Page 6 of 7

Posted: 21 Oct 2009, 14:21
by Lester
Hi Ken

I don't know, but maybe this'll help:

From ... /#more-159 :

"We know that the owners have not granted permission to carry out the affiliation as part of their approved request, but it is necessary to take the first step of making a formal submission to gain access to more detailed, formal information. Therefore we have made a submission to ISAF to consider us for direct affiliation but have done so on the basis of receiving approval to do so from our owners prior to the November 5th meeting."

Posted: 21 Oct 2009, 15:26
by Alfonso
Hi Ken,

I think I have answered your first question but I will try again. The situation was that nobody was standing for candidate on any position of the RSD PC at the end of July and beginning of August and an e mail from the RSD secretary was remembering to all the DMs that the deadline for such application finished at the end of August.

Now imagine that nobody would have runned for a position, logically RSD had to disband and then IOMICA would have lost any connection with ISAF. That would have bring us some problems.

Second question, the important issue is not what was written in the application to ISAF like the Exec is following all the steps according with the minute of the last AGM.

And now is my turn, with the greatest of respect you have not answered my question. The question was not if your nomination to the RSD PC was on time or not, the question was why did you all wait till the last minute to send it.

Posted: 21 Oct 2009, 16:34
by Ken Dobbie

That IOMICA has made an incorrect statement on the application to ISAF is the issue here and it is clear that you do not want to provide a direct answer to my question.


I am aware of the statement you have quoted but again with respect it does not answer the question I ask.

To advise ISAF in the terms of the application is misleading and should be corrected by an advice to ISAF.

Ken Dobbie
NCA Representative - AUS

Posted: 21 Oct 2009, 17:37
by Alfonso
Hi Ken,

Don't worry about ISAF they are already adviced.

I have answered all your questions but you are the only one who has not give any explanation. I am still waiting.

Posted: 21 Oct 2009, 19:54
by Brig North
Mr. Clifton wrote a position paper regarding the affiliation of IOMICA with ISAF directly, stating that for a variety of reasons, he believes that the RSD route is superior to direct affiliation by IOMICA. Mr. Jan Dejmo -- who has posted on this thread and besides being one of the founding fathers of our class, is also involved with ISAF on a high level -- has addressed some of the issues raised by Mr. Clifton in his position paper.

Please read Mr. Dejmo's notes. He does an excellent job of conveying his thoughts. ... 0-2009.pdf

Brig North
Dallas, Texas, USA

Posted: 21 Oct 2009, 21:51
by Ken Dobbie
Alfonso wrote
Hi Ken,

Don't worry about ISAF they are already adviced.

I have answered all your questions but you are the only one who has not give any explanation. I am still waiting.
I do worry and it seems I won't get a straight answer.

FYI nominations for the RSD closed on 29 Ausust, I signed and forwarded my nomination on 15 August to my nominator who forwarded nominations on 28 August to meet the closing date.The General Secretary RSD advised DM's of the list of nominees on 9 September. I still don't see what this has to do with the IOMICA vote.

Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 08:40
by RoyL
I have to say I am extremely disappointed in how IOMICA's possible direct affiliation with ISAF has been handled.

I have always believed it is the job of the IOMICA Executive to put aside personal beliefs and desires and act in a manner that will best enhance the growth, stability and future of our class and to serve the needs of the membership.

A principal part of that responsibility on any issue is to first develop a broad consensus among the class membership and NCAs and to then act.

From looking at the position papers and the posts on this and other forums, it is clear that no such general consensus has yet been reached.

However, I believe that with enough time and an open and responsive attitude from the Executive virtually all of the open questions and issues being raised could be resolved. I also think that forcing a vote on this question now-- regardless of the outcome-- will have the opposite effect and will create bad feelings and ill will among significant numbers of class members.

I strongly urge that the current IOMICA Executive reach out to those NCAs that have expressed concerns and try to solve and satisfy their problems. Take the time to build bridges between differing positions. Positions papers pro and con are not enough. Now is the time for leadership that finds ways to bring us all together, not further splits us apart.

Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 14:55
by Bruce Andersen
I echo RoyL's comments - IMHO, right now, win or lose, there will be hard feelings concerning either the process and/or outcome of this vote.

If we table the issue 'till the next ISAF meeting, what's the harm? Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the class can move forward with more unanimity and less rancor.

One might say that we have had a robust "fact finding and evaluation" period on this and other web boards and (at least based on the posts) have seen a strong sentiment against the proposal to join ISAF right now.

This in quite the opposite of the "overwhelming response in favor..." statement (taken out of context) forwarded to ISAF with the application.

I'm not saying which side is right - all I'm saying is that there is division in the ranks with one side raising questions (that may or may not have a basis in fact) with the other side trying to answer them (without a lot of success).

What is clear is that controversy still exists.

Again, IMHO, the EXEC should take this as a message to table the motion 'till the controversy settles down.

Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 16:07
by Alfonso
RoyL wrote:However, I believe that with enough time and an open and responsive attitude from the Executive virtually all of the open questions and issues being raised could be resolved.
There is not open questions, all the relevant information is available.

This is funny, everybody should start reading this post from the beginning again and you will see how the same persons keep on saying the same things: open questions, unknown effects, all kind of problems, but none of those persons are able to mention just one that has not been answered yet.
RoyL wrote:I strongly urge that the current IOMICA Executive reach out to those NCAs that have expressed concerns and try to solve and satisfy their problems. Take the time to build bridges between differing positions.
You do not need to urge us, just have a look to my first post of this topic at the beginning of August.
Alfonso wrote:I open this thread in order to try to help to clarify any doubt about the issue and also to get your ideas that we can bring them up in the future dialog with ISAF
Also check this one from Robert
Robert wrote:5. Feedback from the various NCA's on their concerns and issues regarding affiliation with ISAF.

Fully agree. Please declare clearly the problem and then IOM ICA Exec duty is to give the answer after asking question to the ISAF, if needed. We will be much more efficient if clear questions will be asked. Debate like "selling the house". "buying a house", etc are in my opinion total waste of time.
But that is not all, I sent an e mail to several NCA representatives and at least to one of the Chairman of the biggest NCA of IOMICA offering my help and willing to hear any comments or suggestions. I haven’t received anything yet, so may be you should urge them not the Exec.
Bruce wrote:If we table the issue 'till the next ISAF meeting, what's the harm?
What about 1.000 GBP. Don’t you read the document that we publish?

Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 18:27
by Bruce Andersen
You can rest assured that I read everything I can find!

I do not think the prospect of potentially saving 1000 GBP is a compelling reason to forge ahead with this much opposition.

There is no reason to believe that ISAF's waiving the application fee is a limited time offer.

If IOMICA had to spend 1000 GBP to join ISAF once the general membership was satisfied that it was the right thing to do,
1) we could take it out of our savings, which is substantial
2) charge each of the 24 NCA's 41.66 GBP as a special assessment, or
3) charge each of the 2299 certificated members a one time fee of 0.43 GBP.

Irrespective of whether you feel the arguments presented are with or without merit, the fact remains that we are (on this issue) a divided organization.

Prudent leadership strives to minimize polarization and focus on consensus building.

One way is to say "the opposing camp is wrong, we know what's right so just trust us" or even worse "all the facts are out there, you just don't get it". These approaches seldom work.

The other option is to step back and re-consider the question 'till everyone is satisfied that their concerns are being addressed. This takes some time and a willingness (on both sides) to be open minded.

Remember; there is no rush to do this!

Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 20:15
by Alfonso

WE ARE NOT IN A RUSH. As I have said before we have had time enough for debate (3 months I think is fine), but the truth is that we are reading the same arguments since the beginning of August and we could stay like that one or two years more. I think that those who do not want to affiliate ISAF will not change their mind for the rest of their lives.
So let the owners vote and if they vote YES fine, but if they vote NO fine also. I don’t think that nobody will stop sailing or sell their boats because the result of the next election.

