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