Page 4 of 7

Posted: 15 Sep 2009, 08:09
by jandejmo
Roy648 wrote:I do not see ... that Reg 21 applies only to Olympic Classes.
I don't think I expressed that Anti-Doping only applies to Olympic classes. :wink:


Posted: 15 Sep 2009, 08:34
by Roy648
Ok Jan,

On second reading I see that you say "In practice......".

So does this then mean that when IOMICA joins ISAF it only needs to comply with those regulations that suits it?


Posted: 15 Sep 2009, 10:04
by jandejmo
Roy648 wrote:So does this then mean that when IOMICA joins ISAF it only needs to comply with those regulations that suits it?
I think that as sailing is an Olympic sport ISAF has to have an agreement with WADA

My guess is that what you read in ISAF Regulation 21 is a result of such an agreement. Note what RRS Rule 5 says about "not grounds for a protest". Again a guess of mine doping is likely to be a competitor issue and thereby not an ICA issue.

If you want to learn about Anti-Doping issues, then I recommend that you contact the ISAF office.



Posted: 15 Sep 2009, 12:26
by Alfonso
Hi RoyL,

Please find below the answer to your questions:

First: Yes, there will be an agreement, as there is an agreement between ISAF RSD and IOMICA. The draft of this agreement is not available yet and I do not think owners will need to vote on this topic because there are very little room for maneuver.

Second, do you know that section 5.5 iv) of ISAF RSD Constitution says “It shall be a continuing obligation of membership that any delegated national body shall maintain its affiliation with the Member National Authorityâ€

Posted: 15 Sep 2009, 13:14
by jandejmo
RoyL wrote:Sixth, and finally, I'm also not exactly sure what you are saying about RSD. I have always argued that while RSD does not currently have properly elected officers, RSD's agreement with IOMICA is still valid. If we directly affiliate with ISAF does that agreement/authority go away? If so, how? If it doesn't go away, then doesn't IOMICA still have to report to RSD?
The IOM ICA - ISAF-RSD Agreement:
9. This agreement may not be transferred or assigned without the agreement of both parties. It is acknowledged by both parties that the IOM ICA may seek ISAF Class status for the IOM. If requested to do so by the ISAF, the IOM ICA and/or the ISAF–RSD may terminate this agreement immediately.

Posted: 15 Sep 2009, 17:24
by RoyL
I'm not trying to make this overly complicated, but this is probably the most importantly decision IOMICA has to make. I think it is essential for all of us to fully understand all of the issues and to take the time and effort to get it right from the start.

Contrary to Alfonso's prior response, I believe that the Executive is required to have a class vote to enter into a binding agreement with ISAF (or anyone else). I believe that the initial IOMICA agreement with RSD was voted on by the membership. Is there something here that I missed?

Similarly, from Jan's post, it would appear that the agreement between IOMICA and RSD (including all of its requirements that IOMICA seek RSD approval for just about all it does) does stay in place even if IOMICA directly affiliates. Only if ISAF asks that agreement be terminated does it possibly change.

Therefore, I would suspect that any modification in the RSD/IOMICA agreement would have to be the result of negotiations between ISAF and IOMICA and RSD. Has anything along these lines taken place or has ISAF discussed this issue with the Executive?

Further, as Jan suggests in his post about doping issues, there is often a difference between the strict text of a rule and how that rule is administered in practice. I guess that was what I was trying to understand. Overall, referring people to the text of rules and regulations doesn't really explain how they work in practice. Put another way, for example, does any one know in practice how IOM Class Rule changes will be handled by ISAF? (BTW, if the RSD agreement stays in place IOMICA would technically be subject to review both by RSD and ISAF.)

Also, I don't think I got the right answer to the meaning of ISAF Section 26 and IOMICA's affiliation with national sailing authorities. "Best Efforts" is a specific legal standard that basically means "must". (The analogy in the US is the standard means you don't have to run back into the burning building, but you have to do just about everything else). This is very different from what is written in the quoted RSD document. Also, it is still unclear to me whether this provision of Section 26 means r/c sailing or "big boat" national authorities. That cost difference could be huge for some of our member countries.

