Christian, in private messages to a few of the attendees of the NOG meeting I have already expressed my surprise about the ambiguity of that directive. If I were a BoD member I would systematically vote against anything whose wording is that ambiguous, and demand that it be re-issued with a decently clear wording, but fortunately I am not a BoD member. Anyway I asked the people in question how they had understood the directive, based on what was said during the meeting. I did not want an official answer from Alain Auroux, but rather, I wanted to see if the meaning was clear to at least a few of the people who proposed this directive to the BoD. The result of this (absolutely non-scientific) little "survey" is that, apparently, it was "more or less" clear; I got answers saying "I thought it was only a recommendation!", but it seems that what the directive was supposed to mean is either: 1. "All EARN sites running a :backbone.YES LISTSERV must have signed the LISTEARN agreement no later than 1-Jan-90; they do not have to actually *run* that software, but they must have signed the contract". 2. "All 'backbone' EARN sites (ie those with international lines, etc) running LISTSERV must have signed the LISTEARN agreement no later than 1-Jan-90; they do not have to actually *run* that software, but they must have signed the contract". The directive is obviously irrelevant to LISTEARN sites, who have already signed the contract. It was clear from everybody that there was absolutely no obligation to run the software, only to sign the contract. Personally, I find it absolutely unacceptable that a professional organization with the kind of formal structure that EARN has might issue directives whose wording is such that, even among the people who proposed it, there are nonzero doubts as to what exactly the approved text means (and the difference between 1 and 2 is not merely rethorics!). If I were an EARN site director unwilling to sign the LISTEARN contract for any reason, I would play EARN's game and choose the interpretation (1 or 2) that I prefer, saying that this is the way I understand the directive and that it therefore does not apply to me; EARN would then, at least, be forced to come up with a new, unambiguous directive. Eric