2011 Rule Changes - Fundamental Rule

I can not understand this GREAT PROBLEM........
Cheers
It's very simple...

1. Company A bought something. None of us here know exactly what.

2. Company B had an agreement with Company A. None of us here know what is in that agreement. None of us really know whether that agreement is still in effect.

3. Company A and Company B are now in some kind of dispute. None of us here know exactly what that dispute is about.

4. Company B makes Lasers.

5. The ILCA has a rule that Company B can't make Lasers unless they have an agreement with Company A.

6. So if Company B doesn't have an agreement with Company A any more (which none of us here actually know) then the boats that Company B makes that look like Lasers and sail like Lasers wouldn't really be Lasers.

7. The ILCA would like us to vote to get rid of the rule that says Company B can't make Lasers unless they have an agreement with Company A, so that even if they don't have such an agreement with Company A then the boats that they make will really be Lasers.

8. Nobody here has yet heard anything about this from Company A or Company B. Nobody here knows what was in the agreement between these two companies. Nobody here knows the full nature of their dispute. Nobody here know whether Company A is in the right or Company B is in the right. Nobody here knows how their dispute will eventually be settled. Nobody here knows what Company A and Company B will do if this rule change is passed. Nobody here knows what Company A and Company B will do if this rule change is not passed.

Does anybody here think they know enough to vote on this yet?
 
As ever T-man is so right. He could also have added - no one here as any idea if Company A or Company B is financially strapped - which also often makes a difference!

As it happens I have voted - in haste, without much thought and I now regret it. There is obviously no reason to vote yet, so every incentive to wait and see what arguments will be proposed in support of either side.

Having said that I am confident that I would be most likely to continue to support the Amateur Organisation over the commercial builder.
 
To make matters worse, I have a feeling you wont hear anything from Company A or B on the 'issues'. They've kept silent on the matter up to now, and there must be a reason for that.

So ultimately it looks like we will have to make a decision based on incomplete data.
 
8. Nobody here has yet heard anything about this from Company A or Company B. Nobody here knows what was in the agreement between these two companies. Nobody here knows the full nature of their dispute. Nobody here know whether Company A is in the right or Company B is in the right.
I would argue that we can never know the full nature of their dispute, know the details of their agreement, and certainly not who is "right". While the antagonists might lobby in hopes of swaying public opinion (and what makes you think that there hasn't already been some attempt at that?) in the end we'll never know. Besides, is it really up to ILCA to arbitrate a dispute like this? Should ILCA be stuck in the middle? Isn't this rightfully a legal dispute to be settled, if not directly between the two parties, through the legal system?

I would argue that who is right or wrong in the dispute is irrelevant to the larger problem that there is a dispute and it has the potential to very soon adversely impact Laser sailing. The crux of the matter is that, whether we like it or not, one builder owns the trademark to call the boat we sail a Laser and affix a Starburst logo to its sail, while another party, independent of ILCA, owns IP rights to the boat and the current ILCA rules (of which WE the sailors control) require an agreement between the two. In today's world, if the two parties cannot come to agreement then, under the current rules, we are in a situation where a builder cannot build a boat but can prevent any other potential builder from building a boat called a Laser and selling it in their trademarked territory.

Nobody here knows how their dispute will eventually be settled. Nobody here knows what Company A and Company B will do if this rule change is passed. Nobody here knows what Company A and Company B will do if this rule change is not passed.
The ILCA proposal page says:

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.

From the ILCA page I would see one of the following possible outcomes of the current dispute:
1) The two parties resolve their dispute and we continue forward as we always have,
2) ILCA modifies its Class Rules to remove the current Class Rules requirement of of an agreement between a builder and an IP rights holder,
3) ILCA drop the use of the name Laser and the Starburst Logo, transforming into something like the I1310CA, International 13'10" Class Association, or the IKCA, International Kirby Class Association, or something.

