ISAF reply to CR changes proposed at 2008 AGM

awallin · Post by **awallin** » 26 May 2009, 19:34

We've received a reply from ISAF with comments on the CR changes proposed at the 2008 AGM. It's on the front page of our website:
http://www.iomclass.org/

or it can be downloaded directly from:
http://www.iomclass.org/tech/ISAF_respo ... 9May22.pdf

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 27 May 2009, 09:45

Dear Jan,

I have read the response of ISAF and I think that the document is very interesting, but I was said that there were also a question for the proposed rule changes to prevent the movement of corrector weights during an event and I do not find any reference to this question or may be I should understand it is included in the 2009 Proposals section.

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 27 May 2009, 21:47

Alphonso

It will be illegal to move corrector weights during the course of the WC regatta per the SI's.

If the class passes the similar proposition on the voting agenda for the 2009 AGM it will be then sent to ISAF for approval.

Jan Dejmo · Post by **Jan Dejmo** » 27 May 2009, 21:56

Hi Alfonso

I just forwarded to ISAF what I got from IOMICA.

It seems like Bruce Andersen's reply is the answer to your question.

Regards
Jan

Jan Dejmo · Post by **Jan Dejmo** » 27 May 2009, 22:10

In view of what Bruce Andersen writes below I have to state that the ISAF review of the IOMICA proposals to changed class rules and requests for interpretations was a one time favour to class.

It was made very clear by ISAF that further proposals and requests have to come from the One Metre as an "ISAF class".

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 27 May 2009, 22:49

Well, what has been learned? Just my opinion, of course...

From the long list of 'Reject's, we discovered that the class would have received a more sympathetic and more helpful response in achieving the desired class rule changes from Robert Grubisa as the Chairman of the RSD Technical Committee than was received from ISAF. We also discovered that everything Robert had told us was exactly correct and was exactly as ISAF subsequently said.

Also from the long list of 'Reject's, we discovered how humiliatingly poorly the IOMICA Technical Sub-Committee had attended to its core business of looking after the class rules and proposing technically accurate and proper class rule changes.

And we discovered what some have been saying for years -- getting technically accurate and proper class rules is not a matter of popular vote. Contrary to the spin and claims given to the document elsewhere, this does not mean that the rules themselves should be phrased so as to state intent; that way lies madness and confusion. It means simply that knowledgeable and able technicians must turn owner vote into carefully crafted rules which express and embody that intent.

Finally, we discovered that the current Exec (with the exception of its then Chairman, who was obliged to resign over this issue) thought it was just fine for RSD to be the class authority with respect to the World Championships, but that RSD was not acceptable as the class authority with respect to the class rules. In my opinion, it calls into question the suitability of those associated with such a politically crass and repugnant double standard to hold future office in the Exec.

What have you learned?

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 28 May 2009, 02:22

Well, we have certainly learned your opinion!

David Turton · Post by **David Turton** » 28 May 2009, 03:04

Lester wrote: What have you learned?

Access to and use of this forum is provided by IOMICA subject to the following Terms and Conditions:

By accessing this forum, user acknowledges acceptance of these Terms and Conditions.

IOMICA reserves the right to change these Terms and Conditions at any time by posting changes online. You are responsible for reviewing regularly information posted online to obtain timely notice of such changes. Your continued use of this forum after changes are posted constitutes your acceptance of this agreement as modified by the posted changes. If there is any conflict between these Terms and Conditions and rules and/or specific terms of use appearing on this forum relating to specific material then the latter shall prevail. If any of these Terms and Conditions should be determined to be illegal, invalid or otherwise unenforceable by reason of the laws of any state or country in which these Terms and Conditions are intended to be effective, then to the extent and within the jurisdiction which that Term or Condition is illegal, invalid or unenforceable, it shall be severed and deleted from this clause and the remaining Terms and Conditions shall survive, remain in full force and effect and continue to be binding and enforceable.