Finally is interesting to know that 1.000 GBP doesn’t mean anything for you. It is true, we could charge 0,43 GBP to every owner, but why are you so sure that none of them will complain because they want to vote now.

Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 20:57
by RoyL
Alphonso: I strongly agree with you that the heads of those NCAs that have raised questions and concerns about the current direct affiliation between ISAF and IOMICA should reach out to the IOMICA Executive and try to find a path forward. I also think it is the obligation of the IOMICA Executive to do the same.

A friend of mine likes to say "Working Together Works!" To simply state that "all questions have been answered and all necessary information has been provided, let's vote now" is not effective leadership. I know that it is particularly difficult to try to embrace those that disagree and are critical of your efforts. Please make the extra effort to try to find broad consensus and support across our organization. As I stated before, regardless of the outcome of this vote, without that broad support the organization will suffer.

Finally, please consider the following--which is the better choice for IOMICA's future relationship with ISAF--(i) insisting on taking a vote now and if the Executive does not obtain 2/3 of the votes, trying to apply to ISAF again sometime in the future or (ii) building support across all of our NCAs and applying once and successfully to ISAF?

I know it's hard sometimes, but it comes with the job....regards, roy

Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 21:20
by Barry Fox CAN262
I have kind of vowed to myself to try to stay out of the discussion but at times I just can't resist.

I’m going to try to take a (hopefully) slightly different look at one of the issues that seems to keep popping up. The one that says we should stick together under RSD. There is always some merit to that approach.

However, one of my learning’s from this exercise is that one of the mandates/directions/tenets of RSD is to guide classes through a process where they get their rules in order, get proper constitutions in place, establish guidelines for organizing true international level events and perhaps some other procedural items, so that they can satisfy the requirements to become an ISAF International Class.

From what I have seen, there is the appearance that the IOM class has been guided through that exercise and has those things in place, making them be the first class under RSD’s guidance to be ready to make the leap.

If I read all this in a positive light then it seems to me that RSD, both past and future management groups, should be beating the drum and declaring what a good success they have produced, encouraging the ICA to go ahead with the next step in their history, and get on with an application to become a fully recognized class. This ought to be a proud moment.

With a success under their belt I would expect that RSD should devote their energy to coaxing the other 3 classes that are already recognized by RSD to get their world in order and be looking at the other classes that have a widespread base of owners (some of which have come up in some other postings) to help them also move toward becoming the next properly integrated radio sailing class.

When I first joined this community I was under the impression that our class was ISAF recognized. The truth out of it all is that is not the case. Certainly, through the good efforts of RSD, we are known but we are not an ISAF class. Again, through the good efforts of RSD and the various IOM ICA Execs, we are now in a position, I think, to meet the requirements to move to that level.

Now, if we have some deficiencies that should be taken care of before we move to that level, then it would be appropriate to step back and resolve those before moving to this new level. I’m not yet sufficiently educated to be able to declare where we have those deficiencies so it will take someone with the right history to point out what those issues may be.

But, if RSD’s job was to prepare us to join ISAF, if they have done their job (I keep hearing they have) and the intention of ISAF was to have us (or any other qualifying radio sailing class) join when we were in shape to do so, then what is the hold up?

I don't think any of the financial issues have any merit, either way.

If the new sticker fee is going to prevent someone from building or buying a new certificated boat (the only ones needing the sticker) then they weren't going to build or buy one anyway.

The application fee, waived or not, really is well within our means. And the annual fee is not very onerous anyway.

I am always anxious to learn something new, not nearly so anxious to hear the same old rhetoric that I think has already been addressed.

I don’t believe this is an RSD vs. ISAF issue. I think it is a matter of whether or not the IOM ICA (that’s all of you/us) has its act together to be ready to meet ISAF’s requirements for recognition. If we haven’t got that done then let’s get that done and get on with life. If we have all that done then let’s get going.