My guess is that everyone would agree that outcome 1 would be the preferred solution. According to ILCA's statement, they have tried to mediate and have had no success. The ILCA statement "While discussions between the two parties continue we are unsure of the outcome and running out of time" indicates that they feel that its time to go with plan B.

Outcome 3 is charting unknown waters and, remember, the power of branding is not to be underestimated - just ask companies like Apple that fiercely protect their brand names. But let's say you do become the 13'10" Class, or the 4m Class, or something with some new flashy symbol on the sail. Your biggest hurdle is that you will be competing directly against the current trademark holder who will certainly market a "Laser". As well, what do you do with all the existing Lasers? Do you grandfather those boats into your 13'10" class and exclude all new "Lasers"? Or become a hodge-podge of three potentially different boats, of which you might only have control over one? That's probably only the tip of the iceberg here, there are a number of issues to really think through here but the bottom line is that once you open the door to a "new" class, then why not just invent a more modern single handed boat and move on? The Laser is a 40+ year old design, it is the dominate single handed boat not because its the best boat you could have, but because it has the most number of sailors sailing it.

In the end, that leaves outcome 2. ILCA tells us this will allow the builder who owns the trademark in Europe, South America, Africa and most of Asia to continue to build and sell Lasers. This does not abrogate IP rights, LP will still need to sort out their dispute with Global Sailing but we, as sailors, can continue sailing while they sort that out.
 
To make matters worse, I have a feeling you wont hear anything from Company A or B on the 'issues'. They've kept silent on the matter up to now, and there must be a reason for that.

So ultimately it looks like we will have to make a decision based on incomplete data.
I believe you may be right Tim. And my general rule of thumb when being asked to make a decision on very incomplete data is to wait as long as possible to make that decision, on the grounds that the longer I wait the more data might become available and/or the situation might develop in such a way that different options might be on the table.

Up to now nobody has stated any convincing reason why we have to vote before September. If there is a reason, let's hear it. If not, I'm going to wait and see what happens in the interim and what new information comes out.
 

torrid

Just sailing
To make matters worse, I have a feeling you wont hear anything from Company A or B on the 'issues'. They've kept silent on the matter up to now, and there must be a reason for that.

So ultimately it looks like we will have to make a decision based on incomplete data.
Incomplete data, yes. But neither side seems to care about the interests of the class. Definitely making me lean towards a "yes" vote, even if it favors one side over the other.
 
Should ILCA be stuck in the middle? Isn't this rightfully a legal dispute to be settled, if not directly between the two parties, through the legal system?
My concern is that GS obviously think what they purchased is worth a lot of money whilst LPE think is isn't (or they can't/wont pay for whatever reasons). Thus, if ILCA decide to exclude GS, given the large sums involved I doubt they would shrug their shoulders and write off their investment. I would suspect they would go to court only there is a risk that this time ILCA will be tangled-up in it all whether they like it or not.

Another risk, given the legal nature of it all, is that, during negotiations it seems GS is allowing LPE to continue building. Were the ILCA vote to exclude them then there would be a risk that the take out an injunction with immediate effect to stop LPE building pending a full legal hearing. And that would well and truly mess Lasers up. So the ILCA's interference may end-up making things worse. Whilst GS, LPE, ILCA, etc. all "want what is best for the class", it will be the lawyers who run the show soon and they do not have the interests of the class as their prime concern.

As Tracy and others have said, legal issues are complex and without details nobody can really form an opinion about rights and wrongs. But when such large sums are involved, people "fight their corner".

Ian
 
My concern is that GS obviously think what they purchased is worth a lot of money whilst LPE think is isn't (or they can't/wont pay for whatever reasons). Thus, if ILCA decide to exclude GS, given the large sums involved I doubt they would shrug their shoulders and write off their investment. I would suspect they would go to court only there is a risk that this time ILCA will be tangled-up in it all whether they like it or not.
....
As Tracy and others have said, legal issues are complex and without details nobody can really form an opinion about rights and wrongs. But when such large sums are involved, people "fight their corner".

