On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:27:27PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > > > > 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.
I fully understand your point of view. However, I see it a bit different. I do not perceive this as proposal which imposes retroactive conditions on legacy address holders. For me there is a clear and strong bond between _original_ legacy resource holder and its legacy address space (resource). That is why I see this as future action against the future holder of the resource after its future transfer. > 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. Either, by accepting such ideas, we will be doomed and the registry will become poor quality or, by rejecting such ideas, we will have a good quality registry in the first place. Sorry for exagerrating here. Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland
