It's good to see continual discussion is on going. 

 As I said in my original comments, I think Alex is correct in his first point.  
 The initial section will flow much better if concerns and benefits are left until the second section. We should try to confine the "How it works" section to indeed just that. Not why that is good or why that is bad. Therefore,  
 # I think the "single point of failure" comment and the following sentence should be moved to the Security section. Let's just tell the reader what it does here and then say in the next section why this can be a problem. There is a natural place for it anyway in the paragraph describing the mediation server. 
 # The IANA comment should be moved as well. Perhaps Alex can expand this section and explain why/how the alternate IP works. Then in the security section, we can explain why this could be a problem in the future.  
 # Other than that, the first section is not bad. I think it could use more detail in the mechanics of how the application works . I think Alex's suggestion to write a draft for the technical aspects as he proposed may be a good one. Presumably, they should be pretty neutral as they are just technical descriptions of the application he knows well and should have little point of view. Regardless, we can look at both versions and decide which elements should be included. As long as it is not overly tedious, and from a NPOV, I see no reason why providing the reader with more information is ever a bad thing.  
 Thylark