Ian
I am no lawyer but I don't see a legal case being made against a private members club (ILCA) for changing its rules on what constitutes a piece of equipment that meets its eligibility for use rules. Surely the most likely legal case if ILCA wins is GS against LPE for infringement of IP rights (if that is possible) should ILCA allow LPE lasers to meet its revised criteria?
 
I am no lawyer but I don't see a legal case being made against a private members club (ILCA) for changing its rules on what constitutes a piece of equipment that meets its eligibility for use rules. Surely the most likely legal case if ILCA wins is GS against LPE for infringement of IP rights (if that is possible) should ILCA allow LPE lasers to meet its revised criteria?
Similarly, no lawyer, but the scope of the law may make a 3rd party liable for losses due to their interference (or at least for there to be a case in court) - no idea.

But I can see a risk of an injunction against LPE to stop them building. It seems to happen when large amounts of money are involved (I remember last year (?) when a smaller company took out an injunction stopping Microsoft selling their Office Suite whilst a patent hearing was being taken out/waiting because of a dispute about a format MS were using to store documents in - and because the hearing was yet to happen, MS had to stop selling their Office Suite immediately). So risk if GS took out an injunction ...

But not being a lawyer and not knowing the strength of anybodies case and even the nature of the people or their lawyers ... who knows but we can think of the risks.

Ian
 

gouvernail

Super Opinionated and Always Correct
The Laser is a lot to singlehanded sailing as the US Dollar is to international trade.


And while I am at it..

The relationship between Laser sailors and the builders is a form of Stockholm Syndrome
 
Tracy,

I dont normally care about Laser politics but this seems to be a tipping point. I guess you have the inside track on this whole deal.

What i do not understand is that Bruce Kirby who evidently sold Bruce Kirby Inc to Global Sailing, says there are no copyrights or patents - he seems to think he knows what is in the Kirby Inc agreements (you would figure he would).

But ILCA's case for voting Yes is based on the fact that their attorney's told them that patents have expired.

But the ILCA statements also says that ILCA has not seen the agreement/contracts.

Like I am a six year old, please explain, how do you know what you don't know?

If the guy who drew up the original docs says you are wrong and ILCA says we have not seen the docs, but we are right. - why should we believe you??
 
But ILCA's case for voting Yes is based on the fact that their attorney's told them that patents have expired.

But the ILCA statements also says that ILCA has not seen the agreement/contracts.

If the guy who drew up the original docs says you are wrong and ILCA says we have not seen the docs, but we are right. - why should we believe you??
That is a really good point. If the ILCA lawyers have not seen and do not know the content of these documents, how can they pass any sort of opinion on them and their validity ?

Ian
 

AlanD

Former ISAF Laser Measurer
That is a really good point. If the ILCA lawyers have not seen and do not know the content of these documents, how can they pass any sort of opinion on them and their validity ?

Ian
Does that ever stop anyone on this forum and thousands of other forums? ;)
 
ILCA seems to have published two different versions of the proposed new Fundamental Rule. The new rule is published at two places on the ILCA website. One is the request for online voting published a couple of weeks ago at http://www.laserinternational.org/rules2011. The other is in the LaserWorld March issue which is also circulated to members in paper form and includes a rule change voting form which can be returned by post to the class office.

As well as removing the need for a builder to have a “building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc” it appears that the class wants to change the wording that references the construction manual. But the two versions on the website have different wording in this part of the rule.

The old rule says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

The new rule in LaserWorld says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

And the new rule on the online ballot says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

I'm not sure why ILCA wants to change the wording here anyway, but surely we need to use the same wording in every version of the ballot? If the new rule passes, which version would be valid if some members had voted for and against one version and other members had voted for and against another version? This may seem like a trivial issue (and I almost feel bad about raising it) but, given that this rule's validity could eventually be challenged in a court of law, isn't it important to avoid any confusion or ambiguity?

