Wess

ILCA gives LPE the boot... seeking new Laser builder

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

I'm missing where Andy, Eric or Tracy have lied.  The only misrepresentation I've seen is the one about WS being completely on their side.  

Where have they lied? 

Sorry, we typed over each other.

The WS was one but minor in my mind. The WC information referenced in the voting material is the one that is inexcusable in my opinion.  Go back up thread to where IPL had his WTF moment.  His "not like this" comment.  That is what I am referencing.  I knew that was coming for a while.  And there are a lot of folks pissed about it.  I can't say I blame them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wess said:

Instead ILCA leadership went into this knowing they didn't have the support of the majority in Europe.

ILCA doesn't exclusively represent Europe. Just because Europe doesn't agree, doesn't mean other regions shouldn't have a say or an option to voice an opinion. It's also possible a lot of Europeans might agree with the rule change. We just hear the most vocal dissenters. It's also possible the situation is exactly what we think it is, but, we won't know until there's a vote. Just because Europe throws a hissy fit doesn't mean there shouldn't be a vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

ILCA doesn't exclusively represent Europe. Just because Europe doesn't agree, doesn't mean other regions shouldn't have a say or an option to voice an opinion. It's also possible a lot of Europeans might agree with the rule change. We just hear the most vocal dissenters. It's also possible the situation is exactly what we think it is, but, we won't know until there's a vote. Just because Europe throws a hissy fit doesn't mean there shouldn't be a vote

I am not saying they exclusively represent Europe.  I am saying they represent - or rather are supposed to represent - their members. Fact is the majority are in Europe.

If the European reaction was similar to my and the the US reaction I wouldn't care less how they got rid of LPE so long it was legal and they don't get us dragged into court and have to use sailors dues to pay lawyers.  But that ain't the case. And if - the best possible way you can say this to support a view opposite to mine is - you don't know if you have member's support you don't go taking many, many steps forward without taking the temperature of the organization.  And for sure you don't put out voting material trying to get your way, contrary to what appears to me a majority opposed by misrepresenting the views of your own members.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wess said:

With respect, what are you smoking?  A class is supposed to represent its members.  Remember them?  Instead ILCA leadership went into this knowing they didn't have the support of the majority in Europe.  Even worse they misrepresented and lied about the views of those European leaders in the voting material.  That is as plain as the nose on your face.  I can't believe I am typing that.  I was described as somebody who blindly followed the class view.  Seriously how can you possibly defend what they have done here.  They are suppose to represent their members not lie about them and work around them.  Good grief.  I have no doubt they are good people doing what they think is right but this really is inexcusable. 

Ok.  (I'm just talking here and not pissed off so don't read that into my words) How long have we all sat around and complained about LP and wished to God they were gone?  I totally see what they've, (LP) done.  They have apparently done a great job of keeping the EU happy while extending the middle finger to the rest their "territory" they are responsible for "keeping butts in boats" in.  I don't see where the ILCA guys have said the EU people are happy with what's happening. It's been clear from their releases they are not.  ILCA is saying this vote allows for an "option" to get away from LP IF the negotiation doesn't happen.  It also protects us from getting into this mess in the future IF needed.   Of course they are telling us to vote "yes" because they think it's the best way to go IF needed.  I agree.  I also TRUST they will continue to work to keep LP in as a provider assuming LP tows the necessary line and because this is the easiest path to keep the boat in the Olympics, (which is still the main end goal).  This class vote has no effect on that end game.   (other than piss off LP, but they want the boat in the Olympics too and they want to be one of the builders)

Yes- some of the EU people are happy with the status quo and yes the vote may fail, but if you were ever going to try it now is the time.  

So, what's the downside if the vote fails?  Well- we still have LP in control.  Now, either way the class is going to be hurt if we loose the Olympic berth.  However, IF the vote fails AND we loose the Olympic berth I think we can kiss the class goodbye in NA with LP still in control.  

IF this vote didn't exist AND we lost the Olympic berth I think the result for us in NA would be the same with LP in control.

I can see how this vote really pisses off LP, but I don't think they will walk away from the Olympics over it pass or fail.  Actually, if it passes and they walk we're good.  If it fails and they walk then we're all hosed either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear. I have never suggested that Tracy, Eric , Andy or anyone at ILCA has told a lie.  I would not make that suggestion, nor do I believe it for a moment. 

I am disappointed because I believe they made a couple of unfortunate decisions and could have done more to build consensus. I hope they can be self critical as well.

Please do not ignore the criticism I leveled at all the other parties as well.

There will be a tendency for the fan clubs of each grouping to take umbrage at the criticism I leveled at their group.  They miss the overarching point that the sailing community can justifiably express disappointment at everyone involved. 

If any of the class leaders and builders want to start the ball rolling in a different and more positive direction, then they could have the courage to sign the petition themselves.  Imagine if Andy Roy and Jean Luc each signed the petition. After all, the petition's message is simple:

"WE THE SAILORS DON'T WANT A WAR "     http://chng.it/Bd8T9ytZzP    

Imagine if they each signed publicly and said "I want to raise my hand and acknowledge that we could and should have done this better. I want to extend my hand in friendship to my fellow Laser sailors in North America/Europe (as appropriate) and work together to build a solution. We need to turn over a new leaf in this chapter"

Imagine the break through if everyone is openly acknowledging that they disappointed their constituents and suddenly Farzad signs the petition and says I made a mistake trying to impose a new trademark agreement and we at LP acknowledge that we have done a poor logistical job in North America and "we the sailors at LP dont want a war"

Because nobody is exempt here. If there is any party in my post who you think has not disappointed Laser sailors somewhere, point them out to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sigh… in the nothing ever happens at a good time department, I’m in Italy this week for a more intensive than expected workshop related to my day job which means I can’t fully engage right at the moment. I don’t expect to get really free until Saturday when I head home but I certainly plan to be available to answer questions to the best of my ability at that time. 
 
I’m not going to blow smoke up people’s rears - I will certainly will stand up to take responsibility for any missteps that may have occurred over the past 18 months while we have tried to navigate the minefield of getting selected for the 2024 and 2028 Olympics - as the ILCA President it is my responsibility. All I can say is hindsight is normally 20-20 and for those times when I miss it there are plenty of people more than capable of pointing out the obvious. Still, I would have naively expected that, as in the past, being retained in the Olympics would be a common goal for everyone and the path to getting there would be equally obvious for everyone. So, blame me for carelessly stepping on the mines as we tried to cross the field. 
 
Obviously, there are differences of opinion on how to maintain Olympic status. At the same time, there are also some elements that look at the fact that the class wants to remain in the Olympics as an opportunity to “get something” in return (and I’m not pointing fingers at any single entity when I say that). I think this is a major factor in much of the misinformation that has circulated of late. Personally, I don’t normally see any advantage in engaging in a point-by-point war in these regards, I would hope that the sailors would see that the sailors who volunteer to run the organization will make the same decisions they would. 
 
Clearly that type of strategy is suffering right now... particularly as the World Council is not 100% unified in the approach to retain status. The European members of the World Council have certainly made their point of view known and one has to respect that they have a different perspective. At the same time the remaining members of the World Council equally stand behind the rule change proposal as important to help provide a solution to our current problem and certainly in the best interest of the class overall for its long term future and any actions we have taken are with a solid majority of the World Council supporting it. 
 
Just to remind, the proposition being voted on now was approved by an 11-2 majority at the end of February, it went to World Sailing for their review and the gave the nod just before the midyear meeting. We listened to the advice give to not release a "threatening" vote and let negotiations work through and this has proceeded with some progress recently. However, as seen in World Sailing's summary of the situation from last Friday's meeting (posted previously) there is concern on their part that there is still quite a gap remaining. I know that some would like to say "only a little bit" remains to be resolved but, in reality, that "little bit" is the entire foundation of the procedure for appointing new builders. Given the situaton, if we wanted to have a Plan B option even available there was no choice but to release the ballot this past Monday. But also note that this cannot diminish the pressure to get to an agreement on Plan A - we won't know the result of the ballot until the end of this month and a 2/3 majority is a pretty tall mountain to overcome. So, yes, we will continue to try to work to get a solution which allows us to comply with World Sailing's Olympic Equipment Policy under the Laser brand. At the same time, have an alternate option is important AND, in any case, it is the right thing for the long term future of the class. 
 
