> On 22 Jul 2019, at 14:26, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false dilemma > here. I'm sorry Piotr, I strongly disagree. The idea that was being proposed imposes retroactive conditions on legacy address holders. Which is very wrong. Policies should never be imposed retroactively. If implemented, the suggested policy will discourage legacy holders from co-operating with the NCC, Which in turn encourages "creative" solutions to get around that hypothetical problem and therefore bring about new ways to undermine the integrity of the NCC database. I fail to see what the false dichotomy is. Or could be.
- Re: [addr... Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg
- Re: [addr... Jim Reid
- Re: [addr... Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg
- Re: [addr... Sascha Luck [ml]
- Re: [addr... Nick Hilliard
- Re: [addr... Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg
- Re: [addr... Nick Hilliard
- Re: [addr... Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg
- Re: [addr... Nick Hilliard
- Re: [addr... Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg
- Re: [addr... Jim Reid
- Re: [addr... Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg
- Re: [addr... Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg
- Re: [addr... Erik Bais
- Re: [address-policy-wg] questio... Tore Anderson
- Re: [address-policy-wg] qu... JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-policy-wg... Tore Anderson
- Re: [address-polic... JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
- Re: [address-p... Tore Anderson
- Re: [addr... Jim Reid
- Re: [addr... Kai 'wusel' Siering