My own guess is that the intention was for us to vote for the version in LaserWorld, and the online ballot should have had "strike through" used on the words "accordance with" as it is in the LaserWorld version.

Is there some way to make both versions consistent without invalidating any votes already cast for and against a "wrong" version?
 
I guess you have the inside track on this whole deal.
I am not speaking for ILCA, I'm speaking for myself. "Official" word from ILCA comes from the ILCA President and/or Executive Secretary. I'm expressing my opinions.

What i do not understand is that Bruce Kirby who evidently sold Bruce Kirby Inc to Global Sailing, says there are no copyrights or patents - he seems to think he knows what is in the Kirby Inc agreements (you would figure he would).

But ILCA's case for voting Yes is based on the fact that their attorney's told them that patents have expired.

But the ILCA statements also says that ILCA has not seen the agreement/contracts.

Like I am a six year old, please explain, how do you know what you don't know?

If the guy who drew up the original docs says you are wrong and ILCA says we have not seen the docs, but we are right.
You know, I've not followed why the above argument has bearing here. Consider the following hypothetical situation:

Let's say the house next to you is sold. The seller executes a contract with the buyer. Do they invite you over to read the intimate details of that contract? Probably not. Certainly not where I live.

Some time passes, let's say you have kids and they get to the age where they want a playhouse in the backyard. Your community has laws regarding additional structures on your property... the local planning department works with you to confirm your playhouse conforms to the local regulations and, ultimately, you obtain a permit to build your new playhouse in your backyard. Upon seeing it in your backyard, your neighbor comes running over and says that the contract he executed with the seller, that you have never seen, when he bought the house said you would never build a playhouse in your backyard and he is going to sue you!

huh?

ILCA is acting entirely within its constitution to amend its Class Rules. I am unaware of any contract ILCA might have with a builder, or IP rights holder, that gives that party control over the ILCA Class Rules, other than what is spelled out in the ILCA constitution. The question I would put back is how can ILCA be bound by a contract to which it is not a party?

I'm sure there are attorneys reading this forum that can straighten me out on this!

- why should we believe you??
You tell me. The discussion on this forum amounts to a debate. Its up to the readers to weigh the arguments and determine what is right. The ILCA constitution mandates a 6 month voting period, you have until September 23 to do so. Because past history has shown that people often "forget" to vote, if you are sure of your decision then you should vote now. If you are not you should continue to think, but don't forget to ultimately vote!
 
ILCA seems to have published two different versions of the proposed new Fundamental Rule. The new rule is published at two places on the ILCA website. One is the request for online voting published a couple of weeks ago at http://www.laserinternational.org/rules2011. The other is in the LaserWorld March issue which is also circulated to members in paper form and includes a rule change voting form which can be returned by post to the class office.

As well as removing the need for a builder to have a “building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc” it appears that the class wants to change the wording that references the construction manual. But the two versions on the website have different wording in this part of the rule.

The old rule says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

The new rule in LaserWorld says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

And the new rule on the online ballot says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

I'm not sure why ILCA wants to change the wording here anyway, but surely we need to use the same wording in every version of the ballot? If the new rule passes, which version would be valid if some members had voted for and against one version and other members had voted for and against another version? This may seem like a trivial issue (and I almost feel bad about raising it) but, given that this rule's validity could eventually be challenged in a court of law, isn't it important to avoid any confusion or ambiguity?

My own guess is that the intention was for us to vote for the version in LaserWorld, and the online ballot should have had "strike through" used on the words "accordance with" as it is in the LaserWorld version.

Is there some way to make both versions consistent without invalidating any votes already cast for and against a "wrong" version?
Good catch! And should be forwarded directly to Jeff Marin and Heini Wellmann. You are correct that the two should be identical.
 