Also to note, even if the proposed change is adopted by the sailors AND we cannot come to a resolution for Plan A, it does NOT mean the end of LaserPerformance as a builder. Quite clearly, they could, and presumably would, still be a builder. The procedure for approving new builders is meant to be objective, meaning one cannot not approve a builder because "you don't like them".
 
Further, I just have to say that Eric Faust, as a Laser sailor himself, is totally dedicated to the Laser Class. There just simply is no sinister purpose in anything he is trying to do to keep the Laser at the forefront of sailing well into the future. As these things go, the moment you post information you become open to attack as people interpret it the way they want. But I, and I’m sure most people who know him, know that he is totally dedicated to his job. 
 
As I said above, I’m a bit pressed for time over the next couple of days but will endeavor to try to address some of the issues I’ve seen as I’ve get the time to address them. I return to California on Saturday and hope to be able to spend a significant amount of time on this topic in the next few weeks. 
 
Tracy
 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SFBayLaser said:
Just to remind, the proposition being voted on now was approved by an 11-2 majority at the end of February, it went to World Sailing for their review and the gave the nod just before the midyear meeting. We listened to the advice give to not release a "threatening" vote and let negotiations work through and this has proceeded with some progress recently. However, as seen in World Sailing's summary of the situation from last Friday's meeting (posted previously) there is concern on their part that there is still quite a gap remaining. I know that some would like to say "only a little bit" remains to be resolved but, in reality, that "little bit" is the entire foundation of the procedure for appointing new builders. Given the situaton, if we wanted to have a Plan B option even available there was no choice but to release the ballot this past Monday. But also note that this cannot diminish the pressure to get to an agreement on Plan A - we won't know the result of the ballot until the end of this month and a 2/3 majority is a pretty tall mountain to overcome. So, yes, we will continue to try to work to get a solution which allows us to comply with World Sailing's Olympic Equipment Policy under the Laser brand. At the same time, have an alternate option is important AND, in any case, it is the right thing for the long term future of the class. 
 
Also to note, even if the proposed change is adopted by the sailors AND we cannot come to a resolution for Plan A, it does NOT mean the end of LaserPerformance as a builder. Quite clearly, they could, and presumably would, still be a builder. The procedure for approving new builders is meant to be objective, meaning one cannot not approve a builder because "you don't like them". 
 

Here's the meat of it folks.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

Ok.  (I'm just talking here and not pissed off so don't read that into my words) How long have we all sat around and complained about LP and wished to God they were gone?  I totally see what they've, (LP) done.  They have apparently done a great job of keeping the EU happy while extending the middle finger to the rest their "territory" they are responsible for "keeping butts in boats" in.  I don't see where the ILCA guys have said the EU people are happy with what's happening. It's been clear from their releases they are not.  ILCA is saying this vote allows for an "option" to get away from LP IF the negotiation doesn't happen.  It also protects us from getting into this mess in the future IF needed.   Of course they are telling us to vote "yes" because they think it's the best way to go IF needed.  I agree.  I also TRUST they will continue to work to keep LP in as a provider assuming LP tows the necessary line and because this is the easiest path to keep the boat in the Olympics, (which is still the main end goal).  This class vote has no effect on that end game.   (other than piss off LP, but they want the boat in the Olympics too and they want to be one of the builders)

Yes- some of the EU people are happy with the status quo and yes the vote may fail, but if you were ever going to try it now is the time.  

So, what's the downside if the vote fails?  Well- we still have LP in control.  Now, either way the class is going to be hurt if we loose the Olympic berth.  However, IF the vote fails AND we loose the Olympic berth I think we can kiss the class goodbye in NA with LP still in control.  

IF this vote didn't exist AND we lost the Olympic berth I think the result for us in NA would be the same with LP in control.

I can see how this vote really pisses off LP, but I don't think they will walk away from the Olympics over it pass or fail.  Actually, if it passes and they walk we're good.  If it fails and they walk then we're all hosed either way.

Look I don't know how to make it any more simple than this:

This - In a vote of the ILCA World Council, this rule change was overwhelmingly approved by an 11 to 2 margin, including the unanimous approval of all six ILCA Regional Chairmen.  - is a gross misrepresentation, a blatant one sided view (of views within our organization), a lie.  And I don't think its nearly the only lie they have told if even half of what was said to me is true or I could figure out on my own is true and I suspect it is. At its best, statements like this that are so blatantly over the top misrepresentations of really important facts that is undermines whatever credibility they had.  Its not just a lie.  Its a STUPID LIE which is what scares me even more.  It leads to a view that they will say and do anything

So its clear, I don't have a dog in this.  Not racing any more and not a member.  I don't think they are bad people or will make any money off this either way.

But if I was a member I would vote no.  Because it forces a stop to this insanity.  And this insanity is much worse than the supply problem we had in the US. 

And I would fight for a path out of these woods.  I believe there is one but it can't involve people who would lie, misrepresent, BS to promote their own agenda (insert whatever PC word you like).  In my mind they lied flat out plain and simple lied about and to their own membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy,

You have my sympathy. Italy at this time of year is tough. But somebody has to do it.

I hope you understand the basis of my post.  Solutions are never found and rifts are never healed if everyone wrings their hands and say "It was all the other guy's fault"  Instead if everyone acknowledges their contribution to the misunderstanding then it is astonishing how many new routes to a constructive solution start to appear.

Good Luck and safe return

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Wess said:

I am not saying they exclusively represent Europe.  I am saying they represent - or rather are supposed to represent - their members. Fact is the majority are in Europe.

If the European reaction was similar to my and the the US reaction I wouldn't care less how they got rid of LPE so long it was legal and they don't get us dragged into court and have to use sailors dues to pay lawyers.  But that ain't the case. And if - the best possible way you can say this to support a view opposite to mine is - you don't know if you have member's support you don't go taking many, many steps forward without taking the temperature of the organization.  And for sure you don't put out voting material trying to get your way, contrary to what appears to me a majority opposed by misrepresenting the views of your own members.

 

I understand your point, thanks. I don't entirely disagree with you, either. I just think we are still getting caught in our own assumptions about a lot of this regarding how much leg work was done, and, when these things needed to happen in order to meet the Aug. 1 deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Wess said:

This - In a vote of the ILCA World Council, this rule change was overwhelmingly approved by an 11 to 2 margin, including the unanimous approval of All six ILCA Regional Chairmen.  - is a gross misrepresentation, a blatant one sided view (of views within our organization), a lie.  

Tracy just posted that again.  It's a lie?  I'm serious in this question.  Help me understand how this is a lie?  

Was one bag of goods sold and then a different bag delivered?  If so, in what way?  What do you know, how do you know it, who do you know it from?  

Everyone is free to chime in on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

ILCA inserted themselves needlessly into one

Nope.  They are parties to the essential agreements.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Tracy,

You have my sympathy. Italy at this time of year is tough. But somebody has to do it.

I hope you understand the basis of my post.  Solutions are never found and rifts are never healed if everyone wrings their hands and say "It was all the other guy's fault"  Instead if everyone acknowledges their contribution to the misunderstanding then it is astonishing how many new routes to a constructive solution start to appear.

Good Luck and safe return

I think the main point of this is "He's a volunteer and has a real job to contend with at the same time this is all going down!"  I mean really, who would put this shit show on themselves doing volunteer work?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbie:  All the parties want a healthy class and they want the Laser to stay in the Olympics. With such unity on the goal and such common alignment of interest, consensus and compromise is clearly feasible. There is a failure to build consensus around a plan that has broad support.  If the vote passes by 67%, there will be 33% of the class who are unhappy. If the votes fails, there might be as many as 60% who are disappointed. Neither are good outcomes.

