I have no problem with maintaining  the PEERS NAMES file for everybody at
no cost to EARN, provided that:
 
1. EARN  staff handles the  update procedure for  EARN nodes and  make an
   EARNPEER NAMES  file available to me;  the only thing I  am allowed to
   change  in  this  file is  the  :backbone  tag.  We  have to  make  an
   arrangement  similar to  the  one  that exists  between  NMC and  NCC,
   whereby I return an updated version of the file to the EARN staff if I
   make a change, and they wait for this new version to make new changes,
   etc. The only thing I don't want  to do is collect PEERS NAMES updates
   from the postmasters,  check that the address/phone  numbers are still
   correct, ensure that the format of  the entries is ok, etc. This takes
   a  lot of  time if  done properly  (I have  recently stopped  doing it
   properly) and should be done by EARN.
 
2. EARN  formally agrees,  in  writing, to  accept  my decisions  without
   complaints, as Jose-Maria suggested.
 
Whether or not point 2 is acceptable to EARN is another business. I would
welcome comments from the EARN officials on that.
 
I do have problems with a  neutral BITNET person maintaining PEERS NAMES,
because this requires  a non-negligible amount of changes to  the code as
it exists now,  and introduces delays if I  need to add a new  tag to the
file or something like  that (what if he is on vacations  when I am not).
However I have  no problem with having a neutral  BITNET person (or group
of persons) doing the "arbitration"  of litigious backbone cases, as long
as EARN  formally recognizes  the authority of  this person,  in writing,
with a "no complaints" clause.
 
I  would not  accept that  EARN completely  took over  responsibility for
PEERS NAMES, unless plan  #3 is chosen. EARN is only  25% of the network,
and I see  no reason why they  should rule the network,  unless they also
provide maintenance for all the network.
 
  Eric