Sorry, I can't let you get away with that statement! You can shape peering policy WITHOUT specifying the location of the interconnect.
No apology needed :-)
The customer wants connectivity, not NAPs! Why doesn't NSF specify connectivity rather than means? Does NFS want to ensure IT controls the Internet by controling some of the major interconnect?
We did a lot of community consulting before settling on the current architecture. It was clear the FTS2000-like solution of another NSFNET Backbone with two or more suppliers was felt to be *too* structured, and the solution of "give the money to the end-user and get out of the way" was too loose for comfort. The NAP/RA/RNP solution had FIX/CIX/MAE-East precedent and, it seemed, just enough structure. NSF hasn't the slightest desire to "control the Internet." If the NAPs aren't useful they won't be used. I should be delighted were the technical community to arrive at a demonstrably better architecture that would be affordable by, and adequately serve, the NSF community. -s