On 11/14/2012 11:13 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> Nicolas Adam wrote:
>> I very much doubt that. Not that someone said that to you, but that some
>> change would actually be needed to welcome it (or parts of it).
>>
>> I don't see an obvious set of possible intensions defining ISP in their
>> charter that would disallow the PIA-CC ISP extension.
>>
>> But i haven't checked.
> ISPCP charter:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/internet-service-and-connection-providers/articles
>
> Relevant definition:
> "ISPs" or "connectivity providers" 	means entities that comply with the
> following criteria, namely
>
> 1.    they are in the business of operating Name Servers as a service for 3rd
> parties other than companies affiliated with the respective provider and
> 2.    they
>          operate an Internet backbone network based on TCP/IP or
>          provide transit to either Internet users or 3rd party's Internet
> content.
> ----------------------------------
>
> Membership of the ISPCP is then defined as primarily of association
> representing ISPs or CEs as defined above. So, the sticking point I see here
> is whether the proposed constituency association's members usually run their
> own DNS server or not. If they simply point to the upstream provider's
> server, then they fail criteria 1.
>
> Of course whether this is a sensible restriction is a separate question, but
> it does appear to be to be plausible that their current charter would not
> recognise the candidate as a suitable ISPCP member.

Indeed. And I stand corrected.

Nicolas