Wavedancer

Upside down?
Staff member
I propose that 'we' start all over again.
Even though significant info is still (!) missing, it's clear that a number of ILCA members who have voted want to change their vote based on the discussions in this thread and the ones in the dinghy sections of Sailing Anarchy and Yachts and Yachting Online. And now we find out from Tillerman that there are different versions of the rule we are supposed to be voting on. What a mess! Didn't I state earlier that I had lost confidence in Mr. Wellmann and Mr. Martin?

Here's is my proposal:

1. First of all, the World Council should have another vote on whether to even propose a (properly formulated) change in the Fundamental Rule. Clearly, at least one of the World Council members was against it. Now that more info is available, perhaps others have changed their mind.
I note that it has become evident from the various discussions that a good case can be made for ILCA to stay out of the contractual dispute between GS and LPE.

2. If the World Council does want to move forward, let's have a properly written (proposed) rule change.

3. Next, let's have a solid clarification of what the proposed rule change is all about and what it would accomplish for the 'average' sailor and the ones on the Olympic track. Clearly, the current rubbish on the ILCA website is of no help.

4. Although I don't mind for ILCA to give us some advice on how to vote, I trust that all of us can think for themselves.
 
Good catch! And should be forwarded directly to Jeff Marin and Heini Wellmann. You are correct that the two should be identical.
Hi.
From my experience in my profession as sort of legal advisor for civil engineering (transportation, roads, railways etc.) at my country, it is just a simple "clerical error". It depends 1.: on the judiciary, 2: based on what law and 3.: in what country the later on done trial is placed. This differences, as above mentioned by 'Tillerman' (thanks "Mr. T." for your precise reading and comparing the published versions! You are soooo great, man!), us now not make us "sleepless". Just my "2 €-ct".

Don't forget to GO OUT FOR A SAIL our loved toy (as long it is called a "LASER")!! At the northern hemisphere it's upcomming spring, guys 'n' ladies!! ;) ... That's what I'm going to do tomorrow and Sunday (Merrily is my far-far away observing witnesss from "FB"!!)!

Ciao
LooserLu
...just one of the over 200.000

(directly to:
- Mr. Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr. of St. Onge Steward Johnson & Reens, LLC: I 'm not afraid of YOU (and your here secretly viewing staff)... never!! Greetings of Europe, hahaha!!
- Tracy: thanks you accompany us. I encourage you to do this in future, especially for this issue.)
 
The new rule in LaserWorld says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

And the new rule on the online ballot says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

My own guess is that the intention was for us to vote for the version in LaserWorld, and the online ballot should have had "strike through" used on the words "accordance with" as it is in the LaserWorld version.

Is there some way to make both versions consistent without invalidating any votes already cast for and against a "wrong" version?
Wow. The version on the online ballot has already been corrected. Well done ILCA office!
 
I can't imagine as big a vote as this taking place within the next decade of the Laser class, but in case it does, I would suggest announce that a vote will take point, say three months in the future, where polls will stay open for a period of a say a couple of weeks. That way, all interested parties can collect information about the options, form opinions, and campaign for their points of view. Anticipation would build until the polls open to and voter turnout and education are as good as they could be. Sounds like a normal election, doesn't it? Oh yeah, and ballot discrepancies can be sorted out ahead of time...

As yet, I've been too busy with other things to read up on the issue, weigh up the arguments and register to vote (by joining the class, although there are other reasons I intend to do that). But eh, I've got a couple of months left to take care of it all...

My question for you, Tillerman is what position do you endorse? That pronouncement, if you make it, would carry quite a lot of weight in the Laser world...
 
My question for you, Tillerman is what position do you endorse? That pronouncement, if you make it, would carry quite a lot of weight in the Laser world...
Thanks for the kind words Beachcomber.

My current position is that I think we all need more information before we can make a decision. We have heard from the ILCA leadership, from Performance Sailcraft Australia and from Bruce Kirby. We have not heard anything yet from LaserPerformance or directly from Global Sailing. I hope they will explain their views on this before we have to vote.

