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.
-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/