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
]
]
]