Wess is outraged. He is either outraged at something bad done by ILCA or outraged because he misunderstood an announcement from ILCA. It doesnt matter which. He is outraged.

My philosophy in life and business is that if I take a decision that upsets someone who works for or with me or they strongly disagree with me.....then there are only two possible explanations:

1. I was wrong and I should change the decision.

2. I was right but I explained my decision badly and I created a misunderstanding which I have to correct.

In both cases, I accept that I needed to do better.  I never say "Oh they are just plain wrong or stupid"      

(In some cases I take decisions designed to upset 3rd parties but that is part of my job and a whole different story. I'm good at that and I know it when I see it. It takes a poacher to be a good game keeper) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Wess is outraged. He is either outraged at something bad done by ILCA or outraged because he misunderstood an announcement from ILCA. It doesnt matter which. He is outraged.

This is what I'm trying to get my head around.  I can see people saying "What the hell?" but I feel like it's being well enough explained and when I follow the procession of the past year I get it.  I don't understand where some, (particularly NA region) are outraged and I want to understand why.  

Outrage is not good.  People have a hard time getting past outrage.  So, I feel like I'm missing something important here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

Tracy just posted that again.  It's a lie? 

Tracy is literally and factually correct in his statement. Wess contends that it doesn't matter what the World Council members voted in February, that what matters is what they think now, in spite of the fact that there is no Council vote pending now. Wess just says, "I don't care about literacy or the facts of yesterday. It's where people stand right now that should count; so by hiding the status quo, Tracy blatantly lies." 

Consider the following hypothetical situation: We can all unanimously vote FOR something. The leadership can then take measures based on our unanimous votes in favor. And then later, some of us can say, "Sorry. We two changed our minds. So, it's not unanimous. It's just a majority decision now."

According to Wess, the leadership (although still in the right to act based on the majority decision) is then no longer (ethically) in the right to claim that they had planned to take the measures they took based on the earlier "unanimous" votes, knowing well that two of the voters changed their votes later, albeit too late. 

It's a logical semantics battle.

I would like to know how and when the European members of the World Council were "misled" by other WC members to vote the way they did. (And historical evidence suggests that they are prone to be misled by the other WC members.) Just claiming they were misled is not sufficient in my mind.

Edited by drLaser
"Historical evidence" incorporated into last paragraph.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone reach out to Jean Luc to ask how he feels that he was mislead?

Understand that it was Jean Luc that as EurILCA voted in favor of the change in February, a vote that was duly recorded.

The more recent vote (11-2) shows Jean Luc and Alex being the two who opposed the vote.

Then the question becomes: did ILCA mislead him or has he become mislead since?

Jean Luc is central to this, and his story needs to be heard in order to get to the bottom of it.

Jean Luc? Are you reading this?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BruceH-NZ said:

Can someone reach out to Jean Luc to ask how he feels that he was mislead?

Understand that it was Jean Luc that as EurILCA voted in favor of the change in February, a vote that was duly recorded.

The more recent vote (11-2) shows Jean Luc and Alex being the two who opposed the vote.

Then the question becomes: did ILCA mislead him or has he become mislead since?

Jean Luc is central to this, and his story needs to be heard in order to get to the bottom of it.

Jean Luc? Are you reading this?

There hasn't been a more recent vote? 11-2 was the original result from February, in which Jean-Luc voted for unbranding the class rules.

I also have to wonder about Jean-Luc's thought process. He has a lot more skin in the game than the other WC members - his daughter is an Olympic campaigner in the Radial. My only answer is that he must know something we don't about LPE and the other builders coming to an agreement before August. All other courses of action would lead to the Laser getting kicked out from the Olympics. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, greenwhiteblack said:

There hasn't been a more recent vote? 11-2 was the original result from February, in which Jean-Luc voted for unbranding the class rules.

I probably got the dates wrong. Thank you, whoever you are. :)  

Getting to the truth is important here!!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, IPLore said:

OMG.

 

All bets off.

 

What a disaster and mismanagement of the process.

 

When ILCA announced earlier today that this vote had the support of all regional representatives on World Council, we all naturally assumed that the class leadership had come together on this in recent days.       I imagined that the Europeans present at Fridays meeting had met with Tracy and agreed that it was now time to make the rule change.  Its incredible if the ILCA statement was based on a World Council vote from 5 months ago!!!!   

 Tracy, if you are reading this.  How can you announce a vote and announce it is supported by the European class representatives when it seems that they do not support the vote?    What happened to building consensus? 

The optics are terrible. 

 

I am not going to go any further than just quoting this.  I am not as polite or into appeasement.  Too old and crotchety.  And this only scratches the surface in my opinion.  But outrage would be too strong a description.  Disappointed, disillusioned, and just sick of it...  and expect better from class leadership about the class and its members. The European have a view and its not a hissy fit just because you have a different view.

Not asking you or anyone else to like it or agree.  Its an opinion.  Form your own.

  * I would vote no to the rule change (and hope majority agrees as it will save the class).

  * If asked and we legally could I would vote LPE out of the US (they can't or won't supply) and suspect majority in US would agree.

  * If asked and we could I would vote current class leadership out of office (lack of confidence that they support) and suspect majority of ILCA members would agree.

I also would have bought a Torch but that was a lie too.

Oh and I would vote Gouv as president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm - just got an invitation from the Laser Class to vote on the rule change.

Maybe they think I am still a member of the class?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tillerman said:

Hmmm - just got an invitation from the Laser Class to vote on the rule change.

Maybe they think I am still a member of the class?
 

I got the same from the QLD Laser Association, even though I'm not currently a financial member.  Guessing they've just gone to the usual mailing list as I never stopped receiving newsletters etc once my membership lapsed

Edit:  I didn't get that from the QLD Laser Association, their email yesterday was just a coming events update.  The email I received about the vote was from PSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JMP said:

I got the same from the QLD Laser Association, even though I'm not currently a financial member.  Guessing they've just gone to the usual mailing list as I never stopped receiving newsletters etc once my membership lapsed

I guess so. I hope they are going to do a good audit of the actual votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tillerman said:

I guess so. I hope they are going to do a good audit of the actual votes.

just corrected myself above after going back and re-reading what was received, didn't get it from the QLA, came from PSA :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JMP said:

just corrected myself above after going back and re-reading what was received, didn't get it from the QLA, came from PSA :)

So PSA are sending out invitations to vote to some email list they have? Interesting. 

Mine did come from my district Laser class. Maybe I will get another invitation to vote from LaserPerformance? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wess said:

If asked and we could I would vote current class leadership out of office (lack of confidence that they support) and suspect majority of ILCA members would agree.

For now, and according to the constitution, only the representatives get to vote for the World Council.

I am confident that Eric and Tracy have the support of those who elected them.

I realize that maybe Wess has a point, that the majority of members in Europe may currently vote against Tracy and Eric right now. Understand that is a consequence of a smear campaign. It is my view that there are a ton who are misinformed - the Masters meeting made that crystal clear, and that is backed up by what is being said on social media.

For now, it is important that the right questions are asked. Central right now is Jean Luc. (What is really going on Jean Luc?)

---

Ha. Non members being asked to vote. I'm a current, paid up member, and haven't been asked to vote (at least yet). 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wess said:

 Instead ILCA leadership went into this knowing they didn't have the support of the majority in Europe.  

You appear to be making the assumption that ILCA is not accurately representing the opinions of its membership, but that Europe LCA is. I'm not sure there's any reliable information as to whether either proposition is correct. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tillerman said:

I hope they are going to do a good audit of the actual votes.

As implied earlier, no matter how well and how independently the votes are audited, there are structural problems that will make this vote (like all other past votes) not a vote by all ILCA membership!

