What is a NAP Agreement? Essential Insights for ISPs

Understanding NAP Agreements in Telecommunications

A nap agreement is a non-aggression pact between two players, in which both agree not to attack each other for a set period. The exact details are often left to interpretation, which is why NAPs have long been one of the biggest sources of disputes in the Dominions community. Disagreements usually centre on what counts as good faith and whether a given action breaks the deal.

To reduce that ambiguity, players can state which formal doctrine their agreement follows, so both sides know the rules before the pact begins. This article walks through two treatises: LucidTactics and the strict in-game NAP.

What Is a NAP Agreement?

A NAP agreement, short for non-aggression pact, is an understanding between players in a game such as Dominions in which they commit not to attack each other for a set number of turns. The exact terms are often left to interpretation, which is why the community has long debated what counts as a breach. Most NAP agreements are informal, agreed in chat rather than in the game itself.

The idea is simple, but the details shape how players behave. A NAP typically covers direct attacks, and players then disagree on whether indirect actions such as scouting, spreading a dominion, or moving stealthy units into an ally's territory also break it. Choosing a clear doctrine before the pact starts prevents most later disputes.

Common points to settle when agreeing a NAP:

• The duration of the pact and how turns are counted
• Whether scouting and stealth units are allowed in each other's territory
• Whether global spells that harm an ally count as aggression
• How a NAP can be ended and how much notice is expected
• Which doctrine (in-game or out-of-game) governs disputes

Teams planning fiber or network projects face a similar need for explicit terms, and NAP Definition (Network Access Point) — OSP Equipment explains the separate, technical meaning of the acronym.

Why Do NAP Agreements Matter in Telecommunications?

In telecommunications, a NAP agreement sets out how telecom operators interconnect and share access to a common aggregation or handoff point, so the commercial and technical terms are settled before any traffic flows. Without one, disputes over capacity, cost recovery and maintenance responsibilities tend to surface only after a network problem has already occurred. Writing these terms down turns vague cooperation into enforceable obligations on both sides.

Several factors shape which terms carry the most weight. Operators with asymmetric traffic volumes usually need clearer cost-sharing rules than peers of similar size. Planners who map fiber routes early can reference shared infrastructure more precisely; network access point basics explain the physical side of that picture.

• Capacity commitments and how overages are billed
• Responsibility for maintenance windows and outages
• Demarcation points between each party's equipment
• Escalation steps when service levels are missed

What Types of NAP Agreements Exist in Telecommunications?

The most common structures are settlement-free peering, where each side carries the other's traffic at no charge, and paid transit, where one party pays for capacity. Settlement-free terms suit operators with balanced traffic, while paid arrangements fit cases where one network sends far more data than it receives. Operators should compare traffic ratios before signing, since the wrong structure can quietly shift costs over time.

Planning the physical side matters too. A NAP Definition (Network Access Point) — OSP Equipment helps teams map where each interconnection sits, which keeps the agreement tied to real infrastructure. With MapItRight's GIS overlays, you can visualize these locations alongside your existing fiber routes.

How to Draft a NAP Agreement in Telecommunications

A NAP agreement in telecommunications is a written contract that sets the terms under which two or more networks exchange traffic at a shared access point. Drafting one means defining who connects, where the handoff occurs, how traffic is measured, and how costs and disputes are handled. A clear draft prevents misunderstandings about capacity, responsibilities and termination before any equipment is installed.

Start with the parties and the physical scope. Name each network operator, identify the NAP location, and specify the demarcation point where one party's responsibility ends.

Next, define technical terms: capacity commitments, port types, interconnection speed, and maintenance windows. Then add commercial terms such as billing basis, dispute resolution steps, and notice periods for changes or termination. Each clause should be specific enough that an engineer and a lawyer reading it reach the same conclusion.

NAP Agreements in the Dominions Game

A NAP agreement in the Dominions game is an out-of-game promise between two players not to attack each other for a set number of turns. Players typically agree on the terms through diplomacy, and the community has long debated how strictly those terms should be applied.

The community's written guidance on NAPs describes two formal doctrines that players can adopt: a LucidTacics treatise and a strict in-game NAP treatise. They take different positions on what counts as a breach, so the same agreement can produce very different outcomes depending on which doctrine the players accepted. Agreeing on a doctrine before the game starts avoids most disputes.

Comparing NAP Agreements Across Contexts

In practice, the most useful comparison starts with the wording. A clause that is precise in one setting can be vague in another, so the same agreement may produce very different outcomes depending on the surrounding rules. Look at how each draft handles scope, duration, and exit conditions, and note where the terms depend on interpretation rather than on fixed criteria.

With MapItRight, you can use GIS overlays and real-time collaboration features to keep such comparisons organized across shared documents.

Frequently asked questions

Why do NAP agreements cause so many player disputes?

NAP agreements cause disputes because the exact terms are often left to interpretation, so two players can agree on a non-aggression pact and still disagree about what breaks it. One player may consider only direct attacks a breach, while the other also counts scouting, spreading a dominion, or moving stealthy units into an ally's territory. Arguments then centre on good faith, which is why the community treats this as one of its biggest sources of conflict.

What are the two formal NAP doctrines?

The two formal doctrines covered in the community's written guidance are the LucidTacics treatise and the strict in-game NAP treatise. The LucidTacics approach treats a breach as an action that undermines the spirit of the pact, so selling an access tile to a third nation is not a breach but may be a reason for an ally to reconsider the relationship. The strict in-game approach treats the game's own coded rules as the final word, so if the game flags an action as a breach, it is one. NAP Definition (Network Access Point) — OSP Equipment is a separate telecom term and should not be confused with these Dominions doctrines.

How do you specify which NAP doctrine you are following?

You specify the doctrine by stating it explicitly when the agreement is made, naming the treatise both players accept, such as the LucidTacics treatise or the strict in-game NAP. Writing the choice into the chat agreement before turns begin removes guesswork later. For example, a player agreeing to the strict in-game rules should accept that independent attacks and remote spells can be exploitable and that the game's coded limits govern every action.

Does stating a NAP doctrine make betrayal less open to interpretation?

Stating a doctrine narrows interpretation considerably, because both players then judge a breach against the same written rules rather than their own expectations. It does not remove every disagreement, since players can still dispute whether a particular action falls under the chosen treatise. Agreeing to a named doctrine in advance is the most practical way to reduce disputes over what counts as betrayal in a long game.

What is the Strict Ingame NAP treatise?

The Strict Ingame NAP treatise is the doctrine in which players follow the rules of the game itself, so if an action would breach the NAP inside the game, it counts as a breach. Players create the NAP in-game and accept the pre-defined rules as coded, meaning that if the game says an action breaks the nap, it does. The treatise's own author notes that this can be exploited through independent attacks and remote spells, and that it can limit a player's ability to respond to a throne rush.

Conclusion

A NAP agreement is a non-aggression pact in which two parties agree not to attack each other for a set period, but its exact terms are often open to interpretation. In telecommunications, a NAP agreement instead sets out how networks interconnect and exchange traffic at a shared access point, so the terms are fixed before any traffic flows.

Next, list the clauses that matter most in your context, such as demarcation points, capacity commitments, and escalation steps, and confirm that every party reads them the same way. Then record each interconnection location against your actual fiber routes so the agreement stays tied to real infrastructure. Finally, compare the treatises on the Dominions side or your telecom terms side by side to decide which doctrine or wording best reduces disputes.

For fiber teams, MapItRight offers GIS overlays that help you visualize interconnection locations alongside existing routes, and real-time collaboration that keeps shared documents and records in one place for everyone involved.