Peter reminds me that he wrote Thus, an ISP who wanted to check off that they were meeting the NAP functionality that NSF was requesting could do so by saying they were doing so in part by being connected to MAE- east saying Please note the "in part ..." Peter I did what you ask -- saying you said that a network service provider could show that they are partially meeting their NAP responsibilities by connecting to MAE East and presumably treating MAE east as the Washington DC NAP. Please note the phrase "are **partially** meeting" You wrote: Steve Wolff has said that the NSF should be using existing industry built facilities instead of growing them in numerous forums. I paraphased from memory: "wolff is making statements that the feds shouldn't build facilities that private industry can do better!?" You seem say this is another misquote....sorry ....again. I don't see it that way at all and with the two side by side readers may judge for themselves. you say: the net effect on the California and DC NAP awardees appears to be minimal and the ISPs that are to connect to the NAPs save themselves interconnection costs. This in turn should reduce the cost to the people to whom NSF awards funds for Internet connectivity. Do you find fault with this line of reasoning? It may be easier to believe in a conspiracy, but you might also want to look for economic drivers. Let me say that I endorse Louie's answer as to why this doesn't work as you suggest...... and that your post still sounds to me like a trial balloon for an NSF policy change on the NAPs....having said this I be glad to return to lurking. Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher: COOK Report on Internet -> NREN 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA NEW E-mail: cook@mcs.com Subscriptions: $500 corporate site license; $175 edu.,non-profit & small corp. $85 Individual