I completely disagree with that approach and think it makes use little better than a coin like Ethereum, which forked itself to make sure the "wrong" people didn't have access to certain coins.
That's an entirely different situation. Ethereum forked to roll back blocks so that they can get their money back that was lost in a buggy smart contract which didn't get fixed either (If they had fixed the bugs of their protocol then it would at least make a little sense!).
In any ways, I have argued before that if there is a vulnerability it should be removed instead of us letting it exist and hope nobody uses it. In this case if ECC were broken it must be removed completely which would effectively lock any coin that is not moved to new algorithm before a certain deadline.