> Yes
>
>>
>> And I am not very clear about "Appendix III: Procedure for Members
>> Selecting their own Membership Category", does that means everybody
>> can select their membership category in which has no relevant to their
>> resource count? so french telecom can select as a small one?
>
> No, you are absolutely right. But membership selections will be published,
> so everyone can see that France Telecom is defrauding the rest of the
> members by self declaring as small. We do however think that the majority of
> members are honest and have a good idea of their own size.
I think you might be right about french telecom as they are national company.
But for many other business ISPs, if there is no punishment or if
there is only counting on shame and blames(put on Frank's word), I
would say a lot large LIR would go for regular if not small.(if they
being blamed, they always can find XXX company have more resource than
us but also selected small etc, as long as they are not the top on the
list(so to say the largest one in small category), they will stay
there even blame exsits), and another thing is, I am not very sure how
well this self-declared system will work.
And how you plan to publish the list? will that list based on name or
the amount of resource count?
e.g.
Small LIR:
A company /13
B company /14
C company /15
etc.
If this is how it published, I think it might put quite some pleasure
on the guy at top of the list in each category.
If not, then I think a lot people can simply hide their name into the
small LIRs as I don't think many of them are well know or many people
well investigate other people's fees.
>
>>
>> I think it might be a mis-reading here could you help me to understand
>> it, thanks.
>
> No, you have understood perfectly.
>
> All the best
>
> Nigel
--
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.
