Class Politics All about to kick off....

To class members it's a potentially fatal blow to the boat and the class that we love. Which group's opinion is worth more?

Where's the "fatal blow"? Are all the boats going to disappear? Are all the people who love to sail them going somewhere? Will all current Laser regattas be cancelled if the name is changed? Of course not. If BK wins the class will go on with little change except the name of the boat. If he loses, that's when it's going to get dicey. Builders in North America and Europe not supplying quality boats or necessary parts is a much greater threat to the world of Laser/Torch sailors than a name change.

As to whose opinion counts, well here's one person who sailed Lasers for 15 years, and served as District Secretary and North America rep on the World Council for 7 years. Back then the NA Class had over 3000 members - ask Gouvernail! I've been too old, decrepit and fat to sail a Laser for a while now so why would I belong to the Class? But I still organize and run regattas, and care that the best one-design class in the world go on having big, fun regattas and producing the best sailors in the world. I still have a relevant opinion, I think. So do thousands of others who own the boats.

Let's look at how many people own and sail Lasers vs. how many join the Class - and how many of those actually vote. Over 200,000 Lasers have been sold worldwide since the introduction of the boat. Let's guess (no way to tell for sure) at how many are still around, maybe 100,000? At its height, ILCA might have had 10,000 members worldwide. So only 10% of people who buy/sail a Laser actually joined the Class (and that was counting the memberships that used to be included in the purchase of a new boat). Of those, only 10% bother to vote on rule changes that affect the boat. Often less than that. The ILCA management "managed" to hoodwink a majority of that 10% into voting for the infamous Fundamental Rule change back in 2011 by supplying bad information that led people to believe BK had a design patent on the Laser design that had expired. There never was any such thing. Those people who voted were presumably concerned about the supply of boats and parts, and I hope they still are.
 
Agreed with the results in that there was no surprise that Kirby support is the majority view - though it's more dominant than I thought it would be. The figures don't represent the fence sitters - though I haven't found too many of them... possibly the survey could have been a little more professional - also asked if the respondents were current ILCA members... etc. By the way, the survey did take 4 days to get the 110 responses. (it was also posted LinkedIn, Sailing Anarchy and Twitter).

Gantt's poll was pretty useless IMHO.Or perhaps I should say 'irrelevant'.
The way the questions were phrased was very one-sided.
Moreover, anybody who reads the Dinghy Forum of Sailing Anarchy could vote. One didn't even have to be a Laser sailor. Or even a sailor...

Note that redstar and I actually agree on this issue; what is the Laser/Torch world coming to...
 
Why would anyone bother to do the survey unless they knew what the issue was, and who Bruce Kirby, Laser Performance, ILCA, ISAF and Global Sailing are.

I'd think that would be a group of mostly Laser sailors, wouldn't you?
 
Gantt said:
Agreed with the results in that there was no surprise that Kirby support is the majority view - though it's more dominant than I thought it would be. The figures don't represent the fence sitters - though I haven't found too many of them... possibly the survey could have been a little more professional - also asked if the respondents were current ILCA members... etc. By the way, the survey did take 4 days to get the 110 responses. (it was also posted LinkedIn, Sailing Anarchy and Twitter).
Wavedancer replied:
Gantt's poll was pretty useless IMHO.Or perhaps I should say 'irrelevant'.
The way the questions were phrased was very one-sided.
Moreover, anybody who reads the Dinghy Forum of Sailing Anarchy could vote. One didn't even have to be a Laser sailor. Or even a sailor...

Agreed. It wan't scientific nor particularly neutral. What the exercise did for me was it cemented in me the belief that the Kirby position is the majority position - clearly there are more people reading these posts than actively contributing. Unsurprisingly, I received quite a few private messages in support of the position (some from people I don't know) - which also contributed to my belief that the Kirby position is the position that majority support.

Agree about the non Laser sailor comment - though there are quite a few people who aren't Laser sailors or even sail who's views are important - they are the organisers, volunteers and others that contribute in many ways. A lot of them are local club members, so technically they are represented by ISAF, but I digress.

What's next? I think the next step is to figure out how to get the ISAF/ILCA to reverse their position.