Forum Management
In an ideal world, in a community where resources are abundant and where the possible sanctions for bad behaviour are loss of money, loss of liberty, or loss of life, justice is properly managed by an independent third party. In the IOM Forum, judicial functions are carried out by the IOMICA Infocomms Sub-Committee with the oversight of the Executive Committee and with right of appeal to the World Council.

Acceptable Use
You agree to use this forum only for lawful purposes, and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict or inhibit the use and enjoyment of this forum by any third party. Such restriction or inhibition includes, without limitation, conduct which is unlawful, or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to any person, or the transmission of obscene or offensive content, or the disruption of normal flow of dialogue or browsing within this forum.

This IOM Forum "Acceptable Use" policy is intended to help create an atmosphere in which freedom of speech is balanced by self-discipline and a mature attitude to discussion. Remember you are legally responsible for what you write. By virtue of your participation, you are deemed to have agreed to abide by these rules.

All messages must include your real name. You are not to submit (or attempt to submit) any content anonymously or using any fake, inaccurate, or assumed identity. Signing up (or attempting to sign) up on this forum using more than one username is expressly disallowed.

Advertisements or solicitations for goods or services are allowed in the "Marketplace" forum only, and only for private transactions. No forum shall be used for advertisements or solicitations for goods or services for trading or business purposes.

Character assassination, name calling, insults, personal attacks, slurs, or degrading remarks are not allowed. You may not post messages which are malicious, designed to offend, slanderous, hateful, sexually-orientated, threatening, abusive, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. Reference should not be made to the personality of other participants in a discussion nor should attacks be made on an individual's character.

You may not send messages which are knowingly false or inaccurate.

You may not transmit messages which are in violation of any law, encourage conduct that constitutes a criminal offence, or infringe upon the legal rights of any person or party.

One to one arguments, disagreements, and disputes of a personal nature shall not be conducted through this forum.

If a person has sent you a private Email you may not forward it to this forum without the prior consent of the person who sent it.

The IOMICA Executive Committee upon the recommendation of the ISC reserves all rights to to delete your submissions or bar anyone from this forum, with or without cause.

The IOMICA Executive Committee upon the recommendation of the ISC, in its sole discretion, shall have the right to determine whether messages are in violation of these guidelines.

Personal attacks on IOMICA or IOM NCA officials, officers, or helpers are not permitted. Such persons have the right to be protected from personal attack and this right will be enforced.

Sanctions for misuse or misbehaviour
Misuse of the forum or misbehaviour in the forum may bring one or more of the following sanctions at the discretion of the ISC:

Private warning

Public warning

Deletion of message(s)

Removal from membership of the forum for a period of time

Report to member's NCA

Request to member's NCA to remove member from membership of the NCA

Report to member's MNA
These sanctions shall only be imposed after a hearing by the ISC, at which all interested parties shall be given the opportunity to provide evidence, this evidence being made available to the parties concerned. Appeal against any sanction may be made to the World Council.

Guidelines for IOMICA and NCA officials and helpers
IOMICA and NCA officials, officers, and helpers are encouraged to participate in all debates and discussions. It is the intention of IOMICA to foster open and transparent communication. The establishment of the IOM Forum is one example of this intent in practice.

The "Acceptable Use" policy explicitly protects officials and helpers from personal attack and explicitly states that such attack will not be tolerated.

Equally, officials and helpers are required to provide comments and information which uphold the highest standards of discussion and debate. The "Acceptable Use Policy" applies to officials and helpers as to any other forum member, and additionally, an official is required to be polite and dispassionate in all circumstances and regardless of any apparent provocation. When in doubt, an official should refrain from posting any message until they have consulted with one or more members of the World Council (NCA representatives and Executive Committee). When necessary, an official should bring a message to the direct attention of the VC Infocomms.

