It is proposed that the OU should in the context of the Multiprotocol Backbone Service (MPBS) offer three different types of access: It is clear that the OU and the discussion around it does not recognize the difference between a service provider and a service contractor. Somehow it seems like the OU could have influence other through a contract on the EBONE service provision. The EBONE service should in my opinion be a separate entity, where a strong bound between the owners of the network service components will have to improve the technical issues, and possibly the financial situation through a company establishment? The RARE OU could, on behalf of the users (where they now are put) specify the service needs, and prepare a contract situation with EBONE. I see the trend to build these two functions into the same structure - the OU, which is a bad mistake. --mats PS I am not saying anything about the need for the open structure to allow for routing arbitration for ALL providers et c...) DS