I've added ROUTING to do what TROUBLE is often used to do.
I question whether this is a good idea -- some providers have a "routing" mailing list that isn't really intended for public dissemination and use. For instance, routing@uunet.uu.net and routing@es.net both bypass their respective NOCs and go straight to engineering types -- perhaps we need to pick a new name for those sorts of lists, but I really don't see what having a "routing" buys us over "noc".
This is the kind of collision that makes this "standard" expensive to implement. Folks elsewhere use ROUTING as a way to reach the folks who want to hear about externally visible routing problems; NETCOM for example advertises this address in its RADB elements. I think that folks like UUNET and ESNET will have to pick new addresses if they don't want their engineers getting spammed. Sorry about that.