One of the issues the ILCA/ISAF face is the supply of charter boats for scheduled regattas. Anyone have any ideas how big an issue that is or how to solve it?
 
FWIW, the majority opinion on this forum on the original vote to change the Fundamental Rule appeared to favour the "No" position. When it came to the actual vote, the overwhelming majority of voters voted "Yes"*. But even then, I guess only a small percentage of ILCA members that voted and only a small percentage of Laser sailors are members of the ILCA.

* 1017 ‘yes’ votes (89.3%) and 122 ‘no’ votes (10.7%),
 
FWIW, the majority opinion on this forum on the original vote to change the Fundamental Rule appeared to favour the "No" position. When it came to the actual vote, the overwhelming majority of voters voted "Yes"*. But even then, I guess only a small percentage of ILCA members that voted and only a small percentage of Laser sailors are members of the ILCA.

* 1017 ‘yes’ votes (89.3%) and 122 ‘no’ votes (10.7%),
I know of several persons (about 10) that have changed their mind since voting "yes", a couple that still would vote "yes", and a few (about 4, including Tillerman) that voted "No". Again - though this is not scientific - it forms a bias in my mind, and certainly gives me the impression that things have changed. I think several ILCA members resigned over this. I wonder what would happen is several hundred who voted, wrote into the ILCA (or stated it publicly) expressing that they no longer support the rule change.
 
As to reversing their positions, if ISAF reverses, ILCA has no choice.

Contact your Member National Authority rep (whoever will be in Copenhagen) right now for this weekend's ISAF meeting.

AlanD, yes a total of 1139 votes - just over 11% of members voted. (assuming still around 10,000 members worldwide)
 
We had a comment on our blog from someone who voted on the ILCA rule change and was not a class member and didn't own a Laser. Neither was a requirement to vote so Gannt's survey was as good as the ILCA's vote.
 
To find your local ISAF rep, visit here: http://www.sailing.org/about/members/mnas/index.php

Also, contact your local club commodore/captain/president. Should we develop a statement so it can be cut and pasted? How does the following sound:

Yachting New Zealand
Attn: Jan Dawson and David Abercrombie
[email protected]

Dear Jan and David,

ISAF recently approved a rule change to the International Laser (Kirby Sailboat). The ILCA vote in 2011 for the rule change concerning North American is universally accepted by sailors as being flawed in many respects. The ISAF originally rejected the rule change on the basis of such concerns. ISAF have recently reversed their original position and not only have approved the change, they have approved the removal of "Bruce Kirby Inc" from plaques issued by ISAF/ILCA. It is my belief that these plaques are intended to be used for the Kirby Sailboats manufactured by Laser Performance for the North American and European markets.

Laser Performance, who is subject to legal action by Kirby for breech of contract, is no longer recognized as an official builder of the Kirby Sailboat by Bruce Kirby Inc,. Such recognition is a contractual requirement and part of the system which has seen the class become the world's most popular adult one-design class. This action has also placed regions outside of Europe and North America in a difficult situation, with one major supplier from Oceania (PSA) expressing that they will not produce the Kirby Sailboat with plaques that do not have the Kirby name as they say they will be in breech of contract.

The recent actions by the ISAF has attracted legal action from Bruce Kirby against ISAF and ILCA (see attachment).

I am opposed to the position that the ISAF have taken on this matter and request that they reverse their position at the earliest instance. Specifically, this means: (1) no longer ratifying the ICLA rule change concerning manufacture. (2) Issuing plaques with the Kirby name. (3) Continuing to support the Kirby Sailboat as an International and Olympic class.

Yours Sincerely,

BH
P Boating Club
NZ

Of course make your own edits before sending it. (I will be sending it in a couple of hours. Love to hear if I have made any errors etc. from you guys first. Also, I'll be circulating it to other members I know.)
 

Attachments

  • First Amended Complaint - final1.pdf
    60.7 KB · Views: 45
To find your local ISAF rep, visit here: http://www.sailing.org/about/members/mnas/index.php

Also, contact your local club commodore/captain/president. Should we develop a statement so it can be cut and pasted? How does the following sound:

Yachting New Zealand
Attn: Jan Dawson and David Abercrombie
[email protected]

Dear Jan and David,

ISAF recently approved a rule change to the International Laser (Kirby Sailboat). The ILCA vote in 2011 for the rule change concerning North American is universally accepted by sailors as being flawed in many respects. The ISAF originally rejected the rule change on the basis of such concerns. ISAF have recently reversed their original position and not only have approved the change, they have approved the removal of "Bruce Kirby Inc" from plaques issued by ISAF/ILCA. It is my belief that these plaques are intended to be used for the Kirby Sailboats manufactured by Laser Performance for the North American and European markets.

