Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed additional text, section 5, answering 5.2-5.7 at 365-379

[RLVaughn <RL_Vaughn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Dave's claims in items 5 and 8 seem candidates for verification from the
> appropriate constituency groups but fit my conception of the perceivable
> harms to registrars and registries.  However, I fail to see how the
> majority of registrars or registries are in a position to perceive
> dealing with fastflux as any thing other than marginal cost.  
<doh> I mis-stated that.  I meant,
dealing with fastflux as making a significant contribution to their costs of
handling abuse.
</doh>