G. wrote: > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Yally wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 20:15, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>>> Judgement: FALSE. As per Wooble's gratuitous arguments, with the >>>> added note that when a player becomes Active, the Registrar is not >>>> (ceases to be) required to track the previous inactivity dates; so >>>> following the caller's reading would require information untracked >>>> for months/years to suddenly become tracked; that's an unreasonable >>>> reading. >>> >>> Interesting. However, the Registrar is required to include the dates >>> of registration/deregistration of all former players. However, if a >>> player deregisters and later registers, the Registrar is no longer >>> required to track eir old dates of registration/deregistration, but >>> would later be so required if the player deregisters again. >> >> This precedent implies that the Registrar is currently not required to >> track that e.g. Quazie was registered from 2005-2007 and 2008-2009, >> only that e was registered from 2009-2010. > > Yep. The *intent* of R2139c is (pretty clearly) that only the most > recent inactivation need be tracked. The *intent* of R2139d is > (pretty clearly) all past dates (the plural helps, there. Yet the > wording of the two is pretty similar, so any judgement that went one > way or the other would go against the intent of one or the other. I > thought this way was more reasonable. > > Another argument is that (d) specifies the plural "Dates" meaning > all of them, even if it's slightly unreasonable to expect. Therefore > the "reasonably available" clause is added to make the requirement > more reasonable. So in other words, the reasonable default is "only > the most recent date" but the language of (d) overrides that.
R2139d is ambiguous because "dates" could refer to the two types of date (registration and deregistration).