Laser Performance, who is subject to legal action by Kirby for breech of contract, is no longer recognized as an official builder of the Kirby Sailboat by Bruce Kirby Inc,. Such recognition is a contractual requirement and part of the system which has seen the class become the world's most popular adult one-design class. This action has also placed regions outside of Europe and North America in a difficult situation, with one major supplier from Oceania (PSA) expressing that they will not produce the Kirby Sailboat with plaques that do not have the Kirby name as they say they will be in breech of contract.

The recent actions by the ISAF has attracted legal action from Bruce Kirby against ISAF and ILCA (see attachment).

I am opposed to the position that the ISAF have taken on this matter and request that they reverse their position at the earliest instance. Specifically, this means: (1) no longer ratifying the ICLA rule change concerning manufacture. (2) Issuing plaques with the Kirby name. (3) Continuing to support the Kirby Sailboat as an International and Olympic class.

Yours Sincerely,

BH
P Boating Club
NZ

Of course make your own edits before sending it. (I will be sending it in a couple of hours. Love to hear if I have made any errors etc. from you guys first. Also, I'll be circulating it to other members I know.)

Sent to the RYA rep (with a couple of minor edits).
 
Obvious typo: "The ILCA vote in 2011 for the rule change concerning North American is universally accepted by sailors as being flawed in many respects."

will replace with "The ILCA vote in 2011 for the rule change concerning the approval of builders is widely accepted by sailors as being flawed in many respects."
 

a copy paste from the above linked article>>>>

"People who are not comfortable with voting now because they think they need more information should rightly delay their vote. However, its very important that they do, ultimately, vote,"

Exactly why I never voted....Was it not this week that we finally learned some details about the US Trademark?
 
Gantt - Are you a member of the ILCA? Do you race in the class?
Yes I race Lasers (last races in April - it's winter here now) and am a member of a yacht club affiliated to ISAF via YNZ. I am not a member of the ILCA though have been previously. I am thinking that I should rejoin.
 
Rumor has it the fur is flying at the ISAF meeting. The live feed tomorrow might be quite entertaining.
 
Sorry for some here >>> not fur is flying here at ISAF meeting> same long talking
Who thinks ISAF council is sorry for a man who makes a law suit against ISAF!!!
ISAF says Laser is to be the olympic boat .Torch is only puff and smoke >>>
No more story here.
 
Sorry for some here >>> not fur is flying here at ISAF meeting> same long talking
Who thinks ISAF council is sorry for a man who makes a law suit against ISAF!!!
ISAF says Laser is to be the olympic boat .Torch is only puff and smoke >>>
No more story here.

If this is a genuine submission from a genuine member of the ISAF (which I sincerely doubt) then my opinion of them is even lower than it was before this person posted.

The way the thing is worded is terrible and if the ISAF are that arrogant then they deserve everything they get from the lawsuit.
 
sorry english is not my language.
I am real in denmark but just watch from back>>>

I am watching the stream and seeing the live updates. I have also made representations to my MNA rep. so hopefully it will get discussed before the ISAF has to dig deep to defend itself.

Plus unless you have the ISAF blessing to post as them you might want to reconsider your forum name.
 
sorry english is not my language.
I am real in denmark but just watch from back>>>
'meetISAF', I am not native english speaker, too. I really understand/know how difficult it is to translate into english. I am not able to understand any danish, to help. In my own opinion: Ignore comments here at TLF like jeffers just has done it to you, just report and just don't use bad words like f..k or shi* etc. Feel free to report of the ISAF meeting,thanks for that. Most is done there at the meeting "behind of the curtains", of course, not infront of the liveTV.... Greetings to Denmark from the GER neighborhood, LooserLu.
 
