RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I disagree that limits on TTL would impede innovation of volatile networks.
We have no indication of that from any source, as far as I recall.  I think
it is better to leave the first sentence, and expand upon it, rather than
introduce a red herring argument.  

I suggest we delete that last sentence, and instead add a clause up front:
"As explained in section 5.8, none of the possible options..."

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
+1.415.738.8087
www.rodenbaugh.com



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:07 AM
To: Fast Flux Workgroup
Cc: Marika Konings
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9


Here is proposed text for Section 5.9 (which also would appear in the
Executive Summary re: Charter Question #9.  Please share edits/comments to
the list for further discussion/approval at the next FF WG call on June 3.


Issue
What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions
to product and service innovation?


Response
None of the possible options noted above were deemed appropriate or
viable.  Besides their technical or practical limitations, such
limitations, guidelines or restrictions likely would impede the
innovation of legitimate "volatile networks" that use short TTLs and
frequent DNS record updates to deliver their beneficial products and
services.