On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >I haven't heard any real disagreement with simply having "individual" and
> >"business" membership.
>
> Actually, in a loose fashion, you've heard some agreement. It is the ISOC
> model. I keep trying but the only other breakdown that makes sense to me is
> users/ISPs. Since there are problems with both of them, a flat model comes
> to mind.
What exactly is the problem with a bicameral approach?
And the flat model has problems all its' own....
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
CTO (925) 377-1212 v
NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