Posted: 16 Sep 2009, 09:27
by Lester
Might be worth noticing paragraph 8 of the IOMICA - RSD Agreement:
8. This Agreement may be terminated by any of the parties at any time upon giving to the other parties at least one year's notice in writing [...]

Posted: 16 Sep 2009, 18:24
by Lester
RoyL wrote:I believe that the Executive is required to have a class vote to enter into a binding agreement with ISAF (or anyone else)
Whatever the detail of the wording of the IOMICA Constitution and Regulations, it is clear that there will be a class vote on whether to formally go ahead with an application for ISAF recognition of the IOM as an International class.
it would appear that the agreement between IOMICA and RSD (including all of its requirements that IOMICA seek RSD approval for just about all it does) does stay in place even if IOMICA directly affiliates. Only if ISAF asks that agreement be terminated does it possibly change
Whatever the detail of the wording of the IOMICA - RSD Agreement, it is clear that the agreement can be terminated by one year's notice in writing, or immediately by mutual agreement.
it is still unclear to me whether this provision of Section 26 means r/c sailing or "big boat" national authorities
ISAF Regulations deal with Member National Authorities - MNAs. Anywhere you see 'national authorities' in an ISAF document you are reading about MNAs. RSD Regulations deal with Division Members - DMs. Anywhere you see 'national authorites' in an RSD document you are almost certainly reading about 'model yachting national authorities' who are DMs. According to RSD documents and IOMICA documents, DMs and IOM NCAs are required to be affiliated to their MNAs.

An MNA either delegates national radio sailing issues or deals with them itself through an MNA sub-committee. Some DMs and NCAs are independent bodies which are affiliated to their MNAs, and hence operate under authority delegated by their MNAs for national radio sailing (such as the radio sailing national authorities, I believe, in GBR, USA, RSA and others). Other DMs and NCAs are effectively sub-committees of their MNAs (such as the radio sailing national authorities, I believe, in ESP, FRA, ITA, GER, and others).

Notice of Meeting

Posted: 17 Sep 2009, 08:28
by Barry Fox CAN262
A Notice of Meeting has been emailed to the currently available email addresses for NCA representatives within the last 20 minutes. Your respective represenataives should be contacting you to gather your vote either for or against the proposal.

Posted: 17 Sep 2009, 16:18
by RoyL
Barry: Is this notice also going to be posted here for the membership to review?

Posted: 17 Sep 2009, 22:38
by Bruce Andersen
Can you share with the general membership the text of the proposition upon which we are voting?

Is the question whether or not to join ISAF or whether or not to join ISAF right now?

The difference is significant because presently, there are a lot of questions that cannot be answered.

Many involve issues that deal with the fundamental organizational, logistical, and cost differences between radio sailing and big boat sailing, all of which are on the agenda of the new RSD.

Unfortunately, the ISAF elections close on 11-21-09 and the new RSD officers can't really do much until after that time.

I still think that affiliation with ISAF is a good idea, as long as the costs and obligations are kept reasonable (not only for IOMICA but for any radio sailing class that affiliates with ISAF).

My suggestion is to delay the vote for/against membership in ISAF until the new RSD is in place and see if they can negotiate changes from within ISAF for radio sailors to more even out the cost/benefit ratio or at least to clarify what existing regulations do not (or should not) apply to radio sailing.

Posted: 17 Sep 2009, 23:47
by Barry Fox CAN262
Depending on time zones, work days and those things it should be linked pretty soon for general viewing.

If I got the wording right it is intended to be a decision about right now, not forever.

As you might guess I have an opinion but I am attempting to remain neutral here due to my position.

When the opportunity presents itself I will vote at home as well as exercise my Executive privilege.

