IOM in ISAF

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 28 Sep 2009, 21:33

This is a non-official, non-Exec based question.

Sometime, much earlier this year I think, there was some thought that ISAF wanted to dissolve "Divisions"(?) and that RSD was one of those.

There was a discussion paper of some kind published and then I think that was chased around for awhile. Mostly taking shots at people rather than issues if I recall.

So the question I have is what is the status of that question/rumour/decision? I know that there is a subsequent meeting setup and a slate of officers nominated but what is the ISAF position on its future?

I don't need to hear that one thing is just so much BS from someone you don't like or respect and that another is just so and so rattling their sword.

What is the official word? If we knew that maybe the discussion could be more factual than accusatory.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 28 Sep 2009, 21:56

Might be worth noting an Exec FAQ on this thread:

http://www.iomclass.org/exec/isaf/FAQ_I ... 5B1%5D.pdf

Roy648 · Post by **Roy648** » 28 Sep 2009, 22:04

Hi Barry,

Good question. As far as I am aware there is no "official" view from ISAF.

Having said that, I recently had dinner with a Board Member of Yachting New Zealand who happens to be on the ISAF Review Board and he said that there is nothing on the table to dispense with Divisions and could not be until the next General Assembly in 2012 at the earliest.

Further, one of our members made a private direct enquiry to ISAF and subsequently forwarded me the response which in part said

This is rather hard for me to answer as the ISAF Radio Sailing Division is a stand alone organisation that is affiliated to ISAF. I wouldnâ€™t say the RSD is self destructing, it is merely attempting to restructure the way radio sailing classes are affiliated to ISAF, either by being directly member of ISAF as an ISAF Class or electing a new permanent committee who plan to review the terms of there relationship with ISAF. Until the details of this review happen it is hard for me to comment on the later option but clearly having the ISAF classes representing all disciplines of sailing has a definite advantages.

From the above it would appear that ISAF's stance is one of wait and see whilst it does have a preference for the RSD to consider an IRSCA it would not appear to be closed book.

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 28 Sep 2009, 22:51

According to the International Measurer David Chivers his time is charged out to the class for attendance at Championships at Â£200 per day and that is from leaving his home to returning. On top of that travel, accommodation and subsistence are also paid by the class.

It is for these fees, absolutely unreal that Mr. Chivers is not acting as the Dragon class, or in 6M FI, and do not know how long in the Melges 24 ...

Val: I'm in a position of being able to give a list of 24 International Judges and Measurers ISAF, which in events such as the Trofeo Princesa Sofia and Hyeres Week, acting on a diet (not salary) of a third of what it names.

I intend not to respond to Mr. Roy Langbord, I am sure you will not understand anything of what I say, even though in 35 years, I understood with all people of the world in 6 World Championships, 2 European and Olympiad as measurer IYRU and ISAF.

To speak out something, they must know it. And is not the case ...

Val: I'm sure that you are making approaches (all fake) would not be liked by Ted.

Sincerely.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 29 Sep 2009, 07:39

Roy,

Good information but unfortunately, as you note, not official.

Just to point out that words mean different things to different people, depending on what you are looking for, I find that last sentence of the reply from an ISAF person to be interesting because to me it clearly says that ISAF wants its class association members to include all forms of sailing and equally. So my take on that confirms that they wish for properly organized class associations to get on board and not be part of a conglomerate.

That is my take on that info.

Roy648 · Post by **Roy648** » 29 Sep 2009, 07:58

Barry,

Its as official as anything else in this topic purporting to come from ISAF.

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the quote. I cannot see where it clearly says the ISAF want classes etc. It simply says that is there are advantages along those lines.

It also says that ISAF expects the new RSD PC to review its relationship with ISAF. Obviously ISAF expect due process which reduces the need for IOMICA to rush into things.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 29 Sep 2009, 19:04

I'll agree that we will disagree on this. As clear as one take is to you, the opposite is very clear to me.

I'll accept that it is close to the source though.

As uncertain as some of the conditions of ISAF membership may be it is possible that it is no more uncertain than a reborn RSD that may have an agenda that doesn't support the goals of this class. Then what happens?

I'm not saying it can't work but the deck is being stacked, looking at the nominees.

jandejmo · Post by **jandejmo** » 29 Sep 2009, 19:55

ISAF Divisions

When the International Model Yacht Racing Union was transferred into the IYRU - Model Yacht Racing Division with the goal to integrate radio sailing into IYRU, the organisation got IYRU permission to use â€œIYRUâ€

jandejmo · Post by **jandejmo** » 29 Sep 2009, 20:03

Henry Thorpe, ISAF wrote: ... but clearly having the ISAF classes representing all disciplines of sailing has definite advantages.