I had noted earlier that ALG, AND, ANT, BAH, BAR, BRN, BUL, CAY, COL, CRO, ECU, GIB, GRE, GRN, ISL, ISR, IVB, LTU, PUR, SLO, SRB & TUR have no specific "Laser Class Associations" to speak of. In these countries, nobody has an opportunity to become a "member" of ILCA and have a voice in the governance of the Class. There are no membership fees requested from the sailors; no class executive committee (Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer); no ILCA-District Constitution ; no compliance with the "ILCA District Association By-Law", either.

In these countries, there is a central "sailing federation" that, as the MNO of the country, governs everything related to sailing in that country, including "licensing" sailors so that they can race. The voices of none of the individual Laser sailors will be heard (probably including mine) in such countries. Typically, there's a "Laser contact person" at the federation who deals with all ILCA issues. 

For years now, ILCA has not been interested in dealing with this undemocratic anomaly, claiming such countries are "in good standing with ILCA, anyway", i.e., paying the Class a negotiated number of membership fees in bulk on behalf of all local Laser racers of that District.

At least in Turkey (TUR, where I have been residing for the past 15 years), there hasn't ever been a discussion of any ILCA Class Rules voting for the past 15 years. Nor is there a discussion right now, in spite of the fact that I am distributing summaries of this discussion to the federation officials, clubs,  sailing schools, private Laser owners, Olympic contenders, etc. In such countries, "ILCA" is not even heard of, and doing anything about this may be considered "rocking the boat" (and can even offend the State)!

It seems to me that, that may be offending even ILCA: It's much easier to convince just one "federation contact person" to vote in a particular way. (I know I am being unfair here. My frustration shows.)

Personally, as a "Turkish Sailing Federation-licensed" Laser racer and Laser owner, I will vote online, but I will have no means of even knowing whether my vote will/did count or not (since the Class has never disclosed how they handle votes from such Districts where Laser sailors do not vote individually).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JimC said:

You appear to be making the assumption that ILCA is not accurately representing the opinions of its membership, but that Europe LCA is. I'm not sure there's any reliable information as to whether either proposition is correct. 

No I am basing that opinion on various discussions, on line comments and other. That said I don’t know which way a vote will go. But I will say ILCA should not have taken action without knowing how a vote would go or taking one first; nor should they put out deliberately misleading information. 

There are many many ways they could have done this better even if taking a vote now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BruceH-NZ said:

Ha. Non members being asked to vote. I'm a current, paid up member, and haven't been asked to vote (at least yet). 

I wrote that at 10:21 AM local time.

The email asking for my vote from my district was sent at 10:44 AM.
 

Quote

Nick's Message
ILCA has opened the membership vote for a rule change to try and secure the place of the class in the Olympics for 2024 and beyond. I strongly believe that this option is the best for the class and hope that you will agree and vote YES to the ballot. Every vote is critical so please take the time to have a look at all the info and register your vote.

If you would like further info on any aspect of the issue before voting please feel free to contact me at Xxxx@xxxxx.co.nz, and I can either provide a reply by e mail or organise to talk through the issues.

---

These questions about democratic process are important, but not critical. I promise that I will do my best to make this happen. I am more nuts about democracy than I am about Laser sailing. Trust me, there are improvements to be made. But not right now.

---

Right now, the vote is about:

1) Make sure that our class will remain in the Olympics.
2) Allow for healthy market competition and ensure that class-legal equipment is available in ALL parts of the world.
3) Give control of our class to the sailors, not the commercial parties.

In particular, "Give control of our class to the sailors, not the commercial parties".

That is not some trick, or made up BS. It is not some weird conspiracy to get rid of Laser Performance.

It is about stopping Farzad Rastegar using the trademark as leverage. Specifically, elevating the importance of the trademark so that he gets to potentially charge a higher fee which increases the cost of boats, and influence or directly select who can build Lasers.

That is not right.

Key to getting the votes, is making sure the European ILCA members get to be informed. It is crystal clear that many European ILCA members are currently misinformed.

This is not about mud slinging or some witch hunt. It is about making sure that the truth is established.

---

Jean Luc appears to be saying that he was mislead.

Let's get to the bottom of this - asap. If Jean Luc is holding onto some important information about how he feels he was mislead, then I want to hear it before I vote.

Can someone reach out to Jean Luc? I have already tried. I have had no response, which isn't surprising. (I'm one of the bad guys, right?)

---

An open message to Jean Luc. 

Jean Luc, please speak up. We the sailors, really want to hear your version of what is going on.

I know that you Jean Luc have invested lots of time into Laser sailing. That your daughter did really well at the Europeans, than your son Felix helps out with the French Laser Assn, AFL. Your commitment is beyond question.

So please, start speaking up, or people with think you have something to hide. Transparency is key to good democracy!

All the best,

Bruce Hudson.
(ILCA member).

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wess said:

No.

Business conflicts are a reality.  Courts and a legal system exists to deal with such conflicts.  ILCA inserted themselves needlessly into one and even went so far as to weaponize it.  I could see past that and even agree that if they had the support of their members. But they don't.  Clearly.  They did this knowing they don't have the support of their members in Europe.  And I can't believe I am typing this... they went so far as to lie and misrepresent views of their own members to advance their own agenda and try to win a vote... against their own members??!!

The only analogy I can come up with is the behavior of good people you know going through a bad divorce and thinking the end justifies the means.

The World Council voted on this rule change (and to be ready to take it to a membership vote if deemed necessary) several months ago with an 11-2 vote.  Only the LP rep and the Past President voted against, with the European regional Chairman voting for the change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tillerman said:

Hmmm - just got an invitation from the Laser Class to vote on the rule change.

Maybe they think I am still a member of the class?
 

No, we don’t think you’re a member of the class. Sherri and I decided to send to former members who could perhaps be considering rejoining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

No, we don’t think you’re a member of the class. Sherri and I decided to send to former members who could perhaps be considering rejoining. 

Thank you. That's very considerate. If I ever start racing Lasers again I will certainly rejoin the class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tillerman said:

So PSA are sending out invitations to vote to some email list they have? Interesting. 

Mine did come from my district Laser class. Maybe I will get another invitation to vote from LaserPerformance? 

Nobody can vote if they're not a member. The vote tabulation process will be completely above board as it's always been. Non-members are receiving invitations to vote, but can do so only if they join the class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wess said:

Look I don't know how to make it any more simple than this:

This - In a vote of the ILCA World Council, this rule change was overwhelmingly approved by an 11 to 2 margin, including the unanimous approval of all six ILCA Regional Chairmen.  - is a gross misrepresentation, a blatant one sided view (of views within our organization), a lie.  And I don't think its nearly the only lie they have told if even half of what was said to me is true or I could figure out on my own is true and I suspect it is. At its best, statements like this that are so blatantly over the top misrepresentations of really important facts that is undermines whatever credibility they had.  Its not just a lie.  Its a STUPID LIE which is what scares me even more.  It leads to a view that they will say and do anything

So its clear, I don't have a dog in this.  Not racing any more and not a member.  I don't think they are bad people or will make any money off this either way.

But if I was a member I would vote no.  Because it forces a stop to this insanity.  And this insanity is much worse than the supply problem we had in the US. 

And I would fight for a path out of these woods.  I believe there is one but it can't involve people who would lie, misrepresent, BS to promote their own agenda (insert whatever PC word you like).  In my mind they lied flat out plain and simple lied about and to their own membership.

Mr. Wess, just trying to be absolutely clear on what you're saying here. It seems to be clear, but I might be missing something. Are you saying that the claim that the rule change vote was previously approved by an 11-2 margin, including unanimous approval of all six Regional Chairman, is "a gross representation" and "a flat out (and stupid) lie"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

The more recent vote (11-2) shows Jean Luc and Alex being the two who opposed the vote.

I got this wrong. Apologies.

3 hours ago, aroy210677 said:

The World Council voted on this rule change (and to be ready to take it to a membership vote if deemed necessary) several months ago with an 11-2 vote.  Only the LP rep and the Past President voted against, with the European regional Chairman voting for the change. 