'meetISAF', I am not native english speaker, too. I really understand/know how difficult it is to translate into english. I am not able to understand any danish, to help. In my own opinion: Ignore comments here at TLF like jeffers just has done it to you, just report and just don't use bad words like f..k or shi* etc. Feel free to report of the ISAF meeting,thanks for that. Most is done there at the meeting "behind of the curtains", of course, not infront of the liveTV.... Greetings to Denmark from the GER neighborhood, LooserLu.

Sorry Lu, when someone comes on and posts like that with a nick name that implies they are representing the ISAF then I feel it is right and correct to question them.

As for reporting my post they can go right ahead, I have expressed my opinion and suggested that maybe they should review their nickname as it could get them in to trouble!

Had they stated they were not a native english speaker in the initial post then that would have been different. As it stands the initial post looks amateurish and does not do the ISAF any favours IMO.
 
jeffers, I respect you, you know that. But just let him/her write, what happens behind the live TV. We all here have our own opinions, and discuss it here. Bradley or Merrily decide if our posts are against the forums rules etc.etc. If that what meetISAF is really true or not soon the press-media let us konw. If I would be able to do, now I' like to invite you to a beer ()a danish Carlsberg), of course (but I guess the distance of miles/km's is to big). Seee you on the water... ;) Lu
 
jeffers, I respect you, you know that. But just let him/her write, what happens behind the live TV. We all here have our own opinions, and discuss it here. Bradley or Merrily decide if our posts are against the forums rules etc.etc. If that what meetISAF is really true or not soon the press-media let us konw. If I would be able to do, now I' like to invite you to a beer ()a danish Carlsberg), of course (but I guess the distance of miles/km's is to big). Seee you on the water... ;) Lu

This is what we were doing Lu....if you ever find yourself anywhere near the midlands in the UK let me know, I will buy you a beer, might even let you borrow my boat if you need a sail.
 
This is what we were doing Lu....if you ever find yourself anywhere near the midlands in the UK let me know, I will buy you a beer, might even let you borrow my boat if you need a sail.
Thanks!Vice Versa! We live ~ in the same line of latitude (I am just some 100s of km to the east of you...) Northrhine-Westfalia (GER). You would be able to sail an 'original counterfeit Laser(TM)'(with BK(TM)-logo in the ISAF-plaque)...
 
No exception taken here to meetISAF's handle. If you belong to a recognized club, or better yet pay dues to your National Authority, you are ISAF. Those folks sitting at the big meeting? They are all there representing you and me!

And of course you're right, Lu, all the important discussion of Kirby's case must have already taken place behind the scenes. They couldn't discuss it on an international webcast, since it is a legal case pending.

I also have faith that there are a good proportion of the people sitting at that table who know of and revere Bruce Kirby just as we do. He's been around a long time, and didn't just design the Laser.
 
I don't think he's going to out-lawyer Rastegar by filing motion after motion.

Going after the Laser Trademark may not be about out Lawyering Rastegar, it may be based on actually securing the Laser trademark (if there is a slim chance then it's worth a go!) - and I imagine that if Kirby won the rights to the Laser trademark, then some of these issues would go away!

Do I take it that the Kirby legal action against the ISAF was not discussed at all? ( I fell asleep during the first quarter). If not then I got the wrong idea about what the meeting was about.
 
Well, yeah. If BK can get all the Laser trademarks back by proving that Rastegar's company 'abandoned' them then he might not have to change the name of the boat. I don't think he can get them all back, though.

They may not have abandoned the Laser trademark that pertains to the actual boat since they have been building boats and branding them "Laser" fairly recently.

If the legal action was discussed, it was behind closed doors, I'd surmise. There is one more meeting of the various chairmen tomorrow, though.
 
My name is Bruce Hudson. I started sailing in 1976 and Lasers in 1983 in New Zealand. I've sailed in a few nationals - but most of my sailing has been at club level. I have owned seven Lasers in total, only one of which was brand new. Though I have been a member of the NZLA previously, I am not currently. I intend to sail in the 2014 NZ nationals in Nelson so intend to rejoin the NZLA for next season. I am currently a member of Pupuke Boating Club. The interest I have is protecting the interests of a sport which I am passionate about.