English is not my native language, but for what it is worth I read Henry Thorpe's text in the same way as Barry Fox seems to do.

Regards
Jan

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 29 Sep 2009, 21:45

Antonio, re the costs of an IM that I quoted, please note that David Chiver was the Chief Measurer for the Dragon class some years ago, he is and has been for a very long time an approved and active measurer for the 5.5, 6, 8 and 12mJI classes. For the Melges class he has been working with and for them for several years now. He is the nearest thing to a professional measurer that I have know since Ted died and therefore charges his time out like any professional in order to live.
It is, of course true that many people subsidise the sport by acting in these capacities at their own expense but it should not be expected that they should or can do so. Everyone makes their own decisions in that matter.
But I find you last comments extremely offensive. You met Ted how many times, and for how long? I was his wife for 9 years before his sudden and untimely death. We worked together as a team, apart from being a couple, shared the work of measuring and supported each other in our various interests, travelled the world together and I learned so much from him in many ways. I have had many insults in my time from ignorant people but no-one ever accused me of making false accusations before. I find your attitude quite disgusting and if you need to drag my dead husband into this discussion then you are not the man I took you for. In fact if this is the way you want to run IOMICA then I am profoundly glad that I was not elected to the Executive.

Olivier Cohen · Post by **Olivier Cohen** » 29 Sep 2009, 22:26

Val, Antonio is not part of IOMICA executive, and personally I don't understand his last sentence, so maybe your interpretation may not be the good one.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 30 Sep 2009, 07:17

To reinforce Olivier's comment, Antonio is NOT an Executive member.

Somehow the comments this issue has developed have at times and too often become nothing but personal slurs. I have no issue about adopting a hard line either for or against any proposals but as soon as you start making loose accusations about people instead about the issue, then it is no longer business, it is personal.

This most recent indiscretion is completely out of line. I had no idea to whom Antonio was referring until Val clarified that. Once that is known then the comment is that much more reprehensible.

If no one else is willing to do so, I would like to apologize to Val on behalf of those of us who can see the extremely bad taste shown by that comment.

If you want to fight over the issue that is completely understandable and acceptable. But if you are going to start accusing individuals of lying and cheating then you better get some good, factual data in hand and work with the issue. Many of the insinuations that have floated around are maybe on the edge of defamation.

Think about it.

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 30 Sep 2009, 07:51

Barry

Well said - I share your embarrassment and wish to extend an apology to Val.

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 01 Oct 2009, 13:45

Val Forgive me, but I think there is a misunderstanding due to my poor English always.
I'll try to translate for me an explanation of my message, a native English person to avoid further misunderstandings.
Anyway, I also seek compensation from you with respect to the Measurers (collective to which he believed belonged), since tariffs give an example of a professional measurer, is at least derogatory to the larger group of Judges, Juries and Measurers, to which I belong.
Sorry again.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 01 Oct 2009, 18:46

Antonio, in case you have not seen my many posts, let me refresh your memory.
I am a measurer and have been since 1965. As an accredited measurer of the Royal Yachting Association, I measure for about 20 classes, both English and International. I have been Chief Measurer for 9 years with both the 505 and Tempest Classes. I have been an accredited Sail Measurer since the scheme started. I was an International Measurer for 12 years with IYRU which then became ISAF. I also do ad hoc work for the Dutch KNWV and am a measurer for the Belgian Model Sailing Association. So I am one of the measurers that you say you seek compensation for.
I quoted the figures that I had as a 'worst case scenario' that could happen, but what matters is getting the right people to do the job, not looking for the cheapest. I also gave my time to 505 very willingly but not for absolutely nothing and in general I find that people do not value those things that cost them nothing.
Since measurement is in fact Quality Assurance it has to be done to professional standards and if someone is prepared to spend his or her working week doing it, then it is right that they should be paid properly. You seem to have some sort of distaste for such people but they are rare and valuable.
It is pointless plunging the class into membership of ISAF without knowledge of ALL the possible consequences, both good and bad and having to have an IM is one of them - only one I might say. We must know what they are, after all, you would not buy a house, or take a new job, or buy your dream boat without knowing exactly what you were going to get for your money.
I am a great supporter of ISAF and always have been but I am not prepared to take everything upon trust. This is a very important turning point both for IOM and Radio Sailing and it MUST not go wrong.
No Antonio, what I cannot stomach is that you have chosen to attack me in a personal way. You have taken note of Alfonso's comments elsewhere and then used them. It was bad enough being widowed twice in 9 years but 22 years later, to have a complete stranger bring the subject up in support of a forum post is quite unforgiveable. I really dont understand you. And I have to ask if you would attack a bereaved husband in the same way? I think not.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 04 Oct 2009, 11:22

Having spoken with Alfonso about these recent posts I must make it clear that the reference to him in this last post was an error on my part. He has taken no part in any discussions concerning my late husband and in fact never knew him at all. I have already apologised to him for involving him in this unsavoury spat. However I will not be responding to any further posts from Antonio on this or any other matter. Once is enough.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 05 Oct 2009, 05:37

Hopefully this doesn't spur on some odd discussion but. . . .

