Hi Joe, One of the defining discoveries in this process was to learn that as long as there was a written license agreement, it would be normal for each state institution to require that their own specific language be included, thus precluding any standardized agreement. In part to avoid this situation, we sought to develop a true alternative to a license agreement - rather than an alternative license agreement. Librarians and publishers have noted that often we are comfortable with an implied contract just as with a verbal agreement. Where there is general consensus, by avoiding the paperwork, we can streamline the process for anyone involved. Realistically, in many transactions there isn't a potential loss of substantial revenue for the publisher or risk for either publisher or library. With new publishers who would not take issue with terms supported by librarians, the SERU approach actually shortens the sales cycle and eliminates the delay of processing paperwork that isn't used. Further comments are welcome on SERU which is available now in draft form with FAQs on the NISO website. http://www.niso.org/committees/SERU Judy Luther MLS, MBA www.InformedStrategies.com 610-645-7546 EDT