Some of the opinions already expressed do conflict with each other about the facts of the case. I hope we can resolve some of those disagreements about facts before we have to vote. I hope we can have a respectful fact-based debate on the forum that thoroughly explores all the angles before we have to vote.

In the end I will make my decision based on what I think will be best for the long-term health of the game of Laser sailing.

I care about maintaining a continued global supply of Lasers that are built to a strict one-design at a price that is affordable to as many sailors as possible but also profitable for the builders. I also care about respecting the intellectual property and contractual rights of the genius who designed the boat we all love so much, and the rights of the people to whom he transferred those assets. And I care about having a class association that is open and transparent and explains all the issues fully to its members. On the other hand, I don't really care whether Lasers are in the Olympics or not.

I'm sorry I can't be more specific on how I am going to vote yet. But I don't have to vote until September. I hope we all know a lot more about this issue by then.
 
Tracy in response to my questions you said ...

'You know, I've not followed why the above argument has bearing here. Consider the following hypothetical situation:

'Let's say the house next to you is sold. The seller executes a contract with the buyer. Do they invite you over to read the intimate details of that contract? Probably not. Certainly not where I live.

'Some time passes, let's say you have kids and they get to the age where they want a playhouse in the backyard. Your community has laws regarding additional structures on your property... the local planning department works with you to confirm your playhouse conforms to the local regulations and, ultimately, you obtain a permit to build your new playhouse in your backyard. Upon seeing it in your backyard, your neighbor comes running over and says that the contract he executed with the seller, that you have never seen, when he bought the house said you would never build a playhouse in your backyard and he is going to sue you!

huh?

Tracey, ..... disappointed in your response.

With respect, from all I have now read, the relationship between Bruce Kirby, Bruce Kirby Inc. the builders and Class Association is a LOT closer than next door neighbours. Don't you think? My guess is the lawyers would too.

Can we break my original questions in shorter bits to see if we can have a better understanding of our Classes thought processes and presumably your voting.

In my earlier post I said

'What I do not understand is that Bruce Kirby who evidently sold Bruce Kirby Inc to Global Sailing, says there are no copyrights or patents - he seems to think he knows what is in the Kirby Inc agreements (you would figure he would).

'But ILCA's case for voting Yes is based on the fact that their attorney's told them that patents have expired.

Tracey, the ILCA said this

'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. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements.

Then ILCA goes on to say 'The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired.'

Should any of us be worried, that the designer, who is a pretty clever guy, whose 'contracts' he says are valid, (now sold to Global Sailing, which Laser Performance here were apparently honouring for a few years) and which seemed to have survived a few builders going belly up etc.. He says that the ILCA statements are bull****.

What I am trying to understand is, has the Class has reached a conclusion on a course of action, based on, amongst other things, a number of 'facts', important enough to tell us about, but the guy who realy really should know, says are just plain wrong.

ILCA quote their lawyers, Bruce Kirby says bull****

If the ILCA's case for voting yes has nothing to do with Bruce Kirby's intellectual property, why is the Class bringing it up?

Honestly this seems to me and many other Laser Masters I've talked to, to be a snow job.

Can you please go through these steps so we can have confidence in the thought processes.
 
Can you please go through these steps so we can have confidence in the thought processes.

We could waste endless keyboard strokes debating the minutiae of various hypothetical situations. As I stated before, I am unaware of any contract/agreement between the IP rights holder and ILCA that has bearing on the proposed rule change. Until a convincing argument can be made to me of how ILCA can be subject to a builder's agreement that it is not party to (nor knows the details of) then I don't see the merits in wasting lots of time on irrelevant details. Perhaps you can answer the question I posed at the end of my previous post?

In my opinion, the most important section of the ILCA argument is:

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.

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.

Again, the bottom line: the IP rights holder and a trademark owning builder are locked in a dispute that, so far, is unresolvable and which threatens Laser sailing in its current form. ILCA's proposed rule change is intended to get the sailors out from being stuck in the middle. The aim is to let the two parties resolve their dispute in whatever manner ends up working for them while we, as sailors, continue on with Laser sailing.
 