You may be interested to know:

- 21 out of 24 possible NCAs returned Owner lists

- Those 21 countries represent 2299 potential voters within their own boundaries.

- Those 21 counties represent 75 available votes at the World Council level

- The Executive Council members are each eligible to cast a single vote which makes up 6 additional votes.

- So the total vote count available (if everyone submits vote counts) is 81 votes.

- If all WC votes are cast, it will take 54 votes to carry the motion.

Roy648 · Post by **Roy648** » 05 Oct 2009, 05:52

Will those numbers be posted as has been past practice?

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 05 Oct 2009, 07:59

As you might guess, there isn't much in the way of guidance for whatever has gone before. But that said, the answer is yes. I'll get them formatted out of the spreadsheet I am going ot use and hopefully have them up tomorrow sometime.

jandejmo · Post by **jandejmo** » 08 Oct 2009, 09:20

The Class Rules Amendment Procedure â€“ ISAF Classes

In my post of Sep 28, 2009 9:39 am I described the ISAF decision making process in general. I also mentioned that changes to class rules is an exception as the previous one date for ISAF decisions did not serve the needs of the ISAF classes very well. In this post I would like to explain why the ISAF class rules amendment procedure is as it is.

There are two parties in involved class rules amendments: The class authority and the class rules authority and these terms are defined in the ISAF Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS).

C.1.1 Class Authority - The body that governs the class as specified in the class rules.
In short: the class association.

C.2.4 Class Rules Authority - The body that provides final approval of the class rules, class rule changes and class rule interpretations.
In the case of an ISAF Class: The ISAF.

The two fundamental tasks of a class rules authority are to try to make sure that the class rules:

- Achieve the boat that the owners, as represented by the class association, want.

- Are so clear that they donâ€™t create problems for others involved such as: manufacturers, official measurers, certification authorities, equipment inspectors, race organisers and protest committees.

Giving a class national or international status could be said to issue a statement that the boat control in the class is in good order.

ISAFâ€™s role as class rules authority is, as I mentioned in my previous post, handled by its Class Rules Sub-committee. The members of this committee are people that have experience working with class rules in the various situations where they are used. The committee is supported by the ISAF Technical staff that has vast experience working with all types of class rules.

The discussions that take place with the ICA are very important in understanding what the class wants to achieve by the proposed class rules amendment. It is not unusual that the rule text proposed, in the opinion of the Class Rules Sub-committee, could lead to consequences not envisaged by the class. I have seen many examples of when a class association having been initially suspicious has come to appreciate the process when the proposed text has been improved, or even having been saved from changing the rules in a way that might have adversely effected the development of the class.

The current situation for the One Metre is that the RSD is the class rules authority and the RSD Technical Committee is trying to do its best without of course having the same breadth of experience as the ISAF. For the other three RSD classes the situation is worse in that the RSD, as that there are no ICAs, has to carry out both the role as class authority (ICA) and the role as class rules authority.

Regards

Jan

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 08 Oct 2009, 21:28

Thank you Jan for a clear summation of ISAF and its activities. I would take issue with a couple of points however.
RSD may well be comatose and since you are a member of it I am sure you know ,more than I do, just how comatose it may be but it is not dead yet.
Yes it is true that, at present,RSD is the class rules authority for the IOM as well as the class authority but please do not assume that the current comatose state of RSD is the norm. As for implying that technical, or any other competence is the purlieu of ISAF, you do little service to the ability of any committee member to consult with the relevant department of their member national association or ISAF itself where needed when arriving at conclusions and courses of action.
There are valid arguments both for and against IOMICA breaking away from RSD. What is more important is where RSD goes next. One thing is certain. RSD will not die though it may undergo fundamental changes along the way and in whatever form it takes it will continue to serve the interests of radio and free sailors all over the world. That, after all, was what it was created to do.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 08 Oct 2009, 21:41

This is my personal opinion only so please put away the â€œpaint all the Executive with the same brushâ€

jandejmo · Post by **jandejmo** » 08 Oct 2009, 23:12

Val

In my previous post I tried to describe how the ISAF class rules amendment procedure works and the importance of separating the role of a class authority and the role of a class rules authority to achieve best possible class rules.