Copyright
You retain the copyright and the intellectual property rights in any messages you post. Material may not be copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast, or transmitted in any way except for your own personal non-commercial home use. Any other use requires the prior written permission of IOMICA. In case permission is granted, the source of the information used shall always be mentioned. You agree not to adapt, alter, or create a derivative work from any of the material contained in this forum or use it for any other purpose other than for your personal non-commercial use.

Trademarks
The insignia, trademarks, logos, and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this forum are the property of IOMICA or other third parties. Users are not permitted to use these Marks without the prior written consent of IOMICA or such third party which may own the Mark. In particular, the IOM insignia is a trademark of IOMICA, and the only general permission for its use applies to its display on an IOM mainsail as required by the IOM Class Rules.

Accuracy of information
All information on this forum is provided "as is" with all faults and without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. While such information as may be provided by any IOMICA Officer is believed to be accurate, IOMICA assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. IOMICA may change the information mentioned at any time without notice. Neither IOMICA nor the forum administrator nor the forum moderators shall be liable for any damages or any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data resulting from use of or reliance on the information present or arising out of the use or inability to use this forum. Mention of non-IOMICA products or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation. IOMICA and its suppliers disclaim all warranties, expressed or implied including, without limitation, those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement, arising from dealing, usage, or trade practice.

If you do not agree to any of the above terms, your sole remedy is to discontinue participating in this forum.
_________________
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 28 May 2009, 03:17

Funny how different people can read things in such a different way.

I read the ISAF response as a rebuke to self- important pedants who spend their time creating problems for the sport of it.

I also did not find a single word in the ISAF response that suggests that democratic voting is a bad idea. Of course, given some persons long history of losing elections, I can certainly understand why they might want to abolish this messy practice.

Oh, and one last thing, it seems that the majority of countries in the entire world have rejected RSD and Lester Gilbert's beloved proposal for the future of radio sailing. I guess governance of radio sailing by self appointed technocratic experts might not be what most people want.

Of course, what would I know, I'm a proud part of the current IOMICA Executive who has done a "humiliating" poor job of handling technical issues for our class. Thanks for the vote of confidence Lester.

P.S., Lester: Wasn't it you who wrote the rules of decorum for this forum posted by David Turton below? I know you were the the one behind banning people from this forum for alleged "misconduct". Perhaps as a former chairman you would like to recommend the sanctions that should be imposed on you by the current exec?

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 28 May 2009, 19:09

If Roy's posts were always quite free from, ah, character assassination, name calling, insults, personal attacks, slurs, degrading remarks, and reference to the personality of other participants, well, then he is entitled to cast the first stone.

But to business.

Roy wrote:I also did not find a single word in the ISAF response that suggests that democratic voting is a bad idea

Neither did I.

Roy wrote:I can certainly understand why they might want to abolish this messy practice

If I had said that, perhaps. But that isn't what I said. I know Roy never lets the facts get in the way of a good argument, so let's have the facts of what I actually said:

Lester wrote:knowledgeable and able technicians must turn owner vote into carefully crafted rules which express and embody that intent

I think this says that owners should and must vote on how they wish the class rule to be changed. I think it then says that it requires attention to technical detail to construct actual rule wording to achieve the democratic intent. Pretty much the opposite of what Roy claims I said.

Roy wrote: the majority of countries in the entire world have rejected RSD and Lester Gilbert's beloved proposal for the future of radio sailing

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and again, and again, until this lie ceases to be repeated: the RSD proposals were not "Lester Gilbert's" proposals; they were those of the RSD PC; my proposals (if anyone were interested in the slightest, and I don't see why they should be) would have been quite different.

But as before, Roy never lets the facts get in the way of a good argument, so let's have the facts of what it was that the, erm, entire world voted for:

Motion B wrote:The current PC shall arrange a DM election of a new PC as soon as possible and assist the new PC with transferral of document, financial assets etc. If this motion receives a majority vote it shall be taken as that the current PC no longer holds a mandate to managen the affairs of the Division and the current voting process on the future of ISAF-RSD will stop immediately

Hmmm... Absolutely nothing there about rejecting the proposal that RSD should transform into IRSCA, then. The recent vote was effectively a vote of no confidence in the current RSD PC. Pretty much the opposite of what Roy says.