In my opinion, the most important section of the ILCA argument is:

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.
So if that is the most important part of the argument, Tracy, could you put those "threats" into some context. A threat is usually of the form, "If you do X, (or don't do Y) then I will do Z." So what are X and Y?

For example, LPE has said it may form its own Laser class. Under what circumstances?

And Global Sailing may form a new class association. Under what circumstances?

Are these threats contingent in some way on passing or not passing this rule change?

I do agree that having two builders setting up two new classes is undesirable. Maybe I'm being dumb about this, but I am unclear how passing this rule change will make it more or less likely that those threats will be carried out. Shedding more light on this mystery may be the best way to help us understand why we should vote YES.
 
So if that is the most important part of the argument, Tracy, could you put those "threats" into some context. A threat is usually of the form, "If you do X, (or don't do Y) then I will do Z." So what are X and Y?

For example, LPE has said it may form its own Laser class. Under what circumstances?

And Global Sailing may form a new class association. Under what circumstances?

Are these threats contingent in some way on passing or not passing this rule change?

I do agree that having two builders setting up two new classes is undesirable. Maybe I'm being dumb about this, but I am unclear how passing this rule change will make it more or less likely that those threats will be carried out. Shedding more light on this mystery may be the best way to help us understand why we should vote YES.
Hypothetically speaking,,,,Let's say, worse case scenerio, LPE builds and sells a "Laser", and Global Sailing builds and sells a "Kirby".
Could the ILCA decide that as long as the boats from either manufacturer fit the criteria of an ILCA sanctioned boat, it is still a sanctioned boat.
If you showed up with a sanctioned boat, you could sail in a sanctioned event.
If you showed up with a sail and blades, etc from an approved supplier, you could sail in a sanctioned event.
If you show up with non approved stuff, be prepared for measurement and DSQ if it doesn't measure. If it measures, you are good to go.
If you race and finish in the upper 25% or (pick a number)%, be prepared to have all your stuff measured, if it doesn't have an official measurement or officially sanctioned emblem on it.
If too many start showing up with non approved stuff to measure them all, do the aforementioned step.
If one manufacturer's stuff becomes the predominant winner of silver, just measure it to see how it compares to the specs of the class.

Would that still give us a Laser class sailing one-design boats?
 
I would think the worst case scenario would be GS builds a "Kirby" and because of the IP dispute LPE is blocked from building a "Laser". In turn, because of the trademark territory LPE then blocks GS from selling the "Kirby" in those regions.

To sell the "Kirby" GS would probably have to make substantial enough modifications to the design to not be in violation of the trademark. Same thing for LPE, they would have to substantially modify the design to not be in violation of the IP rights.

That gives us a class association with no new boats or parts available and two close, but not identical, competing boats.
 

AlanD

Former ISAF Laser Measurer
Wow. The version on the online ballot has already been corrected. Well done ILCA office!
Not very ethical unless they rescind all votes already cast. People have already voted for one proposal as worded, and they are counting those votes towards a second proposal based upon different wording.
 

gouvernail

Super Opinionated and Always Correct
Can anybody be seriously suggesting it is OK to change the wording on a ballot in the middle of an election??

The only proper answer is to say OOPS and start over.

Certainly it is only necessary because it the proper way to do things.

And as it is the proper way to do things

it is the proper way to do it.
 
Not very ethical unless they rescind all votes already cast. People have already voted for one proposal as worded, and they are counting those votes towards a second proposal based upon different wording.
Can anybody be seriously suggesting it is OK to change the wording on a ballot in the middle of an election??

The only proper answer is to say OOPS and start over.

Certainly it is only necessary because it the proper way to do things.

And as it is the proper way to do things

it is the proper way to do it.
Maybe they will change it back - and then just rescind the votes placed after the wording change !!

And so now who knows who has voted and what they have voted for ? Even those who have voted do not know what they have voted for.