When the IMYRU was transformed into the IYRU-MYRD (later ISAF-RSD) it was done with the goal to affiliate the discipline of radio sailing into IYRU (later ISAF). ISAF introduced an option in its Constitution for Divisions and Sections, but has since indicated that it has no intention establishing such. This means that the way for a radio sailing class to gain ISAF status is the same as for classes of other disciplines of sailing. That is to become an ISAF Class which requires an ICA.

When the RSD racing and class rules had been transferred to ISAF format it was time for the class owners to form ICAs and as you know only the One Metre owners stood up to the challenge.

There were other reasons too, but the lack of response to the call for ICAs was the major reason for the â€œcomatose stateâ€

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 09 Oct 2009, 06:14

Barry: I agree with you that continuing to have IOMICA report to RSD is very problematic. I have never been comfortable with RSD having a veto power over the wishes of the membership of the IOM class. In particular I was very troubled by the recent, unelected RSD Technical head trying to tell IOMICA how it's rules should be written. Even if RSD gets better, there is no reason to believe it won't be a problem in the future.

To put it simply, unless things are radically changed between RSD and IOMICA, I don't believe that continued RSD control is the right answer for IOMICA.

However, I disagree that the current vote before the IOM class is whether to have IOMICA continue to report to RSD or to report instead directly to ISAF.

To me, the issue is have we fully explored all of the consequences of an immediate direct affiliation with ISAF? In particular, I am very concerned with the costs that might be imposed on the various NCAs by their national sailing authorities and the costs of having ISAF certified measurers. I am also not sure how things at ISAF will really work for the IOM class. I worry that we will be treated in the future (as I believe we were in the past) as an afterthought and will be assigned to the most junior staff members. I also wonder how we will fund the costs of our representatives attending ISAF meetings and other ISAF obligations.

As I can see no downside in taking additional time before we directly affiliate with ISAF (and some severe consequences if we get it wrong), I believe that we should wait and gather more information from ISAF. I don't understand frankly why we are being rushed into this decision. I believe that with more time and information, there will be unanimity as to what is the proper course for IOMICA and not the current divisions.

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I was asked and agreed to represent the Americas on the "new' RSD. However, I am not a part of its leadership and personally believe that RSD should work with IOMICA to find the best path for all of r/c sailing and not continue to try to control the IOM class.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 09 Oct 2009, 06:59

Thanks Roy,

For the most part I am trying not to get into my personal preferences as, in the end, they don't matter. It is the desire of the class that matters. I am but one small part of it.

I appreciate the response you have offered here as it is about as good a description as anyone has supplied and frames a workable outline to pursue.

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 20 Oct 2009, 20:13

Dear Tony,

First of all I want to tell you that I appreciate you and consider like a very honest person, but I have read some comments in the MYA forum that I would like to answer and as I can not do it in that forum I will do it here.

Most of the questions have been answered in the document that we have just made public http://www.iomclass.org/2009/10/20/the- ... /#more-256 , but there are still some others that may need a special mention.

Tony wrote:As may have been noticed I don't often post on this forum but I feel a need to try to balance this debate before everybody becomes exhausted as there has been a tendancy by some to present opinion as "fact".

I think you should review your own post and you will also find some kind of confusion between your opinions and the facts. The first and most important one is this:

Tony wrote:It is the club sailor that is forgotten by the virtual IOM Executive and yet the club sailor is the backbone of the sport.

I donâ€™t know how did you arrive to this conclusion because it is absolutely wrong. Can you please edit your post and remove this sentence? Thank you.

Tony wrote:I was present (not virtual!) at the last IOMICA AGM in Barbados (where there was the subsequent issue over the miss-election of the Chairman). What was debated there was a motion for IOMICA to explore joining ISAF direct and for the Executive to report back to the membership with the pros and cons. A step seems to be missing here as the members are effectively now being asked whether to join or not.

Again I feel to disagree. It is true that you were present during the last part of the meeting (let us say the last 5 minutes?), but not when the affiliating to ISAF was discussed. In fact only one person from GBR was present at that moment and you know who it was. In any case the conclusion of this subject of the Agenda is in the Minute of the meeting and it has been explained in the document above mentioned.

