Managing technical resolutions
Posted: 02 Dec 2012, 20:15
The poor quality of the technical resolutions put to the vote recently had me scratching my head. It seems that the provisions of IOMICA Regulations to ensure sound proposals were not being used to their full extent.
IOMICA Regulation 7.2 “A proposed amendment to the IOM Class Rules shall first be submitted to and passed by the Technical Sub-Committee before being submitted to the vote of the World Council” is certainly criticised by some, so it might be worth explaining the thinking behind it.
Any class rule amendment will need careful, technical scrutiny to be sure it is coherent, consistent, and conformant, and if it is not, it will need careful technical editing. The real question is who should give this careful attention. There are three choices: (i) No one / the Owners / the World Council, (ii) IOMICA Technical Sub-Committee (TSC), or (iii) the Joint IRSA-IOMICA committee which has a voting majority in favour of IRSA.
Choice (i) is not credible. This leaves (ii) or (iii).
Since an amendment, once passed by a vote of the World Council, must go to the Joint IRSA-IOMICA Committee, the time to make choice (ii) is before the vote, while the time to make choice (iii) is afterwards.
On the assumption (smile) that IOM owners and IOM NCAs wish their class to be managed by IOMICA, then they should be happy with choice (ii). If anyone thinks that IRSA is the better organisation to manage the IOM class, then naturally their choice is (iii).
So IOMICA Regulation 7.2 is written on the assumption that IOMICA is in a better position to manage its own Class Rules than is IRSA. Let's use it!
If anyone thinks that the IOMICA TSC is not competent or misuses its position while following Regulation 7.2, then as in any democratic organisation they are free to propose opposing candidates at the next IOMICA Exec election. And if anyone thinks that the IOMICA TSC is guilty of gross incompetence, then Regulation 4.5 permits an emergency World Council meeting.
IOMICA Regulation 7.2 “A proposed amendment to the IOM Class Rules shall first be submitted to and passed by the Technical Sub-Committee before being submitted to the vote of the World Council” is certainly criticised by some, so it might be worth explaining the thinking behind it.
Any class rule amendment will need careful, technical scrutiny to be sure it is coherent, consistent, and conformant, and if it is not, it will need careful technical editing. The real question is who should give this careful attention. There are three choices: (i) No one / the Owners / the World Council, (ii) IOMICA Technical Sub-Committee (TSC), or (iii) the Joint IRSA-IOMICA committee which has a voting majority in favour of IRSA.
Choice (i) is not credible. This leaves (ii) or (iii).
Since an amendment, once passed by a vote of the World Council, must go to the Joint IRSA-IOMICA Committee, the time to make choice (ii) is before the vote, while the time to make choice (iii) is afterwards.
On the assumption (smile) that IOM owners and IOM NCAs wish their class to be managed by IOMICA, then they should be happy with choice (ii). If anyone thinks that IRSA is the better organisation to manage the IOM class, then naturally their choice is (iii).
So IOMICA Regulation 7.2 is written on the assumption that IOMICA is in a better position to manage its own Class Rules than is IRSA. Let's use it!
If anyone thinks that the IOMICA TSC is not competent or misuses its position while following Regulation 7.2, then as in any democratic organisation they are free to propose opposing candidates at the next IOMICA Exec election. And if anyone thinks that the IOMICA TSC is guilty of gross incompetence, then Regulation 4.5 permits an emergency World Council meeting.