There is no doubt that RSD will have to transform in due course, and that if it remains within ISAF a transformation into an IRSCA is really the only option available to it. But that proposal of the RSD PC awaits a future vote.

Roy wrote:I'm a proud part of the current IOMICA Executive who has done a "humiliating" poor job of handling technical issues for our class

Roy's words, fortunately, not mine. Some on the Exec could take offence at what Roy writes. This is what I actually said:

Lester wrote:we discovered how humiliatingly poorly the IOMICA Technical Sub-Committee had attended to its core business of looking after the class rules

Just my opinion, of course.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 28 May 2009, 21:59

Hi David

In all fairness, I think you may have overlooked underlining this section of the code of conduct for this forum. I've done it for you here:

David Turton wrote:Equally, officials and helpers are required to provide comments and information which uphold the highest standards of discussion and debate. The "Acceptable Use Policy" applies to officials and helpers as to any other forum member, and additionally, an official is required to be polite and dispassionate in all circumstances and regardless of any apparent provocation.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 29 May 2009, 00:34

Excuse me all while I hijack this thread for a moment, but my patience has reached an end.

I've looked back over everything I've written here and otherwise and while I have strongly disagreed with a number of things Lester Gilbert has said and even "called him out" from time to time, I believe I have done nothing to engender this series of personal attacks.

If I was going to engage in attack tactics I could easily say that Lester Gilbert is a sad, small man who is trying way too hard to compensate for personal failures and inadequacies. I could perhaps also state that he is suffering from both a victimization complex and delusions of grandeur. But, in the immortal words of Richard Nixon, "That would be wrong."

Let me simply say that I am a bigger man than all that. Good news for me is that my health is back, summer is here in New York, and I have a fast new "toy boat" to sail. So Lester, as they say in showbiz ---"See You! Don't want to be you!"

And now back to the usual chatter.

Brig North · Post by **Brig North** » 29 May 2009, 00:55

Good God.

I hope that the moderator of this website will remove all posts that are blatantly off base from the "rules of comportment" as the Treasurer listed. It's pretty easy to identify such posts -- not just the most recent grouping -- I should think. Perhaps it's like knowing what is pornographic -- the moderator can idenitify boorish behavior when he/she sees it....

This "how mean can we be to each other" contest needs to cease.

As I tell my people at work, we all don't have to be friends, but we all have to respect each other. Calling people names, questioning their abilities, questioning their motives, all of these have been in high gear over the past month. And to what purpose?

To steal a turn from Ronald Reagan "Mr/Ms Moderator, remove these posts!!!!" And you can start with mine....

Good God....

Brig North
Dallas, Texas

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 29 May 2009, 09:17

RoyL wrote:I read the ISAF response as a rebuke to self- important pedants who spend their time creating problems for the sport of it.

I'm reminded here of the practice of some film critics of writing a review without bothering to view the film. Most readers won't notice because they won't have seen the film, and most will assume the critic has discharged their responsibilities fairly and with integrity.

If this is the way Roy reads the ISAF response, it surely indicates he has read some other letter we don't know about. But please don't just take my word for it; y'all should please read the letter for yourself and make your own mind up.

-------------

Actually, however, Roy and I are probably both in agreement (!) about how the IOMICA Technical Sub-Committee might work better in the future.

What is clear is that owners should be asked to vote on intentions -- for example, that 10 mm dia masts should be permitted; or that multi-coloured ply should be permitted; and so on -- and that it is the task of the TSC to turn such intentions into carefully crafted rules which both achieve the intention and which do not inadvertently allow other unintended effects.

The best way of doing this is what now needs reasoned debate. I can see two approaches.

