On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:27 -0400, Matt Berlin wrote: > Yes, I believe that was the original intent of the rule, though not how it > is written. Would support amendment. > > Also, this may apply to me. Is there a chronological record of > registrations/deregistrations/holds?
It's in the Registrar's report, at the bottom. People rarely read it (to the extent that burying intents there is apparently ineffective), but it is there, for times like this when we need it. Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07, easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement. -- ais523
