Something bothers me about this thread, and I think it is the assertion that there is a proper definition for 'NAP' as differentiated from 'IXP' or what not. It seems as silly as trying to define Tier 1 v. Tier 2. The NSF's documents do not define terminology or protocols in a manner like the IETF for the operation of the greater Internet. I believe the referenced documents discuss requirements for the transition of the backbone over time, but i don't have them in front of me, nor am I eidetic like some folks seem. People should be free to define these terms as they see fit, with no central authority defining what is what (and I don't think there should be). A scientific community will communicate (only|best) through a common vernacular, but to disallow ambiguity in certain terms is to require unanimity, which will not occur. Given that the Internet is more of a business community than a scientific community, appropriate ambiguity should be openly accepted. The original 4 NSF sanctioned NAPs should retain a historical differentiation from all others due to their significance in transitioning the original NSFNet Internet to privately funded backbones. To assert a 'proper use' of the term "NAP" oversteps logic and implies an arrogantly fascist assertion of perspective. So I think. -alan ps. in a few gogle searches for the paper, I did find a reminiscent article on the assumptions and arguments back in 1994 circa NSFNet cessation of Internet Backbone funding at: http://www.cookreport.com/03.07.shtml