The two perspectives I didn't bring up (hoping someone else would/will) are: o How does the NSF support/activity impact content and connections to the NAPs (and to a far lesser extent the MAEs, and the random XPs popping up everywhere [which I feel are a geat idea {but I won't keep rambling}]). o In the freedom-of-speech world, it is my understanding that there are significant precedents set that say once a body exhibits ANY editorial control, they are then responsible for all content. [of course, not exhibiting control doesn't insure that one isn't responsible]. Of course, in a purely objective, idealistic world, I'd agree and support Avi's assertions. -alan ......... Avi Freedman is rumored to have said: ] ] > Hmm..... ] > ] > NAP operators making judgement about content... Hmm... I wonder ] > if there are any applicable precedents here... ] > ] > -alan ] ] Sure... "It's ours and we set the rules." ] As far as I know, rules aren't even available for the MAEs from MFS, ] and the Pennsauken agreement speaks only in generalities about what ] one's not supposed to do routing-wise... ] ] Avi ] ] ]