In one approach, the proposal submitted to the World Council for owner vote has two parts. One part specifies the intention, the second part specifies the exact wording of the proposed rule or rule change as crafted by the TSC in consultation with other expert parties such as the RSD TC Chairman or whoever seems appropriate. If passed, the proposal is passed to the International authority for approval. This is the way that ISAF generally operates and it is the way it expects to operate with any of its classes.

In a second approach, the proposal submitted to the World Council for owner vote has just one part, the intention. If passed, the exact wording of the proposed rule or rule change is subsequently crafted by the TSC in consultation with other expert parties such as the RSD TC Chairman or whoever seems appropriate. The proposed crafted rule change is then passed to the International authority for approval. The obvious difficulty with this approach is that the World Council does not get to see the exact wording of the rule change, and could feel that the result was not what it voted for...

-----------

OK, 'bigger man' Roy, this is your chance. Let's leave the personal attacks to one side, and talk about a good way of avoiding a 'Reject' list from future submissions to ISAF.

Olivier Cohen · Post by **Olivier Cohen** » 29 May 2009, 10:18

I agree with you Brig, all those personal attacks have to stop !
When I read all that, I am wondering if we are talking of a hobby, and if upcoming elections is just for IOMICA, or if it is a death or life question !

Thanks to moderate your wording, and to keep in mind that all this is not so important.

To return on the subject, Lester's proposal on how to vote is interesting :
- First case, TSC makes its homework before WC vote, so maybe for nothing
- 2nd case, TSC makes the work after vote, but WC has to trust TSC.

Robert Grubisa · Post by **Robert Grubisa** » 29 May 2009, 22:17

I will appreciate answers from IOM ICA Exec on following questions having in mind recent ISAF letter dealing with IOM class rules:

1) What is the status of the ISAF document related to the rejected proposals? Sometimes ago, we have been informed by IOM ICA VC Technical that we don't need some technical experts to tell the class what to do. It is a matter of democracy, etc. Now, they (ISAF) tell us what to do, so I will appreciate official IOM ICA statement on ISAF letter. If we accept ISAF conclusions then official statement on the IOM ICA website made by IOMICA Exec will clear any doubts.

2) ISAF Technical mentioned that current version of the IOM CR 2007 published here http://www.iomclass.org/tech/IOM_CR_2007v1.pdf is not in accordance with this document http://www.iomclass.org/tech/IOM_CR_2007_RSD.pdf. Please let me know what IOM ICA Exec has done so far regarding the matter?

3) Who will approve 2009 IOM CR changes in case they pass voting on AGM in Barbados? According to past discussions, RSD - IOM ICA Subcommittee is not a option and ISAF will not deal with our class rules until IOM join ISAF.

4) It was clear to me, and I hope that is now clear to everybody, that class (IOM ICA) technical committee must advise the NCA's on technical issues linked to proposed amendments and co-operate with ISAF Technical. Please let me know who are the members of IOM ICA Technical Sub-Committee?

Best regards

Ken Dobbie · Post by **Ken Dobbie** » 29 May 2009, 23:29

Robert wrote

I will appreciate answers from IOM ICA Exec on following questions having in mind recent ISAF letter dealing with IOM class rules:

Isn't this a question for the new Executive although I surmise Robert already knows the answers.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 30 May 2009, 02:56

I guess it isn't surprising that the responses of Lester Gilbert and Robert Grubisa are so similar. Also not surprising is that both see the letter we received from ISAF as justification of their own opinions.

However, let's stop playing around. Robert Grubisa isn't asking real questions, he is engaging in a game of "gotcha" that seems to be the principal focus on this board these days.

The IOM class has been stable and growing for the last five years. Are our class rules too complicated and at times imperfect? Absolutely! Does this mean that we should turn the class back over to "technical experts" like Lester Gilbert and Robert Grubisa? Absolutely not!

I've tried to work with both Lester and Robert. They share a common trait--they firmly believe they "know better" than everyone else. If you do not agree with their "expert" opinion they dig in and argue their position. Eventually, most walk away in frustration. Some (like me) get angry. Most important, though, what is best for the overall interests and growth of the IOM class gets totally lost.