And three cheers to RSD for getting us ready to join.

Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 11:15
by valpro
Barry, I have deliberately stayed silent and watched this debate. On most points I think I have said enough anyway. With regard to the RSD points you raise, I have been reading through a lot of the documents, particularly the RSD Contitution and Regulations. IOM is an ISAF-RSD International class and if you read the relevant regulations (published on the website) that apply, you will see that none of them have been applied by the outgoing RSD officials but all are things that will apply if the class joins ISAF direct. There is no mention of sticker fees, annual payments or joining fees so that saves money straight away, but there are mandatory requirements regarding the appointment of measurers and required attendance at various ISAF meetings, all of which would have to be funded. I find it strange that Jan Dejmo as acting Chairman of RSD has not mentioned this as it seems to shed a lot of light on what the futue might hold and had these been applied since 2003, IOMICA woiuld be far better prepared to take the step now with clear understanding of the extra benefits, if any, that might ensue. Personally I see no particular benefit to the members by joining ISAF at this time, even if the service from the outgoing RSD committee has been terrible to the point of non-existence. Nothing would be lost by waiting another year and a lot may well be gained by not rushing.

Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 14:49
by Alfonso
RoyL wrote:Alphonso: I strongly agree with you that the heads of those NCAs that have raised questions and concerns about the current direct affiliation between ISAF and IOMICA should reach out to the IOMICA Executive and try to find a path forward. I also think it is the obligation of the IOMICA Executive to do the same.
Hi RoyL, I am glad that we starting agreeing on something. The Exec is still waiting and ready to try to help any owner or any NCA with any doubt about the consequences of affiliation to ISAF. But according what I have read in their documents there is no real problems in affiliating ISAF, it is a question of philosophy: Under which umbrella IOMICA should be? Should be ISAF or should be ISAF RSD.

I think that, as Barry has explained, thanks to RSD IOMICA is mature enough to join ISAF, may be others don’t think the same, so let us owners take the decision.

Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 16:53
by RoyL
Now I have to disagree (what a surprise, lol)--I do not think the question before our class is one of philosophy, it is solely about practicality.

The issue I believe is what are the costs, benefits, and concerns raised by the current deal on the table with ISAF.

The largest NCA's and some very well established members have raised a number of serious questions--How will we measure our boats? How will we train measurers? Will our club members have to join their local big boat national authority or a yacht club? How will we fund attendance at ISAF meetings? On a day to day basis how will the IOMICA/ISAF relationship work? How much will it all really cost? Why the rush?

All of these are very real questions and they have been answered largely by citations to ISAF regulations or statements that effectively say "don't worry, it will all be fine".

I also feel that the Executive has not been very communicative about this whole process. Who has been representing IOMICA with ISAF? Who has been representing ISAF? What proposals have we made? What has been the back and forth of the negotiations? Have we even been negotiating? Reports from the Executive have been few and far between.

I also feel that the Executive has also been a bit "imperial" in how this whole issue has been set forth and framed. This issue was announced to the membership weeks after our election controversy had just been resolved. The statement submitted to ISAF saying that the class voted for direct affiliation was a misrepresentation. The directive that all NCAs can not split their "electoral college" votes was controversial. These actions didn't bring the class together. Instead they continued the "my side vs. your side" situation that has gone on too long.

(BTW, I can also add as a lawyer who spends his life negotiating agreements that the one being put forward to IOMICA by ISAF appears very one sided. Under its terms, for example, ISAF can unilaterally change boat registration fees and annual dues after the first year. Maybe ISAF won't do this, but the first thing I would tell a client is that you need to know that you are not entering a "fixed rate" deal.)