I bow to your superior knowledge on this Andy.

I unreservedly apologize for misleading anyone by my earlier comment. Thank you Andy for correcting me.

So the immediate past President was Heini Wellmann, and the LaserPerformance rep was Bill Crane? Or was it one of the meetings that Bahman Kia filled in for him?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Europe, retaining the contact details of former members without explicit positively given permission, in the hope that one day they might rejoin (or be persuaded to rejoin) would be a breach of GDPR. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points, however does not address that there actually is no downside to the rule change.

The impacts in this letter are speculative.

What the rule change affects is Laser Performance's well established modus operandi of using the Laser trademark as leverage. The two things that Laser Performance are attempting secure are:

  • A license fee from builders for use of the Laser trademark. This will increase the cost of new boats in the areas Velum controls. (This is not a problem in itself, unless it is too high.) PSJ and PSA have agreed to charge no fee.
  • Control or influence over which builders are selected. Under the current proposals, boat builder selection is by ILCA.

The vote is not for a name change. It removes the obligation to use the Laser name, the very thing Rastegar / Velum / Laser Performance are using for leverage.

I for one, cannot understand how EurILCA cannot see that they are not working in the interests of the Laser class, by asking members to vote no.

EurILCA on voting - 1.jpg

EurILCA on voting - 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BruceH-NZ said:

What the rule change affects is Laser Performance's well established modus operandi of using the Laser trademark as leverage. The two things that Laser Performance are attempting secure are:

  • A license fee from builders for use of the Laser trademark. This will increase the cost of new boats in the areas Velum controls. (This is not a problem in itself, unless it is too high.) PSJ and PSA have agreed to charge no fee.

 

 

And yet it is ILCA that seem to want to set a minimum fee of US$200,000 per year to be a builder. LP have criticised this for being a barrier to entry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

And yet it is ILCA that seem to want to set a minimum fee of US$200,000 per year to be a builder. LP have criticised this for being a barrier to entry. 

Agree that $200,000 fee per year is very very steep. Or it rather it would be, if it were true.

This is something Chris Caldecoat addressed on his Facebook page:

Quote

There is no 200K annual fee, start-up manufacturing costs would be normal practise/cost as it would need to be under FRAND and no builder would pay a cent more and if they did you know they are not going to last long as it is a tough game to be involved in and earn a dollar.

I do not believe Farzad Rastegar / Velum / Laser Performance on the basis that many previous claims have been inaccurate. (Sorry.)

I'd like to hear a short response from Tracy Usher ( @SFBayLaser ) on this.

---

Also, this is given as a reason to vote no. However these sort of fees are not affected by the rule change we are voting on.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

And yet it is ILCA that seem to want to set a minimum fee of US$200,000 per year to be a builder. LP have criticised this for being a barrier to entry.

This can be total misinformation. There may be no such a licensing fee envisioned by ILCA. I heard it through the grapevine that such a licensing fee was never on the ILCA proposal. And that the Japan and Australia builders were not privy to any such "licensing fee" concept (apart from the regular part/sticker fees that are actually payable to LCMA Builders).

So, is this made up? I refuse to believe that this was just made up by Farzad in hope of implying that ILCA really has "financial interests" in this matter. How could anyone be that stupid to make up such a lie?  Truth has a tendency to come out.

Incidentally, there is a whole literature on the economics of "licensing fees". But it is not up to LP who has so little knowledge of economics (to suggest that "in an oligopoly - well, almost monopoly,  it is the oligopolists who should decide who enters the market") to comment on the economic effects of licensing fees. 

I'm sure (I hope) ILCA will clarify this issue, too. 

If such a licensing fee exists, is the amount accurate? Does it apply to all (old and new) builders? Is it a one time fee for qualifying as a new builder or is it a yearly fee? Whether the fee serves a valid economic purpose for the Laser Class and is reasonable depends on the answers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Dr.   It seems highly unlikely anyone would just make it up, so what is the source of the (mis)info?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

I got this wrong. Apologies.

I bow to your superior knowledge on this Andy.

I unreservedly apologize for misleading anyone by my earlier comment. Thank you Andy for correcting me.

So the immediate past President was Heini Wellmann, and the LaserPerformance rep was Bill Crane? Or was it one of the meetings that Bahman Kia filled in for him?

The vote wasn't at a WC in person meeting. The topic was discussed on group phone calls and emails, and the vote went out by email, returned "no" by Bahman and Heini.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New post from Lutz on Eurilca FB page. Maybe this gives more insight to the motivation of some europeans, and some stuff to discuss here, or post a respond on FB.:

 

Launching this vote just 12 hours after signing the trademark license agreement with Laser Performance (rsp. VELUM) has only a single reason, that is to provoke LPE in all possible ways in order to make the otherwise well progressing negotiations between 
them and all other parties fail.

Why should that be of interest for ILCA?

Because  a situation is targeted in which who ever has registered
the company „Weatherhelm“ can profit from the then available license fees for the „ILCA dinghy“ or the „Gamma“.

The bad new is that the plan laid out by ILCA for the vote is not a plan, because the decision about the Olympic status is due on August 1st and the final voting date is July 31st. So whatever the outcome of the vote will be it cannot effect the decision on the Olympic status.

Furthermore and also as a comment to some of the earlier post:
I haven’t seen any list of possible new qualified dealers that are able to chime in for LPE in Europe. It was claimed that the Australian Builder would be able to chime in, but they current have a production of 200 boats per year. The demand in Europe to my knowledge is 1500 boat a year.

Additionally does ILCA really believe that LPE will not react with a number of well founded law-suits against ILCA building the boat LPE has a license for under another name?
I expect this would paralyze the class and the supply for years to come.

So if you want to keep our boat to be in the Olympics, and want stable supply conditions over the next years, you should vote „NO“

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued to see what Lutz's response will be when the no vote gets up and the commercial parties don't come to an agreement by the 1st...  the guy seems deluded 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drLaser said:

This can be total misinformation. There may be no such a licensing fee envisioned by ILCA. I heard it through the grapevine that such a licensing fee was never on the ILCA proposal. And that the Japan and Australia builders were not privy to any such "licensing fee" concept (apart from the regular part/sticker fees that are actually payable to LCMA Builders).

So, is this made up? I refuse to believe that this was just made up by Farzad in hope of implying that ILCA really has "financial interests" in this matter. How could anyone be that stupid to make up such a lie?  Truth has a tendency to come out.

Incidentally, there is a whole literature on the economics of "licensing fees". But it is not up to LP who has so little knowledge of economics (to suggest that "in an oligopoly - well, almost monopoly,  it is the oligopolists who should decide who enters the market") to comment on the economic effects of licensing fees. 

I'm sure (I hope) ILCA will clarify this issue, too. 

If such a licensing fee exists, is the amount accurate? Does it apply to all (old and new) builders? Is it a one time fee for qualifying as a new builder or is it a yearly fee? Whether the fee serves a valid economic purpose for the Laser Class and is reasonable depends on the answers.

 

2 hours ago, BruceH-NZ said:

Agree that $200,000 fee per year is very very steep. Or it rather it would be, if it were true.

This is something Chris Caldecoat addressed on his Facebook page:

I do not believe Farzad Rastegar / Velum / Laser Performance on the basis that many previous claims have been inaccurate. (Sorry.)

I'd like to hear a short response from Tracy Usher ( @SFBayLaser ) on this.

---

Also, this is given as a reason to vote no. However these sort of fees are not affected by the rule change we are voting on.