There are real and important issues facing the IOM--What should be our relationship with ISAF? How can we reduce the costs of our major international races? How can we continue to grow in the face of competition from much simpler and less expensive boats? None of these issues require special "technical" knowledge that is only possessed by a select few.

We need to focus on issues like these, not silly debates over things like the meaning of the word "fixed". We need to insure that the IOM class is alive and well for the next ten or twenty years, not whether or not every last comma is perfectly placed in what will always be imperfect rules.

Most of all, it's time to stop playing these ridiculous games and try to focus on what can be done to make things better for everyone.

Robert Grubisa · Post by **Robert Grubisa** » 30 May 2009, 07:11

Roy,

Thanks for useful, meaningful and authoritative answers on simple and important questions that I have made.

No further questions.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 30 May 2009, 08:28

Great, Robert. In the same spirit as your post, may I pose a simple and straightforward question to you--should you be elected to the VC Technical position will you ask Lester Gilbert to serve on the IOMICA Technical Committee?

Robert Grubisa · Post by **Robert Grubisa** » 30 May 2009, 09:14

RoyL wrote:Great, Robert. In the same spirit as your post, may I pose a simple and straightforward question to you--should you be elected to the VC Technical position will you ask Lester Gilbert to serve on the IOMICA Technical Committee?

Roy,

I have asked simple straight forward questions which I think are important for the class. You have replied something else. Anyhow, I will answer on your question. If I will be elected, I will act as stated in IOM ICA Constitution 11.1.

11.1. The World Council shall elect a Vice Chairman (Technical). The IOM ICA Technical Sub-Committee shall consist of the Vice Chairman (Technical) as its chairman plus at least 2 and no more than 4 other Registered Owners appointed by the IOM ICA Executive Committee.

After reading the above mentioned clause, it is clear that VC Technical is not in position to ask anybody for memebership in his Sub-Committee.

I have no idea in the moment who will be Registered Owners appointed by the IOM ICA Exec Committee which is responsible for choosing the IOM ICA Technical Sub-Committee members. I assume that IOM ICA Exec will ask Registered Owners willing to serve in Technical Sub-Committee to contact IOM ICA Exec which will discuss the matter and appoint 2-4 of them as members. I have no idea if Lester, among others, will contact IOM ICA Exec regarding the membership in IOM ICA Exec Committee.

Word "shall" means that something is mandatory (at least in Class Rules) so IOM ICA Technical Sub-Committee shall have 2-4 members. Please, let me know who they are? If the places are not filled, what is the reason for that?

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 30 May 2009, 15:32

Gee, and I thought I was the lawyer here...seems to me that you are ducking a simple question. Let me try it again-- if elected to the IOM Executive Committee, would you ask, vote for, welcome or support the appointment of Lester Gilbert to the IOM Class Technical Sub-Committee? It is a question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

As to your question as to who are the current members of the IOM Class Technical Committee, let me give a simple answer--there are currently no permanent members of such committee.

By way of explanation, please understand that from the beginning, there have never been enough volunteers to fill all of the committees called for by the IOMICA rules. Therefore, I choose to rely on the other members of the executive and the advice of a number of people from around the world when considering technical questions. Effectively this has been the practice for all of IOMICA's sub-committees, not just technical. I believe I have stated this on this forum a number of times in the past.

Further, except for one very recent instance, during my tenure as VC Technical, I have never acted without obtaining a vote of the majority of the IOMICA Executive or calling for a vote of the members of the entire class. The only time I acted on my own accord was a month or so ago, when I acted alone in an attempt to end what I thought was a harmful and pointless discussion regarding the movement of corrector weights during an event. As I stated on this forum previously I currently regret not sticking with my own positions and simply putting that issue to a class vote. All I can say in my defense is that I was seriously ill at the time.