But here in the UK we are quite familiar with that sort of democracy (does not make it right though).

Certainly is the time so stop everything, sort out wording, publish supporting and background information and start again (and notify everybody it it being re-started and already cast votes are not counted - so decent interval required).

Ian
 

gouvernail

Super Opinionated and Always Correct
As my post above was quoted by someone who obviously failed to see it as an overstated attempt at humor I shall try again>>



If I were the same sort of person as the people who failed to trust me in 2002 and went so far as to have a vote of our 26 district secreataries managed by a third party I would post the following:


The motives of the ILCA officers who have asked for a vote by the membership have already been questioned and in this thread those officers have been accused by some of acting according to some form of interest other than would be expected by a neutral elections overseer.

For the ILCA officers to risk further questioning by an irresponsible act of mid election meddling with ballot wording is a form of foolishness applied to the situation with a level of recklessness this author finds sufficient to suggest it is time for their removal from the process.


Not only should this election process be immediately cancelled but before any new vote on any ILCA issue is begun, we should consider removing from involvement in any future voting processes 100% of those officers who have been involved in the current ballot fiasco.



But I am pretty certain all the folks involved in this ballot and vote are doing the best they can do and have that which they percieve to be the best interest of Laser sailing as their sole motivation.
Changing the wording didn't change a thing and nobody in his right mind gives hoot that it was changed.

The question remains the same, let those boats built without an agreement with the designer participate in our races or not.

get educated...decide...vote..

but mostly...

Don't let class politics and the fools who believe there are two sides to every issue and a necessary related fight mess with your life.


Go sail your Laser and enjoy the company of others who share your love of Lasering.

Registration begins at 8:30 AM in a couple weeks . Don't be late.
 
We could waste endless keyboard strokes debating the minutiae of various hypothetical situations. As I stated before, I am unaware of any contract/agreement between the IP rights holder and ILCA that has bearing on the proposed rule change. Until a convincing argument can be made to me of how ILCA can be subject to a builder's agreement that it is not party to (nor knows the details of) then I don't see the merits in wasting lots of time on irrelevant details. Perhaps you can answer the question I posed at the end of my previous post?

In my opinion, the most important section of the ILCA argument is:
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.

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.
Again, the bottom line: the IP rights holder and a trademark owning builder are locked in a dispute that, so far, is unresolvable and which threatens Laser sailing in its current form. ILCA's proposed rule change is intended to get the sailors out from being stuck in the middle. The aim is to let the two parties resolve their dispute in whatever manner ends up working for them while we, as sailors, continue on with Laser sailing.
Tracy,
We are looking to our class leaders for help on this, not getting any information.
I have never questioned Class rule changes before, I guess because they have been small pretty commonsense technical matters.

Now we have a request for an absolutely fundamental rule change.

It seems the biggest change ever in the Class

Our leaders put out a Vote Yes immediately request and give us the Yes Case.

UKLA says don’t vote yet, wait for more information. (presumably the No Case)

Laser designer Bruce Kirby says the ILCA’s Yes case is not factual.

No one from ILCA bothers to explain why Kirby is wrong.

We wonder if that is because they cannot??

We are supposed to feel confident that our leaders are taking us in the right direction?
Rather than wasting endless keystrokes and it seems to numbers of us, changing the subject to what you think is safer ground, can you please re-assure us by explaining how Kirby is wrong and ILCA is right?

If you can’t, then some might form the opinion ILCA is living in a house built of straw
 
As my post above was quoted by someone who obviously failed to see it as an overstated attempt at humor I shall try again>>
Sorry - I read what you wrote. Silly of me. Wont happen again.

(In the UK we have recent experience of what happens what you have an election where promises are made ...)

Ian
 

gouvernail

Super Opinionated and Always Correct
My fault..I understand my communication is what is understood ...not what I tried to communicate.

besides...I had more fun writing the second one

back to sailing....
 
Top