Who started this $200,000 fee rumour? It's laughable, as is the allegation / insinuation that ILCA is somehow trying to "commercialize" in any way, shape or form.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

 

Who started this $200,000 fee rumour? It's laughable.

your good mates at the LPE shit-stirring news desk :P

https://www.laserperformance.uk/ilca-news?lang=en

 

Quote

i. The proposed annual minimum fee of US$200,000 will be a major obstacle for any new builder to apply. Any imposed barrier to entry runs against the principles of the Olympic Equipment Policy and FRAND.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JMP said:

i. The proposed annual minimum fee of US$200,000 will be a major obstacle for any new builder to apply. Any imposed barrier to entry runs against the principles of the Olympic Equipment Policy and FRAND

Why would LPE have anything against a high fee for it's competitors that would give them a commercial advantage? That's their reason to not sign the contracts? I did not understand many things LPE has done in the past, but that's not getting better.... Who has some true infos on that minimum fee? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

Who started this $200,000 fee rumour? It's laughable,

If this is made up, heads should roll! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aroy210677 said:

Unbelievable. When was that "ILCA News" item posted on their site?

A day or two ago, when people first started referencing the 200K figure in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

Unbelievable. When was that "ILCA News" item posted on their site?

Must be quite new. Several days maximum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JMP said:

A day or two ago, when people first started referencing the 200K figure in this thread

I just re-read our proposed FRAND fee policy, and although there's a small deposit required by applicants to cover costs, nothing remotely near that figure. Hold off on "rolling any heads" until I comment back. Going to get to the bottom of this one.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, aroy210677 said:

Mr. Wess, just trying to be absolutely clear on what you're saying here. It seems to be clear, but I might be missing something. Are you saying that the claim that the rule change vote was previously approved by an 11-2 margin, including unanimous approval of all six Regional Chairman, is "a gross representation" and "a flat out (and stupid) lie"?

Andy,

Doubt its a constructive discussion as its pretty clear al parties are dug into foxholes and committed to the course they are on.  If preparing a brief I would word it differently but for simple folks like me that will do.  Its stupid because there is a better way (and I bet you could name a few privately). Its a lie because you know that is not what those same people say privately or publicly now (just go read it). And I am quite convinced this is not nearly the only instance.  If I was voting I would have everything into consideration and there is much (too much) of late that class leadership has done (IMHO) and is still doing that I just cant support. So I would vote no just basically to freeze everything, get new folks in and hit reset. Will the Olympics wait?  Don't know and don't care.  They need us more than we need them.  No loss at all IMHO if Laser is out and Aero is in.  I don't see any white knights in this but if I have to align with some group I guess it would be EurILCA.

So a few things are clear.  You and most others here know who I am and can pick up the phone any time.  I will raise my voice on occasion... its usually a test to learn something.  On this I learned if someone would stand on a hill they claimed or run. They ran.  I don't believe the rumors flying about folks profiting off this or that any of them are bad people.  More of those half truth mislead lies that everyone is throwing around.  My wife and I are also a couple of German and Italian decent and can laugh at Caldecott's missive.

Remember Hobie? Gosh I miss those days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, there's nothing wrong with a "licensing fee", per se.

For one, a carefully constructed licensing fee can be instrumental in ensuring that any interested new builder applicants will get into this only if they are really interested in becoming suppliers of the boat over the long haul, not for the purposes of increasing their short-term capacity usage at times of low economic activity, to prevent layoffs or undertime, etc. 

Secondly, a fixed licensing fee encourages larger manufacturers. This ensures that applicants will have sufficiently large capacity devoted to this endeavor, implying Lasers will not be a trivial part of their manufacturing. ILCA would not want to allow a builder who will produce less than X (say 100) boats a year. The larger the production volume, the lower would be the additional operational costs incurred per boat due to these licensing fees. 

I'm sure license fees have other useful economic implications, too. Licensing fees (comically) interpreted as "barriers to entry" by LPE itself can also be a valid proxy for defining a "qualified builder". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

I just re-read our proposed FRAND fee policy, and although there's a small deposit required by applicants to cover costs, nothing remotely near that figure. Hold off on "rolling any heads" until I comment back. Going to get to the bottom of this one.

Is there a requirement for a minimum number of boats that a builder must build/sell per year? To remain a builder?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wess said:

Andy,

Doubt its a constructive discussion as its pretty clear al parties are dug into foxholes and committed to the course they are on.  If preparing a brief I would word it differently but for simple folks like me that will do.  Its stupid because there is a better way (and I bet you could name a few privately). Its a lie because you know that is not what those same people say privately or publicly now (just go read it). And I am quite convinced this is not nearly the only instance.  If I was voting I would have everything into consideration and there is much (too much) of late that class leadership has done (IMHO) and is still doing that I just cant support. So I would vote no just basically to freeze everything, get new folks in and hit reset. Will the Olympics wait?  Don't know and don't care.  They need us more than we need them.  No loss at all IMHO if Laser is out and Aero is in.  I don't see any white knights in this but if I have to align with some group I guess it would be EurILCA.

So a few things are clear.  You and most others here know who I am and can pick up the phone any time.  I will raise my voice on occasion... its usually a test to learn something.  On this I learned if someone would stand on a hill they claimed or run. They ran.  I don't believe the rumors flying about folks profiting off this or that any of them are bad people.  More of those half truth mislead lies that everyone is throwing around.  My wife and I are also a couple of German and Italian decent and can laugh at Caldecott's missive.

Remember Hobie? Gosh I miss those days.

Wess, thanks for that. No, I don't know who you are.  What I just wanted to clarify (and it certainly seems like it), is this your claim, that ILCA is lying?

"This - In a vote of the ILCA World Council, this rule change was overwhelmingly approved by an 11 to 2 margin, including the unanimous approval of all six ILCA Regional Chairmen.  - is a gross misrepresentation, a blatant one sided view (of views within our organization), a lie.  And I don't think its nearly the only lie they have told if even half of what was said to me is true or I could figure out on my own is true and I suspect it is. At its best, statements like this that are so blatantly over the top misrepresentations of really important facts that is undermines whatever credibility they had.  Its not just a lie.  Its a STUPID LIE which is what scares me even more.  It leads to a view that they will say and do anything"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, drLaser said:

Wess contends that it doesn't matter what the World Council members voted in February, that what matters is what they think now, in spite of the fact that there is no Council vote pending now. Wess just says, "I don't care about literacy or the facts of yesterday. It's where people stand right now that should count; so by hiding the status quo, Tracy blatantly lies." 

Consider the following hypothetical situation: We can all unanimously vote FOR something. The leadership can then take measures based on our unanimous votes in favor. And then later, some of us can say, "Sorry. We two changed our minds. So, it's not unanimous. It's just a majority decision now."

According to Wess, the leadership (although still in the right to act based on the majority decision) is then no longer (ethically) in the right to claim that they had planned to take the measures they took based on the earlier "unanimous" votes, knowing well that two of the voters changed their votes later, albeit too late. 

It's a logical semantics battle.

I would like to know how and when the European members of the World Council were "misled" by other WC members to vote the way they did. (And historical evidence suggests that they are prone to be misled by the other WC members.) Just claiming they were misled is not sufficient in my mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, drLaser said:

Mind you, there's nothing wrong with a "licensing fee", per se.

For one, a carefully constructed licensing fee can be instrumental in ensuring that any interested new builder applicants will get into this only if they are really interested in becoming suppliers of the boat over the long haul, not for the purposes of increasing their short-term capacity usage at times of low economic activity, to prevent layoffs or undertime, etc. 

Secondly, a fixed licensing fee encourages larger manufacturers. This ensures that applicants will have sufficiently large capacity devoted to this endeavor, implying Lasers will not be a trivial part of their manufacturing. ILCA would not want to allow a builder who will produce less than X (say 100) boats a year. The larger the production volume, the lower would be the additional operational costs incurred per boat due to these licensing fees. 

I'm sure license fees have other useful economic implications, too. Licensing fees (comically) interpreted as "barriers to entry" by LPE itself can also be a valid proxy for defining a "qualified builder". 

4 minutes ago, drLaser said:

 

Dr. Laser, you're spot on.

There will be a requirement for new builders to pay an annual min. royalty fee which goes to the trademark owners. This has the benefit of discouraging a small, "boutique builder" from getting involved. Note that the proposed licensing fees accumulated would NOT go to the class, but would go into a "royalty pool" and then paid directly to Farzad and the other trademark owners.  So LP's claim that ILCA is going to make $200k annually from each new builder is utterly false and he knows it.