Finally, as I suggested in an earlier response, since I am not running for the VC Technical position and my current term ends in less than a month, I fail to see the point of repeatedly asking this question nor why you believe it is "important" to the IOM class today. If it helps, I promise I won't make any permanent changes in our class rules in the three weeks or so I have left.

Robert Grubisa · Post by **Robert Grubisa** » 30 May 2009, 16:59

RoyL wrote:Gee, and I thought I was the lawyer here...seems to me that you are ducking a simple question. Let me try it again-- if elected to the IOM Executive Committee, would you ask, vote for, welcome or support the appointment of Lester Gilbert to the IOM Class Technical Sub-Committee? It is a question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

Finally, as I suggested in an earlier response, since I am not running for the VC Technical position and my current term ends in less than a month, I fail to see the point of repeatedly asking this question nor why you believe it is "important" to the IOM class today. If it helps, I promise I won't make any permanent changes in our class rules in the three weeks or so I have left.

Roy, there is no need to be a lawyer to read the Constitution

Sorry, but I have no idea where you have informed me (or others) that you are working as one-man Technical Sub-Committee and that you are using Forum as technical consultative body. Sorry, I think that this is not a right way. I know that you will not agree with that, but for your info there are many IOM owners, not participating in Forum discussion for various reasons, which have similar approach as mine.

I will not personally ask Lester to be a part of Subcommittee, but if he will appear on the list of potential members I will review his application in the same manner as others. After you started this discussion, I think that it will be useful to see the terms of references for Subcommittee members.

I personally think that a valuable member of Subcommittee may be a Registered owner who is making their own boats, preferably in wood and plastics because he may contribute with his experience of amateur building. Also I would like to see a Registred owner wiith experience in manned sailing boats because it will help us if we choose to be part of ISAF. If they are from different part of world with good English - even better

Roy, what you think about the matter?

I was sure that reasons why I asked my questions are obvious - WC will start in less then one month!

I was asked by members of CRO team few days ago if the smaller diameter masts are allowed or not. Note that, skippers are not required to read all posts on various threads on the Forum. ISAF letter is posted on the IOM ICA site. I consider it as mandatory. Is it correct or not?

If I am right, Bruce has an idea to make emergency class rule changes before the Worlds. Is it still an option? Who will approve them?

Regarding the mistake in the Class Rules indicated in ISAF letter, please find following:

Resolution 2.14 which has been approved by the RSD - IOM ICA Subcommittee as originally proposed by IOM ICA has not been added into IOM CR 2007 ver.1. My opinion that the reason is simple - mistake.
Please see: http://www.iomclass.org/exec/2006agm/WC ... inutes.pdf and http://www.iomclass.org/tech/IOM_CR_2007_RSD.pdf

It is easy to fix. In the meantime, official note about the matter on IOM ICA website may serve as temporary solution.

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 30 May 2009, 21:04

In the absence of a Chairman to make this pronouncement, I will:

Official Note: The proposal to allow 10 mm diameter masts did not pass. 10 mm spars are not legal.

Please be clear on this point. It has been posted many times in many places on this board. Our governing document on this point is the IOM Class Rules and whatever temporary changes to the Class Rules are invoked for the duration of the World Championship Regatta (not the minutes of the last AGM). Neither the CR's nor the temporary changes to the CR's in the WC Sailing Instructions allow the use of 10 mm masts.

There will not be an emergency rule change to permit the use of 10 mm masts.

Please also be clear on this point: The minutes of the AGM do not constitute Class Rules. On the 10 mm spar issue - if you quote the minutes of the AGM as evidence that your 10 mm spar should be legal, you would be wrong.

The first order of business in any meeting run under parlimentary procedure is to approve the minutes of the prior meeting. The error in the minutes of the 2008 AGM will be corrected then to indicate that the proposal to allow 10 mm masts did not pass.

I hope this is clear enough that you can relay the fact that 10 mm masts are not legal to the members of your NCA without ambiguity or need for further clarification.