Thought it might be a worthwhile exercise to haul out the 2011 vote explanation, now we have had time to get to grips with what actually happened. This has been done before, there is a little new information, though the intention is to present this information in one place.

In Kirby's civil action (which sadly, I am now familiar with), Kirby alleges "82. On information and belief, in order to gain the required support for the ILCA Rule Change, ILCA mislead its members as to the reasons for and implications of the ILCA Rule Change."

So how true is that? I decided to look at the explanation offered by the ILCA, look at the information that was going around at the time, add what we now know - and make my own conclusions. While the below represents my own opinions, I have attempted to be neutral as I can be.


2011 RULE CHANGES - VOTING ENDED 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011
IMPORTANT Rule change
This rule change is very important for the future of the class. The change and the explanation have been approved by the Laser Class World Council and the Laser Class Advisory Council. Please do not delay your vote.
For 40 years the ILCA Class Rules and associated agreements concerning the management of the class have given the sailing world the most successful youth and adult racing class in history with over 200,000 boats built and racing in over 125 countries.
This success, we believe, is based fundamentally on the ILCA Class Rules, which requires that a builder of class-legal boats must (among other things) (i) manufacture the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual and (ii) have the Laser trademark rights.
No real issues worth mentioning above here.
In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights.
Issue #1 - there are current agreements and are therefore not historical. This fact is verified by Laser builder Performance Sailcraft based in Australia. It is also verified by ISAF, who referred to current agreements as reason not to approve the rule change. The agreements were originally signed in 1984 and 1988, though had several updates over time, the most recent appears to be "on or about June 16, 2005" with PSE.
The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements.
Issue #2 - there are agreements that specifically name the ILCA as a party. The builder agreements say that changes must be made with the agreement of ILCA. PSA in their recent statement referred to agreements that they have with Kirby, ISAF and ILCA. Put plainly, ILCA was party to agreements with builders. While there were several agreements, and strictly speaking an agreement between the builder and the designer may not have the ILCA as a signatory, I believe that the ILCA to be named in the builder agreement (though as stated, the ILCA may not be a signatory). The big picture is that Kirby, LPE, ILCA and ISAF had a number of agreements are bound to each other by these agreements. Of course whether or not these agreements will be upheld is up to the courts.
Unfortunately, a dispute has arisen between parties who claim to be representing Kirby’s interests: a New Zealand company called Global Sailing; and Laser Performance Europe (LPE), one of the manufacturers, which holds the Laser trademark rights for Europe, South America, Africa and Asia (excluding trademark rights owned by Performance Sailcraft Japan for Japan and South Korea).
Unsure if the ownership of the Laser trademark is quite so extensive - though that has no influence on voting so will not count it as an issue.
The dispute centers on whether a valid “design rights holder” agreement exists with LPE. Under the current ILCA Class Rules, if there is not a valid building agreement, then a manufacturer, even a trademark owner, would not meet the requirements to be an International Sailing Federation (ISAF) and International Laser Class Association (ILCA) approved builder.
The issue, at least in part, was that LPE was not paying royalties - not upholding the agreement that it had with Bruce Kirby Inc., though the ILCA conclusion is correct. While I don't agree with this statement, (as a breach of contract does not release the parties obligations) I won't count this as an issue until this becomes clearer.
Each of the parties to the conflict has threatened ILCA in various ways – Global Sailing has said it may form a new class association for a “Kirby Sailboat”. LPE informed the ILCA that it intends to form its own “Laser” class. We may therefore end up with three different classes and may lose the Olympic status. The “one design / out of the box principle” would also be threatened.
Agree with the ILCA's conclusions. This is such a shame, as the class was built on a huge amount of goodwill. Threats like this are sad , and speak about the frustrations the parties were having.
One other possible result of this conflict is that due to uncertainty over ISAF and ILCA approval, there may not be a sufficient quantity of new Laser boats compliant with the ILCA Class Rules available in Europe and other countries in 2011 and beyond to satisfy the demand of its current and future ILCA members.
As it turned out, the Olympics were not compromised. Other major events have not been compromised. Though there is potential disruption in the future, most of parties, if asked, may simply put their differences aside for the good of the sport. Now it has progressed to legal action, the possibility for this may be fading.
The class officers made numerous attempts to get the two conflicting parties to end their dispute: meetings were held in different parts of the world and written compromise proposals were made, unfortunately wth no success. While discussions between the two parties continue we are unsure of the outcome and running out of time.
We can now say with hindsight that time wasn't really running out, though I sympathize with ILCA taking that view at that time (the year before the Olympics).
We also took legal advice. The above rule changes were deemed the only possible solution in order to promote the uninterrupted supply of class legal Laser boats and to maintain ILCA in its current set-up.