Elsewhere I have stated that I don't particularly care what this vote result is. I do care but it isn't life threatening to me. The biggest thing I would like to see is a good representation of owners in all countries voting. So vote as you think is correct but please vote.

Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 14:34
by RoyL
Barry: Pursuant to Section 4.9 of the Class Regulations, four weeks before any Special Meeting of the World Council, each NCA is required to provide specific, not general information for the upcoming vote. I believe a detailed list including individual owner name and boat registration numbers is required. Accordingly the date for the Special Meeting either would have to be the end of November or this detailed information would have to be submitted in early October, not October 30.

Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 17:33
by Barry Fox CAN262
I'll await instructions.

Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 22:14
by Barry Fox CAN262
With time being what it is, I have unilaterally issued a change of the Notice of Meeting to the WC representatives.

I suspect that at some point the revised version will be posted on teh web site.

Sorry, you don't get out of voting.

Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 00:29
by Lester
Elsewhere, Bruce has asked some important questions. I try to give answers here, intended to be helpful, with regard to the issue of the IOM becomming an ISAF International class.
Andersen wrote:What are the issues?

1) The ISAF requirement that in order to deny appeals at regattas there must be a international jury present. All regattas run under HMS effectively deny the right to appeal.

2) The issue of an international measurer for the IOM class - this requires training, certification, travel, and per diem charges. Who will pay for this?

3) Anti doping and advertising legislation - does this apply to us too?

4) What happens to the signed agreement between ISAF-RSD and IOMICA?

5) Do the ISAF regulations regarding ISAF appointment of race officials, international juries, international umpires, measurers, and technical delegates for international races apply to radio sailing WC's?

6) Do competitor classifications apply to radio sailing?

7) How are the per hull costs calculated? Average hull cost vs. actual cost.
1) Not a class issue, and not strictly true. The issue is already dealt with in RRS 70.5. The International Jury is really only needed for international events -- continental and world championships. Such a Jury is not needed for national events.

2) Again, not strictly true. The issue is dealt with by ISAF Regulation 26.5(g)(v). Class International Measurers are certainly desirable, but the regulation only requires them "if practical".

3) Anti-doping is not a class issue, and is already dealt with by RRS 5. Advertising is a class issue, but is already dealt with by Class Rule C.3.

4) According to the wording of the Agreement itself, it would be terminated by ISAF if the IOM achieves ISAF status, or by mutual agreement, or by one year's notice.

5) What ISAF regulations, exactly? Depending on which ones you have in mind, some may be applicable, others may not...

6) Not a class issue, and is already dealt with by the definition of "rule" in the RRS. (And I think the answer is 'Yes', they apply to radio sailing in general...)

7) The last I heard, the hull sticker fee was stated to be GBP 5 (or so) by ISAF. The issue is dealt with by ISAF Regulation 26.3(c).

In general, issues dealt with by the RRS are not class-specific, but apply to all events run according to the RRS.

[19 Sept 2009 09:40 BST. Edits to distinguish between class issues and general radio sailing issues; and edits to clarify what issues are already dealt with, and what issues are currently relevant if the IOM obtains ISAF recognition as an International class.]
[19 Sept 2009 11:30 BST. Edits to clarify termination of the RSD-IOMICA Agreement; and edits to clarify the role of the RRS.]

Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 12:38
by Lester
Barry Fox CAN262 wrote:I suspect that at some point the revised version will be posted on teh web site.
Hi Barry

I'm sorry that you are unable to post the text here so we can all see it.
Sorry, you don't get out of voting.
No one wants to get out of voting. On the contrary, we all want to vote; the thing is, we all want to vote with clear, accessible, timely information.

Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 15:14
by valpro
I'm sorry that you are unable to post the text here so we can all see it
I expect Barry is too!
No one wants to get out of voting. On the contrary, we all want to vote; the thing is, we all want to vote with clear, accessible, timely information
So long as you keep on hammering us with extracts from ISAF docs, the questions will keep coming. Cant you use your undoubted skills to create a spreadsheet showing all projected costs post absorbtion by ISAF instead of repeating the same tired old things, post after post. After all if this was a merger/takeover between two bodies one would have to provide the interested parties with chapter and verse on how things would be on every front before a decision was made or an agreement reached. I cant think this situation to be any different.


Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 04:47
by Barry Fox CAN262
The revised version is posted on the home page now. It is really very little different.

I would have thought that everyone would start to work with their fellow countrymen and NCA representatives to lobby for their country to vote in whatever manner they felt was correct. Certainly, there is always room for more discussion so I don't mean to cut that off and won't.

I have stated elsewhere that I really don't care what the result works out to be as either option (Yes or No) will. I fully believe, still allow me to sail my boat on a patch of water whenever possible.

I do have an opinion though and I will express that via my vote within my own country as well by exercising my privilege as an Executive member at the WC level.

So vote in whatever direction you think currently is best for the organization but most of all please vote.

Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 16:35
by RoyL
Barry: Like you, I think it's really important that we have an election with a strong turn out that gives an accurate reflection of the class members' wishes.

I was a little surprised therefore that the Exec didn't opt for a later meeting date to give the NCAs more time to put together comprehensive voting lists and poll all their members.

I was wondering if the NCAs or the World Council were consulted regarding this choice? I know that here in the US we will likely be hard pressed to get an accurate, updated list put together in the next week or so.

The last thing the class needs is another problematic election with a low voter turn out.

Posted: 23 Sep 2009, 07:29
by Barry Fox CAN262
I was asked elsewhere about the voting process and where the 2/3 thing comes in, etc. My long answer is:

This is my best answer and I believe it supports the directions given. It may not be the way it has been done but seems to me to support the printed word.

The meetings are not actually a meeting of owners but a meeting of the World Council. The votes taken at WC meetings are from the members of the WC which are all of the NCA Representatives plus all of the current Executive.

For the purpose of the upcoming meeting we are treating it as a Special Resolution.

From the Constitution we get:

8.8.2 - A Special resolution shall be passed only if 2/3rds or more of the votes cast are in its favour.

Then in the Regulations we get some more detail on how that is done.

So we have, from the Regulations:

4.13. Only members of the World Council shall be entitled to vote at any meeting of the World Council. The number of votes to be cast by a Member NCA or NCS representative in any vote in meetings of the World Council shall be in accordance with the number of Registered Owners (for voting on ordinary resolutions) or Certificated Owners (for voting on Special resolutions) in the Member’s country as follows: (and then the list of voting strength)

So at this point we have the WC members doing the voting and each having some number of votes to cast depending on the Owner Lists.

Next it is determined that the meeting only moves forward if:

4.15. The quorum at World Council meetings shall be 40% of the World Council Members, represented in person or by proxy.

At the moment we have 22 NCAs represented on the WC and 6 Exec members (VC Measurement is currently vacant) so that makes for 28 possible attendees and 40% is 12 that are needed to clear that barrier.

Then there is:

4.19. Where a resolution has been put to Certificated Owner or Registered Owner ballot by a Member NCA or Member NCS, the Member NCA or the Member NCS shall vote on the resolution in the World Council strictly according to the outcome of such owner ballot.

In order to bring some sanity to the immediately past recount of the election it was decided to clarify what that means. And we said:

It is further understood that the meaning of this Regulation is that, within the Owner ballot outcome for an individual NCA, the words “strictly according to the outcome of such owner ballotâ€

Posted: 27 Sep 2009, 18:20
by valpro
I promised to find out costs and this is the first part.
According to the International Measurer David Chivers his time is charged out to the class for attendance at Championships at £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. You dont have to be Einstein to see that a week long event would costs about £1800 for his time alone + the rest and that would be met out of the regatta entry fees. I would guess between £2500 - 3000 per trip.
As to ISAF regulations and requirements, remember that the ISAF Executive dont make the decisions, they only investigate and report back to the committees affected. They in turn will decide, so at the moment we cannot know what concessions are possible and if given, whether they will last from one yearly meeting to the next. I would personally be doubtful as there are other groups in the ISAF membership who would seize eagerly on any concessions that we might get, to put pressure on in their own interests. If that happened, the committee would probably not be too sympathetic to our cause, seen in the wider picture.
And just because ISAF are being a bit relaxed about enforcing the rules and regulations just remember that the wording of the Regulations at least, are stated to be 'not negotiable'. Its not the ISAF Exec we need to be talking to but the committee members and we just haven't got the time to do that.

Posted: 27 Sep 2009, 20:57
by jandejmo
I keep getting amazed by some of the things I read in this forum about how ISAF is supposed to work, supposed to want, etc.
valpro wrote:As to ISAF regulations and requirements, remember that the ISAF Executive dont make the decisions, they only investigate and report back to the committees affected. They in turn will decide ...
Val, could you please tell me where you found this information?


Posted: 27 Sep 2009, 21:51
by valpro
Well actually, from the ISAF website under the heading 'about ISAF'. I would recommend everyone to take a look and get a better understanding about how ISAF is made up, what it does and how it functions. Very clear and informative.

Posted: 27 Sep 2009, 22:02
by jandejmo
I had a look at "About ISAF" at

Very clear and informative as you say, but I did not find the information you presented in your previous post.


Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 00:30
by RoyL
Jan: You are right. Val did seem to shorthand the ISAF decision making process. It would seem that the paid ISAF staff and National Authorities and others can make recommendations to Committees, and Committees can make recommendations and proposals to the Council and the ISAF Council is the final deciding, voting body.

From what I have been told (and perhaps this is not correct) in most matters, whatever is recommended by the relevant ISAF Committee is usually passed by the Council. Not a certainty, but this happens often enough that it could be said that the reality of the situation is as Val described, that is it is at the various ISAF Committees where most issues are resolved if not voted upon.

But all of this brings me back to a question I tried to ask a while back and never did receive an answer--how is all of this supposed to work in practice? For example, when rule changes need to reviewed who does it? Paid staff? Someone at a Committee? A full Committee? The ISAF Council? Some combination? Similarly, with issues like measurement, and officials and even drug testing, what is the practical, real word answer/experience on what ISAF will require of IOMICA? I know what the rules say, but as someone with real experience at ISAF can you tell us how you think things actually work?

Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 10:39
by jandejmo
Hi Roy

As stated in the introduction to the Seahorse Magazine article published at the ISAF web site it was written a few years ago, but if you read Equipment Committee where it is stated Sailing Committee then I think it is probably the simplest and still reasonably accurate description of the ISAF decision making process I have read.

In an attempt to answer your question about how decision making process works in practice I would like to describe it slightly more in detail.

A submission received is placed on the agenda of the committees whose terms of reference are believed to cover the issue(s) in the submission. From memory the ISAF staff proposes the committees and the Executive Committee makes the final decision.

The committees listed are required to make a recommendation on the submission to the Council. A sub-committee listed however makes its recommendation to its “main committeeâ€

Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 10:46
by jandejmo
International Measurers

How ICAs address the IM issue vary from classes hiring professionals to carry out the job to classes having IMs that do it for the love of the class and only ask for any travelling and lodging cost to be covered.

Recruiting of other international race officials is often done in co-operation between the race organiser and the ICA to find the best ways to reduce costs. ICAs as well as the race organisers want good events with competitive fleets.


Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 20:54
by valpro
Jan, Bruce is correct in describing my coments as a shorthand version, but I find your reply was worth the effort. A clear and straightforward explanation of how ISAF works and arrives at its decisions has to be a very beneficial addition to this. thread. Thank you.

Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 21:00
by jandejmo

No problem