Should IOMICA continue to report to RSD? That to me is a separate question. I believe if it does, IOMICA should negotiate a new better agreement with RSD. But the question before us now is do we have the right deal and all necessary information to enter into an agreement with ISAF in a matter of weeks? I don't think so, but more important, a whole lot of our members likely will vote against this deal now because of how this process has been handled

So let me go back to where I started. Bridges need to be built. GBR and NZ and AUS have raised some genuine concerns in their position papers. They represent a very large number of our members. They should not be ignored or dismissed. It is time for IOMICA and the heads of these NCAs to open a direct dialogue (in public or in private) and try to come together. Take the time. Build consensus. Get the best deal possible. Let the membership know what you are doing. We will all be better for it.

Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 20:03
by Barry Fox CAN262
The only thing I am going to address here is the voting procedure.

Some folks keep wanting to bring up the thought that the current Exec has somehow contrived the voting method to suit their purpose. The only purpose in stating what the procedure will be is to make sure that all of the different rules and agreements are understood.

This is NOT a new way of conducting a vote. It is the way that votes should have been conducted and I suspect that most have been.

The process is one that has been in place since the origins of the organization. They are not just made up recently for any one's convenience.

Any implication that this is some underhanded action by anyone on the Executive is completely unfounded. Any indication that this is somehow an "interpretation" of the process is also completely unfounded. It is simply using the processes and procedures that have been on the books since the beginning.

I fail to see how that is in any way misleading or improper. In organizations such as this one, it takes the law of the land, the organization's own constitution (which can not conflict with the law of the land), any other bylaws or regulations of the organization (which can not conflict with the constitution) and any other agreements based on all the above (in our case that would be the MoU each NCA has signed) to fully describe the process.

For our organization you need to reference all of the Constitution, the Regulations and the MoU to define the whole process. And from that it is absolutely clear what the process is.

If the process needs some tuning then that should happen. But for today, the documentation we have in place is what applies.

In my personal view, moaning about the voting procedure in the context of this vote is nothing but another red herring that is meant to distract from the real decision that is to be made. I stand on my most immediately past posting. I see nothing new that has not been addressed. It may not be the answer you want to hear but that doesn't change the answer.

I encourage everyone to read all the information that they can find and then make up your own mind and vote the way you feel is best for the class.

Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 21:54
by Lester
These answers all gathered from IOMICA documents or Exec posts. I'm just repeating the same answers to the same questions that continue to be repeated as though these answers had never been given...
RoyL wrote:How will we measure our boats? How will we train measurers? Will our club members have to join their local big boat national authority or a yacht club? How will we fund attendance at ISAF meetings? On a day to day basis how will the IOMICA/ISAF relationship work? How much will it all really cost? Why the rush?
As we always have; no change. As we always have; no change. No; no change. Attendance not compulsory, IOMICA funds healthy; no change. Exactly like the RSD relationship; no change. Annual fee 165 GBP, new boat sticker 5 GBP. No rush; the time seems right.

These answers based on my experience.
Who has been representing IOMICA with ISAF? Who has been representing ISAF? What proposals have we made? What has been the back and forth of the negotiations? Have we even been negotiating?
Representing? Negotiating? Proposing? Back and forth? Not how it works. Exec submits application to ISAF. Application goes to Equipment Committee, Class Rules Sub-Committee, then ISAF Council. If the requirements of ISAF Regulation 26 are met, the IOM gets ISAF status. That's it.

For example, these are the classes mentioned in sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Equipment Committee agenda regarding ISAF status:

One Metre Class,
RS Tera Class,
Maxi Class,
Laser Vago,
RS 500 Class,
RC44 Class,
Kona One Design Class,
Class 40,
International Nacra F-18 Catamaran Class,
International A-Class Catamaran,
International Vaurien Class,
Micro Class.

The One Metre is just one of a whole bunch of classes! I don't know that any of them 'negotiated', 'represented', 'proposed', or 'back and forthed' in the way expected by Roy. What they probably did do, though, is talk to the Chairman of the Equipment Committee to understand the ISAF process, talk to the Chairman of the Classes Committee to understand the likely ISAF requirements, and hear from the ISAF staff (via Chairmen) what the probable answers would be to questions like, 'What is 0.4% of a hull?'. Pretty much as you'd expect, really.

Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 22:30
by Roy648
So No Change Lester again,

Contrary to your "experience" and contrary to the statement issued by the IOMICA there WILL be change.

Possibly not in all countries but definitely in others.

YNZ states that only Clubs may use the RRS. YNZ also states that eligibility at Nationals requires New Zealand Nationals to be a member of an affiliated club, overseas entrants need to be affiliated to their National Authority. It would appear that Yachting New Zealand, unlike the IOMICA Exec, recognise that different countries have different requirements and what it can impose on its on nationals does not necessarily apply to nationals of other countries.

That interpretation of the YNZ regulations was confirmed – no given to me – by the CEO of YNZ in a conversation I had with him over 12 months ago on a completely different subject. He also went on at length to describe the moves being taken to eliminate “paper clubsâ€

Posted: 24 Oct 2009, 01:11
by RoyL
I'm sorry, I just got to ask, Lester: Answers based on your "experience"? What exactly is that? Have you been the principal in applying for ISAF status for other classes? Have you been communicating with ISAF on behalf of IOMICA? Are you representing ISAF or the current Executive?

Posted: 24 Oct 2009, 10:35
by ole_peder
I have been following this discussion with great interest.

As many previous discussions this has been a playground for the native english speaking, with some few exceptions. Those exceptions is trying to clear up the mess the english speaking are making, discussing nitty gritty details in som paragraph which is hardly known.

I think I can speak for all the nordic countries where the IOM class is settling. We had 36 competittors to Our Nordic Champinship this year.

Almost all IOM skippers in the Nordic countries is coming from "ordinary" sailing and all knows ISAF through various ISAF classe and Olympic sailng.
We are working to get the IOM acknowledged an class in line with all other classes. We want to be a part of the ISAF with a full recognized class.


I fully support Alfonso and his team in their work to get an ISAF rekognition for The IOM Class

I have tried to get the IOM sailors in Norway to read this thread, but after reading a couple of postings they tells me that such a discussion is to complicated to read and the topics are more or less bullshit and personal harassments between the discissions partners here.

All are used to from other classes that it cost money to sail and to be honest, what is 5 pounds compared to the cost of an IOM????

what is 5 pound compared to going to a EC or WC????
What is 5 pound compared to a bottle of whisky??????

I have not come across an IOM sailor that has been poor, have any of you?

By the way, I miss information on how we are going to vote.

Posted: 24 Oct 2009, 11:06
by Alfonso
Hi Roy 648,

I consider that your last post is very interesting. Do you know of any other NCA or DM NCA that is in the same situation than NZL RYA?

Hi Ole,

Thanks for your support. If you have any doubt about the voting process please send me an email.

Posted: 24 Oct 2009, 12:31
by Roy648

I am afraid I find your last question both arrogant and insulting.

YES, I know IOM sailors that are poor. Many in our country who are still sailing Radio Yachts in their late 70s and early 80s were comfortable when they retired by world economics have severely eroded that position.

Yes, I know IOM sailors that are poor. One of them happens to sail my older boat, and has done so for the last 2 years. I have loaned it to him free of charge. He got a new set of Aâ€

Posted: 24 Oct 2009, 17:36
by Lester
Hi Roy648
Roy648 wrote:to be a member of an affiliated club New Zealand IOM skippers have two choices, join a full size club or get their own club to affiliate with YNZ

I'm trying to understand the point of your post, which I think is that you imagine none of the radio sailors in NZL are affiliated to the NZL MNA (YNZ)?

But isn't the national authority for radio sailing in New Zealand, the NZRYA, affiliated to YNZ? Aren't radio sailing clubs affiliated to NZRYA? And aren't radio sailors either members of these radio sailing clubs or members of NZRYA?