Issue #3 - That legal position places higher weight on the Trademark than on the signed contracts (or "design rights"), which sounds like the view that the ILCA held at the time of writing. Kirby, in his civil action talks about the contracts and agreements, and does not talk about "design rights" per se. For Kirby it's all about the agreements and signed contracts and now the defendants need to answer that. Of course the position held by the ILCA was disputed by Kirby at the time; and of course the proposed rule change was not the only remedy. It was (and still is), a position that favours LPE.
The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired.
Issue #4 - Big issue and a mistruth. I believe that the lawyers may have said something like "any valid patents that Kirby may have had, have expired", so Jeff and Heini may have made a small mistake in their own minds. However the message to the members (voters) is clear - that according to legal advice, Kirby has no design rights. This of course is the position that LPE holds currently holds. In fact, there are contracts - now I'm not about to say whether or not they are binding, or what the legal outcome is. However, voters here were clearly mislead on this point. It's important to note that this position by the ILCA was based on poor information, and I want to believe that it was not malicious in any way.
Therefore, we are proposing to change the rule to eliminate the “building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc” requirement. Manufacturers who have trademark rights and who build in strict adherence to the ILCA Rules and to the Construction Manual, which is controlled by ILCA, will continue to have the right to build Class legal boats. We believe that this change will eliminate uncertainty over ISAF and ILCA approval, give manufacturers continued reasons to support the class and satisfy the demands of current and future class members.
Given the above issues, and in light of the disputes, is this still a valid conclusion?
Why should you vote YES?
  1. To promote the uninterrupted supply of class-legal Laser boats all over the world to meet the demands of current and future sailors.
    It's possible that by eliminating Kirby technically is a solution, however remember that we sailed the Olympics with this dispute carrying on behind behind the scenes. It's difficult to understand that the ILCA was compelled to make this rule change and effectively take sides with LP. This from PSA's General manager Chris Caldecoat: "For ILCA and ISAF to attempt to change the rules regarding the manufacture of the Kirby designed boat (currently called a Laser) without due process and consideration of all stakeholders is contrary to the principles of our Class."
  2. To maintain the International Laser Class Association in its current set-up.
    Issue #5 - (small issue) this rule change makes a change to the set-up, so is not maintaining the current ILCA set-up.
  3. To preserve the “one design / out of the box” principle, which is assured by the mandatory adherence to the Laser Construction Manual by all builders as defined in the fundamental rule.
    All parties want this principle maintained, in spite of any threats made.
  4. To maintain ISAF recognition and Olympic status.
    I struggle to imagine the Olympics without the Laser, or as an ISAF recognized class.
Heini Wellmann,
Laser Class President
Jeff Martin,
Laser Class World Executive Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
Also, there was advice to wait for more information. The ILCA promised more information (Tillerman posted on this), then did not deliver it.
This cautionary note from the UKLA:
"You may already know of a proposed change to the Fundamental Rule of the ILCA Rules. The change might seem a minor one, but it may have profound implications for the future of our Class. You are being asked by ILCA to vote on this issue as soon as possible. However, you have until 23 September 2011 before you have to make up your mind and vote.
There is a strong case in favour of waiting: information about the background to this Rule change is still emerging, and the argument has a long way to run. In such a fluid situation the advice of the UKLA Committee is to wait before casting your vote. We will remind you to vote on this website, and elsewhere, as the deadline approaches. The UKLA has not been involved in this case, and does not wish to be. At this early stage the UKLA knows as little as anyone not already involved, so we cannot advise you on which way to vote. Also, the prospect of legal action being joined between the disputing parties is high, which is why the UKLA is keeping its counsel: to avoid having to pay for it. If you wish to review the arguments posted so far in discussion forums, the Yachts &Yachting forum and the North-American Laser Association forum are good places to start.
The rule change itself can be viewed at www.laserinternational.org . Read carefully, and only vote if you're certain of your decision.
Unfortunately, while written with the best intentions, some ILCA members concerned with the proposal were put off from voting.
There was a lot of talk of the ILCA keeping out of what was an issue between the commercial parties. The prediction that the UKLA made was correct, that there was legal action, and as a result of this rule change (and the plaque issues) the ILCA and ISAF are now named in the civil action - they (we) have joined the disputing parties.
15 September 2011, Sailworld reported Kirby saying: "I’m expecting too that my resumption of responsibilities to the Class, ISAF and particularly to all Laser sailors, will make it unnecessary for the Class to proceed with the proposed (Fundamental) rule change."
On September 23 at 9 AM, before voting had closed, Sailworld reported "As recent written advice from ISAF to the ILCA had according to informed sources, already rejected the proposed rule changes..."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So now, having completed this exercise, what conclusions can be made? Remember, Kirby says in his civil action "82. On information and belief, in order to gain the required support for the ILCA Rule Change, ILCA mislead its members as to the reasons for and implications of the ILCA Rule Change."
Sadly for the ILCA the answer is that yes, the voters were mislead. Not just by the ILCA, but by a variety of sources including Kirby himself.
I maintain that the right thing to do, is repeal this rule change.
 
