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