Note that later today Tracy hopes to post for public consumption an overview of the new builder plan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, drLaser said:

 

Yes, just how was Jean-Luc "misled"?  I went back and checked all correspondence leading up to the Feb. vote. Note that it was me who submitted the proposed rule change to the WC a couple weeks before the vote was taken, so he had plenty of time to consider, ask questions and discuss with his EurILCA committee.  There was nothing that could be construed as being misleading.  Note, "two" of the voters didn't change their minds, only one did.

Tracy is not a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, 

July 4 holiday

Beautiful morning overlooking the estuary 

Light South Westerly already rippling the water, which will feed the sea breeze later.

Not a cloud in the sky.

Coffee is brewing and I can smell that Jackie is baking fresh bread and muffins in the kitchen.

I think I shall go for a quick spin in the kayak and then stroll down to Noroton Yacht club . We have the commodore’s regatta today , Followed by the annual club cook out where I will run into my old mates Bruce Kirby and Bill Crane.  

Then in the evening, we will run out in the Mako and raft up with other club members and watch the Bailey Beach fireworks. 

I will be serving my French 75 cocktails 

Or...... ..... I could stay at home and catch up with the latest gossip on the ILCA thread. 

Tough choice!

 

Happy 4th everyone 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

Dr. Laser, you're spot on.

There will be a requirement for new builders to pay an annual min. royalty fee which goes to the trademark owners. This has the benefit of discouraging a small, "boutique builder" from getting involved. Note that the proposed licensing fees accumulated would NOT go to the class, but would go into a "royalty pool" and then paid directly to Farzad and the other trademark owners.  So LP's claim that ILCA is going to make $200k annually from each new builder is utterly false and he knows it.

Note that later today Tracy hopes to post for public consumption an overview of the new builder plan.

Respectfully, I have to query this. 

1. A fixed annual fee is potentially not Fair (anti-competitive as favours large builders or builders with good access to large market). 

2. A fixed annual fee is potentially not Reasonable. The cost may be too much to bare for small builders to be economically viable.

3. A fixed annual fee is Discriminatory if the intent is to discourage “boutique” builders.  

Why should small builders be discouraged? If the quality and price (ex fee) is competitive they should be welcomed under a FRAND format.  

I am not in favour of the Laser going FRAND, but if it is to happen it needs to happen properly, not operate like a cartel. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Why should small builders be discouraged? If the quality and price (ex fee) is competitive they should be welcomed under a FRAND format. 

One obvious reason is because the more builders you have and the fewer boats each constructs the greater the difficulty and expense will be for the CA in maintaining effective one design control. This is (I hope) not intended to be a measurement controlled class where builders compete on the quality of the product. And I submit that boutique builders are the ones most likely to create problems by manufacturing marginal or out of specification boats, because typically boutique builders deal with their high costs by delivering a higher priced higher quality product - which, I submit, is exactly what the Laser class doesn't want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Respectfully, I have to query this. 

1. A fixed annual fee is potentially not Fair (anti-competitive as favours large builders or builders with good access to large market). 

2. A fixed annual fee is potentially not Reasonable. The cost may be too much to bare for small builders to be economically viable.

3. A fixed annual fee is Discriminatory if the intent is to discourage “boutique” builders.  

Why should small builders be discouraged? If the quality and price (ex fee) is competitive they should be welcomed under a FRAND format.  

I am not in favour of the Laser going FRAND, but if it is to happen it needs to happen properly, not operate like a cartel. 

 

 

 

Note that "boutique" is a term I just came up with. I don't really think the fee, which, once again, will go into a pool for the trademark owners, will be the factor in being the disincentive for a potential tiny builder, but rather it will be the cost of setting up a manufacturing facility, jigs, fixtures and processes to build class compliant boats and compete effectively against larger builders.  It will certainly not be a cartel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

It will certainly not be a cartel.

It could. If LPE were allowed to set up several small subsidiary companies, all "interested" and "qualified" to build the boat, maybe even all subcontracting their production to a new company, the current LPE manufacturing facility... A reasonably large licensing fee also helps to prevent that loophole. 

What bothers me is this fee being an "annual" fee. We are not talking about software licensing here. An annual fee is against the idea of long-term supply chain partnerships. I'm sure there's a reason behind this that I'm not privy to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, drLaser said:

It could. If LPE were allowed to set up several small subsidiary companies, all "interested" and "qualified" to build the boat, maybe even all subcontracting their production to a new company, the current LPE manufacturing facility... A reasonably large licensing fee also helps to prevent that loophole. 

What bothers me is this fee being an "annual" fee. We are not talking about software licensing her. An annual fee is against the idea of long-term supply chain partnerships. I'm sure there's a reason behind this that I'm not privy to.

You could have a point on it being an "annual" fee. Perhaps better to be an x amount fee for the first year of the new builder (to establish entry into the pool), and then on a per boat basis in subsequent years.  Again, these are just my thoughts as I'm not directly involved with the discussions. Let's wait for Tracy's views to come later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

Note that "boutique" is a term I just came up with. I don't really think the fee, which, once again, will go into a pool for the trademark owners, will be the factor in being the disincentive for a potential tiny builder, but rather it will be the cost of setting up a manufacturing facility, jigs, fixtures and processes to build class compliant boats and compete effectively against larger builders.  It will certainly not be a cartel.

What exactly do you mean with boutique builders. Can you name just one "boutique" builder in the current or past olympic classes that are under FRAND like in 470, Finn, Europe or Opti? 

If all new builders have to pay a lot of money to LPE for using the trademark "Laser" (as far as I heard LPA and LPJ don't want to charge for their trademarks), LPE get's an commercial advantage over all new builders, that would lead to unfair competition in my opinion. Much better if the class rules get changed, and all builders can compete on a fair base. LPE still has an advantage ( no set up costs, dealer network, brand name) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Finn annual reports they average about 75 new boats a year between at least 3 or 4 builders. By Laser standards numbers wise they are all boutique builders. I don't know, but I rather doubt you get an off the shelf bog standard boat from any of them, my guess is that there's always a degree of tailoring, which to my mind is a pretty good definition of boutique building.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jgh66 said:

If all new builders have to pay a lot of money to LPE for using the trademark "Laser" (as far as I heard LPA and LPJ don't want to charge for their trademarks), LPE get's an commercial advantage over all new builders, that would lead to unfair competition in my opinion.

Are you assuming that there is a "fair competition requirement"? There isn't. I think you may just be "stuck on" the acronym FRAND, short for " fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory".

Yes, the "F" in FRAND refers to "Fair", but FRAND is not a requirement for anything and everything! 

Both the World Sailing "Anti-trust Policy for Olympic Equipment" and its "Olympic Equipment Strategy" and Appendix 2 (Olympic Equipment Policy) of the "Olympic Classes Contract" all explicitly note that "FRAND" is the principle that will be enforced only in "the licensing of interested parties" by the License Holders.  A New Manufacturer must be granted a licence of any intellectual property rights required to manufacture (or sell) the equipment on "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory" terms. None of this implies that  at the end, in the long run or the short run, the new manufacturer (or seller) should have the same average or marginal cost of production or profitability as any existing builder.

Complying with the "competition laws" requires World Sailing merely to "permit competing equipment and competing manufacturers of existing equipment to bid to access the market on a fair and objective basis" and to "evaluate the tender processes with assessment against objective criteria". There is no requirement  of ensuring that all competing equipment manufacturers (or sellers) are equally efficient (profitable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, drLaser said:

Are you assuming that there is a "fair competition requirement"? There isn't. I think you may just be "stuck on" the acronym FRAND, short for " fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory".

Yes, the "F" in FRAND refers to "Fair", but FRAND is not a requirement for anything and everything! 