The following is from the North American Laser Assn minutes:

April 16, 2011
1.Laser Performance contract: since notification of our intended deadline of March 31st to have a signed sponsorship contract, there has been some communication with Bill Crane at LP. Due to negotiation on other items with ILCA, our contract with LP is on hold. A decision of some kind is expected within the next couple weeks. Also a past due payment of $3,750 since 10/1/10 has now been paid. It was decided to postpone looking for an alternative sponsor until our next ExCom call.

5.Update on ILCA/GS/LP: A rule change has been proposed by ILCA with voting open until September 2011. Approval will allow ILCA to continue to issue ISAF plaques to all approved builders and will force Global Sailing and Laser Performance to sort out their differences in court without the involvement of ILCA. Several members of the ExCom requested some guidelines about the best way to answer inquiries from ILCA-NA members about the situation. Tracy and Sherri agreed to put something together.

September 13, 2011
2a.Laser Performance contract: no payment has been received. Tracy has spoken with Bill Crane but he indicates that no action will be taken until after the rule change is formalized. Sherri will write to LP to ask them to provide the Grand Prix prizes for 2011.

November 9, 2011
2a.Laser Performance contract: no change. Tracy has spoken with Bill Crane but he indicates that no action will be taken until after the rule change is formalized. Sherri noted that LP has agreed to provide the Grand Prix prizes for 2011. They will ship all items to the class office for distribution.

January 18, 2012
2a. Laser Performance contract: no change. It was decided that this item should be dropped from the Action Items list as no further action is anticipated from LP in the foreseeable future.

March 4, 2013
Bruce Kirby lodges his civil action.

March 4, 2013
ILCA say "The decision to continue ISAF plaque sales (and continue to report them to Kirby, Inc.), taken only after consultation with ILCA's legal advisor and close discussion with ISAF, is seen to be in the best interest of the sailors as it maintains the flow of boats and equipment until such time as a resolution to the dispute is reached."

April 23, 2013
ILCA say "ISAF has confirmed that the Laser brand dinghy remains Olympic equipment and will be used for both the men’s and women’s one-person dinghy events at the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil and remains the core equipment through the 2020 Olympics. ISAF informs us that supply contracts for the provision of the equipment for the 2016 Olympics were signed in 2012.
ISAF has approved two changes to Part One of the ILCA Class Rules. These changes have been approved in accordance with the provisions of the ILCA Constitution and the ILCA Class Rules. All necessary votes and approvals have been conducted and are officially recorded. In the case of the member vote, votes were verified for membership validity by each District or Regional authority. The results were then audited by an independent audit firm, which reported 1017 ‘yes’ votes (89.3%) and 122 ‘no’ votes (10.7%), showing that over two-thirds of the voting members approved the rule change as required by the ILCA Class Rules, Part Five, article 30(c).

April 30, 2013
Kirby amends his civil action to include the rule change.
 

Back
Top