Ken Dobbie · Post by **Ken Dobbie** » 20 Oct 2009, 22:12

Aphonso wrote in reply to Tony Edwards

Again I feel to disagree. It is true that you were present during the last part of the meeting (let us say the last 5 minutes?), but not when the affiliating to ISAF was discussed. In fact only one person from GBR was present at that moment and you know who it was. In any case the conclusion of this subject of the Agenda is in the Minute of the meeting and it has been explained in the document above mentioned.

Irrespective of how long Tony was at the meeting the motion voted on by the NCA's was as he stated and here is the text of the motion presented to members:

"Task incoming IOMICA Exec with investigating affiliating with ISAF as an International class. The Exec will bring these data to the WC for discussion and vote prior to a final commitment regarding ISAF affiliation."

We did not vote as stated in the IOMICA application submitted to ISAF to "At the recent IOMICA Annual General Meeting, held in conjunction with the World Championship in Barbados, the class owners voted overwhelmingly to pursue gaining ISAF status".

Alphonso, I think you owe IOM owners an explanation.

Ken Dobbie
NCA Representative AUS

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 21 Oct 2009, 02:06

For the record, my comments are not meant as "sour grapes" for not being elected and are not meant to disparage Alphonso.

I feel a bit responsible, since I (as VC Events) drafted the resolution and assured the class that constructive and open discussion would precede any EXEC action.

I was present for the entire AGM. Once the votes for Chairman were presented and I thought I had been elected, I promised that there would be "no surprises" and that the EXEC would do as the motion declared:

"Task incoming IOMICA Exec with investigating affiliating with ISAF as an International class. The Exec will bring these data to the WC for discussion and vote prior to a final commitment regarding ISAF affiliation."

Applying for ISAF membership first, scheduling a vote on the issue, then being pretty silent as the issue is debated by a few folks on the general membership part of the board is not what I had in mind when I drafted the resolution.

I fear that this is detrimental to the class. Evaluate the risk/benefit ratio of forging ahead on our present course v. waiting 'till next time

If we forge ahead and the WC votes in favor of joining ISAF right now:
-we save 1000 GBP (application fee)
-EXEC is happy
-a certain percentage of the general membership is happy
-we enter into an exciting but presently undefined new relationship with ISAF
-a certain percentage of the general membership (including the largest NCA's) are unhappy

If we forge ahead and the WC votes against joining ISAF right now or
If we decide to wait 'till next time to apply:
-we may be charged the 1000 GBP application fee
-the new RSD PC will have been up & running for some time and radio sailing's position in ISAF may be getting clearer
-we enter into an exciting and hopefully more clearly defined relationship with ISAF
-perhaps (I hope) the entire membership can come together and pull in the same direction after a period of informed cooling off.
-the folks who wanted to forge ahead right now will still be fairly happy (assuming they are interested in the end result rather than the process)
-the folks who are skeptical about a "rush" to join right now will be happy
-the folks who want to see what RSD can do for radio sailing first before deciding whether to join ISAF or stay with the RSD model will be happy

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 21 Oct 2009, 12:35

Ken wrote:Alphonso, I think you owe IOM owners an explanation.

Hi Ken,

I think that you haven't read the document that I mentioned in a previous post because the explanation is in one of the first paragraphs.

In any case, why don't you explain us why you and the rest of the future members of the RSD PC wait for the last day and the last minute to stand as candidates. You did not need to wait to have a candidate for every position. If you would have acted in a different way it is almost sure that none of us were having to give any explanation.

Hi Bruce,

Thank you for explaining us the conclusion that we arrive in BAR and regarding if the Exec is more or less happy if we go ahead with the vote or not, just I would like to explain that the Exec (I think all the members think the same) is happy when we make our job and we do it fine and fast.

Again I would like to explain that when the decision was taken at the beginning of August the situation was very different than now. We had the risk of disband in ISAF RSD and now those people that knew that they were going to run for a position in the RSD PC complain because we were too fast applying to ISAF.

In any case and as we have explained in the last document published it is not a question of timing of RSD, the IOMICA is mature enough to affiliate ISAF.

Ken Dobbie · Post by **Ken Dobbie** » 21 Oct 2009, 13:02

Alfonso, with the geatest of respect you have not answered my question. It has nothing to do with RSD nominations and your claim of last minute nominations has nothing to do with IOMICA's application to ISAF. In any case the nominations were submitted in accordance with the notice for the General Assembly.

I repeat my question. Why did the application to ISAF state that "the class owners voted overwhelmingly to pursue gaining ISAF status". when the motion which we voted for was to investigate affiliation.

Whom ever was responsible for drafting the application to ISAF has made a serious error which needs to be immediately corrected. It does nothing for IOMICA's credibility.

I await a proper explanation.

Ken Dobbie