Both the World Sailing "Anti-trust Policy for Olympic Equipment" and its "Olympic Equipment Strategy" and Appendix 2 (Olympic Equipment Policy) of the "Olympic Classes Contract" all explicitly note that "FRAND" is the principle that will be enforced only in "the licensing of interested parties" by the License Holders.  A New Manufacturer must be granted a licence of any intellectual property rights required to manufacture (or sell) the equipment on "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory" terms. None of this implies that  at the end, in the long run or the short run, the new manufacturer (or seller) should have the same average or marginal cost of production or profitability as any existing builder.

Complying with the "competition laws" requires World Sailing merely to "permit competing equipment and competing manufacturers of existing equipment to bid to access the market on a fair and objective basis" and to "evaluate the tender processes with assessment against objective criteria". There is no requirement  of ensuring that all competing equipment manufacturers (or sellers) are equally efficient (profitable).

No idea, maybe you are right.

But is this in the best interest of the class and the sailers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that Monsieur Michon has had trouble understanding the (English) legalese in the various documents that were presented to him and others in Europe. These 'legal' documents don't make for easy reading and I note that even on this Forum there is a lot of misunderstanding among sailors whose native language is English as to what is exactly meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Wavedancer II said:

Is it possible that Monsieur Michon has had trouble understanding the (English) legalese in the various documents that were presented to him and others in Europe. These 'legal' documents don't make for easy reading and I note that even on this Forum there is a lot of misunderstanding among sailors whose native language is English as to what is exactly meant.

 

24 minutes ago, Wavedancer II said:

Is it possible that Monsieur Michon has had trouble understanding the (English) legalese in the various documents that were presented to him and others in Europe. These 'legal' documents don't make for easy reading and I note that even on this Forum there is a lot of misunderstanding among sailors whose native language is English as to what is exactly meant.

Are you talking about the original 11-2 rule change vote?  If so, I wrote the proposal to modify the rule in early February and submitted it to the WC for consideration, debate and discussion. It was simple and clear, no “legalese”. The WC then held a subsequent group phone call to discuss and to ask questions, etc. Everyone then had at least a week before voting for consideration and to discuss with their respective committees back home. Jean-Luc knew exactly what he was voting to approve. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

 

Are you talking about the original 11-2 rule change vote?  If so, I wrote the proposal to modify the rule in early February and submitted it to the WC for consideration, debate and discussion. It was simple and clear, no “legalese”. 

Can you share with us the actual wording of the proposal to modify the rule which the WC voted on in February?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tillerman said:

Can you share with us the actual wording of the proposal to modify the rule which the WC voted on in February?

Glad to.  Here it is cut and pasted from my original Word doc from Feb:

Submission of Proposal to the World Council

Please make sure your submission is concise and clear, including all the necessary information so that other delegates can easily understand and discuss it during the meeting.

Name

Andy Roy

Proposal

 

To change the ILCA Class Rules, Part 1, as follows:

Definition of Builder:

A Builder is a manufacturer that has the rights to use a Laser trademark, is manufacturing the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual, and has been approved as an approved Class Laser Builder by each of World Sailing and the International Laser Class Association. 

Current Situation

 

World Sailing has introduced a policy that requires open access to manufacture Olympic equipment. The current class rule restricts builders to manufacturers that have rights to use a Laser trademark. 

 

Reason for Proposal

 

The Class Members should decide if they want to maintain the current class rule or to allow the necessary changes to remain in the Olympics. 

World Sailing has mandated that the manufacture of equipment for the Olympic Classes must be open to any interested and qualified builder on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory basis.  ILCA needs to comply with this requirement in order to remain in the Olympics.  

The current builders have not taken the necessary steps to develop an acceptable FRAND policy. The trademark restriction in our class rules appears to be the main obstacle to allowing ILCA to develop this policy.  to allowing a FRAND policy. Removing the restriction that builders must have rights to use the Laser trademark will allow ILCA to manage this process proactively. 

This is not a proposal to change the name of the class. This is a proposal to allow ILCA to take control of our future for the benefit of our sailors and the sport.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

Glad to.  Here it is cut and pasted from my original Word doc from Feb:

Submission of Proposal to the World Council

Please make sure your submission is concise and clear, including all the necessary information so that other delegates can easily understand and discuss it during the meeting.

Name

Andy Roy

Proposal

 

To change the ILCA Class Rules, Part 1, as follows:

Definition of Builder:

A Builder is a manufacturer that has the rights to use a Laser trademark, is manufacturing the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual, and has been approved as an approved Class Laser Builder by each of World Sailing and the International Laser Class Association. 

Current Situation

 

World Sailing has introduced a policy that requires open access to manufacture Olympic equipment. The current class rule restricts builders to manufacturers that have rights to use a Laser trademark. 

 

Reason for Proposal

 

The Class Members should decide if they want to maintain the current class rule or to allow the necessary changes to remain in the Olympics. 

World Sailing has mandated that the manufacture of equipment for the Olympic Classes must be open to any interested and qualified builder on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory basis.  ILCA needs to comply with this requirement in order to remain in the Olympics.  

The current builders have not taken the necessary steps to develop an acceptable FRAND policy. The trademark restriction in our class rules appears to be the main obstacle to allowing ILCA to develop this policy.  to allowing a FRAND policy. Removing the restriction that builders must have rights to use the Laser trademark will allow ILCA to manage this process proactively. 

This is not a proposal to change the name of the class. This is a proposal to allow ILCA to take control of our future for the benefit of our sailors and the sport.   

 

 

is that missing the part where a change was made? I feel like there's supposed to be a strikethrough on "A Builder is a manufacturer that has the rights to use a Laser trademark, is manufacturing the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual, and has been approved as an approved Class Laser Builder by each of World Sailing and the International Laser Class Association. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

is that missing the part where a change was made? I feel like there's supposed to be a strikethrough on "A Builder is a manufacturer that has the rights to use a Laser trademark, is manufacturing the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sails and battens in strict adherence to the Construction Manual, and has been approved as an approved Class Laser Builder by each of World Sailing and the International Laser Class Association. "

For some reason the strike through didn’t come through when I did the cut and paste. It was there in the proposal. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Wavedancer II said:

Is it possible that Monsieur Michon has had trouble understanding the (English) legalese in the various documents that were presented to him and others in Europe. These 'legal' documents don't make for easy reading and I note that even on this Forum there is a lot of misunderstanding among sailors whose native language is English as to what is exactly meant.

I have difficulty explaining how Jean Luc behaved at the Roses, and his decision to raise the issue of not receiving an email; or what he said generally about communication.

I don't know Jean Luc, and hold no malice toward him. Whether it was a deliberate ploy or poor judgement, the consequence was a distraction away from the intended objective: to inform about the changes. Jean Luc was one of four ILCA World Council members at the meeting.

How Jean Luc acted during that meeting for me raises some serious questions about Jean Luc himself; specifically what he said at the Roses (European Masters) in my view needs further scrutiny. I have looked pretty closely at what was said by Eric and can find zero evidence of anything that supports the allegations levelled against him, nor anything that would justify calling for Eric's resignation.

These were not addressed in any way by Jean Luc.

The AFL (French Laser Association) has their AGM on July 13.

---

32 minutes ago, aroy210677 said:

Glad to.  Here it is cut and pasted from my original Word doc from Feb:

Submission of Proposal to the World Council

Please make sure your submission is concise and clear, including all the necessary information so that other delegates can easily understand and discuss it during the meeting.

Andy! You are ruining the conspiracy theory. (There is a lot of talk about hidden agendas!! Calling for submissions seems the sign of a healthy, democratic process.)So there called for submissions (which I presume were circulated to all in the World Council), then there was further discussion.

The document seems straightforward.

Andy said earlier that Heini Wellman and Bahman Kia voted against. That implies they were also allowed to submit their thoughts.

My guess is that Bahman Kia would have had some very interesting things to say on behalf of Laser Performance! 

One of the criticisms that Beat mentioned when I spoke to him was that ILCA communications were poorly run, that people weren't given enough time. How much time was given to make submission?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites