On the cost factor at NAFO, for example--and I am sure Mr. Bevan would be more enlightened than me on that—I am familiar with the shares that are being paid now. In regard to how you arrive at that, I wouldn't be able to tell you historically how they would be arrived at. But I'm drawing a conclusion that they would be in line with, first of all, our quotas to a certain extent. There are different areas in determining cost, I think. There is a certain amount divided equally. There is a percentage divided based on your quotas. I think there are three different ways by which it's broken down in costs.
As to how we are going in the future, I'm not sure whether it is on the table for discussion. I'm not aware at this time of how a new payment structure should occur. It is not an issue that I've discussed at this point. Mr. Bevan might be aware of that.
But on the general issue, before we get to that cost you made reference to, we would want fishing to be in NAFO to the same level of governance that we have inside. We have to start with areas that we are contracting parties to in our RFMOs. We have a vested interest not only by paying but by being members there to ensure that happens.
Then we have a responsibility to not only the ones who are not participating but to try to impress on other countries to adopt these responsible ones. That is where we are leading in developing a responsible RFMO that can be a model for others too. We can't just stop when we've satisfied ourselves that we've conquered it within one RFMO. We have an obligation I think to go further.
I will defer on any costs. I think there are three ways the cost is determined. Some are on an equal basis, some are on a percentage basis. I am not sure, if there are any discussions on when we get the ideal situation we want, if there is going to be a change in that. Is that what your question is?