Certainly, to be the NCA for the IOM in NZL, the NZRYA needs to be affiliated to YNZ; this requirement is expressed in the IOMICA Constitution section 7.1.1 and in the Memorandum of Understanding with IOMICA section 4.2. These requirements apply not just to NZL, of course, but to every country with an IOM NCA.

Certainly, the RRS requires that sanctioned races are organised by an affiliated club (RRS 89) and that sanctioned races are entered by affiliated owners (RRS 75). It may be worth noticing that RRS 89 and RRS 75 make provision for a variety of methods whereby ‘affiliation’ can be shown, and this does not need to be by direct affiliation with TNZ. Entering and organising can be by ‘other organisations’ which are in their turn affiliated.

I think this is what happens, or should be happening, in NZL already (and of course in every country with an IOM NCA). Absolutely nothing here changes when the IOM gains ISAF recognition!

And if some or all of this is *not* currently happening in NZL, this again has absolutely nothing to do with whether the IOM is an RSD class or an ISAF class.

As a final comment, I wonder what some might be thinking about the way the future RSD PC might interact with IOMICA given your reply to the owner from NOR. As Ole Peder says, his first language is not English. I understood him to be saying that a one-off cost of 5 GBP for a brand new hull (not a second-hand one) hardly renders the IOM unaffordable. I don't know that his comments justify an attack such as yours which itself could be thought to be arrogant and insulting.

Posted: 24 Oct 2009, 20:13
by Roy648

Please do not quote out of context. Read the two preceding paragraphs. But of course that does not fit with your philosophy of no change.

You well know, or should if you have actually read previous posts or documents circulated, that the NZRYA is affiliated with YNZ. The type of affiliation achieved, however, does not provide YNZ recognition of a National Champion as laid down by their regulations. It simply allows us to conduct the affairs of radio sailing as DM for clubs affiliated to us.

ALL THAT CHANGES as of when the IOM becomes an ISAF Class. If one wants to play with the big boys ones has to abide by the big boys’ rules.

As to my response to Ole’s comments again you quote out of context and try to divert.

Ole asked a direct question. And got a direct answer

Posted: 24 Oct 2009, 21:07
by Lester
Roy648 wrote:NZRYA is affiliated with YNZ. The type of affiliation achieved, however, does not provide YNZ recognition of a National Champion as laid down by their regulations.

ALL THAT CHANGES as of when the IOM becomes an ISAF Class
Hi Roy648

I think this is the YNZ Regulation you refer to:
TNZ Regulation 4.5.4 Approval of National Championships wrote:Yachting New Zealand approval is required for any event that is described as [or] is reasonably perceived to be a National Championship.

Each National Class approved by Yachting New Zealand is automatically granted the right, subject to the requirements of this regulation, to hold one National Championship annually
For some reason, it seems that while the EC12 is a YNZ listed class of radio sailing yacht (, the IOM is neither listed nor recognised ( ... fe9feecd3c). How does that change in NZL if the IOM becomes an ISAF, rather than a RSD, class?

I notice YNZ Regulation 4.6:
4.6 NATIONAL CLASSES CRITERIA wrote:Recognition as a New Zealand National Class will only be granted to those classes that:
• Are not a full ISAF class
This seems to say that the IOM is not now (as an RSD class), and never will be (as an ISAF class), a NZL National Class. It seems that nothing will change for NZL if the IOM becomes an ISAF class, and that whatever might happen in NZL has nothing to do with the IOM and ISAF recognition in the rest of the world. What have I missed, please? (And yes, you certainly have my sympathies for what seem to be some strange TNZ Regulations.)

Posted: 24 Oct 2009, 21:38
by Barry Fox CAN262
Hi Roy,

Please don't take this as trying to pick holes in your description of teh situation. I'm trying to undersatand it.

If NZRYA can't authorize a National Championship now, then how has that happened before? Have you applied to YNZ and gotten approval/sanction to do so?

Just trying to see how that process flows now. I'm trying to see how that all changes with one class changing its status. I'm not saying it doesn't but it is not clear to me how that happens.

I wil repeat, I am not trying to pick holes but sweeping statements such as "all that changes" don't provide any help to me. If we understand your position in some more detail then maybe some of the countries with "better" deals with their MNAs can help get a little peer pressure working toward resolving the problems.

Posted: 25 Oct 2009, 00:22
by Roy648
Hi Barry,

I accept your reasons for the post and welcome them.

NZRYA is affiliated to YNZ as a Non Commercial Maritime organisation. This fulfils the RSD requirement to be affiliated with the NA (or be the NA) and has allowed YNZ to delegate the authority for Radio Sailing.

It also allows NZRYA to operate autonomously from YNZ and our classes operate directly under the NZRYA. Radio Sailing Clubs are affiliated with the NZRYA and not YNZ. NZRYA can hold its own events and whilst status is within the NZRYA it is not recognised by YNZ. So, an IOM or Marblehead National Champion is recognised as such by the NZRYA but not YNZ. Simple and acceptable with no pretences.

Upon IOMICA becoming an ISAF Class various things come into play, basically filtering down from the requirements of National Representation.

As the IOM status within ISAF would changed so it flows through to the NAs. Until now major IOM events have been under the auspices of the RSD and as such the DMs become the authority through which representation is granted (in the case of the IOM t\via the NCA). Future authority would be with the NA

YNZ specifies that only YNZ may award National Representation at International events (the IOM Worlds would be such). In order for YNZ to make such an award either selection trials or evaluation races need to be conducted. Part of the requirement is that any nominations for representation need to be members of an affiliated club. YNZ rules for club affiliation do not include NZRYA clubs as of right (but also do not preclude them providing they provide for clubs providing the appropriate fees are paid).

Barry, I appreciate your offer of help but would be extremely surprised if requirements around the world differ greatly from those of YNZ.

This is part of the reason that NZL are currently voting 100% no. It is also the reason why, if issues can be sorted and addressed adequately, a future vote could well be 100% yes.

Posted: 25 Oct 2009, 02:13
by RoyL
Barry: RoyG's explanation is pretty close to how things operate in the United States also. AMYA is affiliated with US Sailing and our r/c class nationals are sanctioned as AMYA Annual Class Championship Regattas.

I'm not sure if AMYA is regularly communicating with US Sailing and I have no idea what the US Sailing position will be in regard to sanctioning IOM events if the class directly affiliates with ISAF. I do know that to sail in a US Sailing sanctioned regatta at minimum you have to join US Sailing. I worry that once the possibility of extra revenue is put in front of US Sailing, the entire relationship between AMYA and r/c sailing in the US will change, but who really knows.

I was hoping that as part of the agreement between ISAF and IOMICA this potential problem would have been negotiated and dealt with for all of our NCAs. Like RoyG, I think that resolution of this issue might go a long way to getting broad support for direct IOMICA affiliation.

Posted: 25 Oct 2009, 18:55
by Brig North
As regards the source of revenue the IOM class represents in the US if the dynamic in the USA changes between AMYA and US Sailing, and rather than the AMYA represent us, it becomes mandatory that each person at the Nationals be a US Sailing member, assuming 30 people have to join (many people are already members of US Sailing, so I am probably being overly conservative), it represents about 0.1% of US Sailing's revenues in FY 2008. Would US Sailing go after this deep source of revenue? I guess it's possible. At least for the US, in my opinion, the "extra revenue for US Sailing" argument doesn't appear to be a deterrent to ISAF affiliation.

One other thing for people like me who only speak English to consider, while it is a fact that English is the official language of the class, it is also a fact that not everyone in our class speaks English. I would submit that even people who have a working knowledge of the language are likely not to have the command of the language that we native speakers have. I hope that we English speakers will be more tolerant of folks whose native tongue is not English. In Texas, where about 30% of our population speaks Spanish as their primary language, we have learned that it takes some additional questions to make sure we really understand what is being said.

Brig North
Dallas, Texas, USA