Harry,
  Good morning.  We have always been resistant to peering because it meant
we needed to coordinate a lot of list with many owners and it seemed not
worth the effort to keep things strait.  Then one day Jose Maria sent me
a very logical note explaining why peering was needed especially in EARN.
One reason was because of potential charging by volume in Germany and having
the notebooks so far away wouldn't do.  The real clincher was that Jose Maria
agreed to do all the work of setting up the lists and agreed to be my only
go-between in EARN.  Are you aware of his methods for maintaining lists in
parrallel?  It takes a little getting used to, and I can still manange my
public lists, and I do understand it, but I would rather not have to explain
it.  So, (1) I think starting peers to the BITNIC lists in the US would be
a good idea (2) if I would have one point in the US peering to all the BITNIC
public lists like DEARN does in EARN and then have that spot decide who else
peers to them (3) if I could have one person like Jose Maria to make sure the
other sites peering do not peer themselves into a loop (4) if you wanted to be
the main peer to us, that Jose Maria could explain his system to you. What do
you think?  Or we could leave it alone...
--Judy