Wess

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

@Curious Yiu sure do post a lot of strong opinions for a guy who prefers to remain anonymous. Why is it you are so ashamed of what you write here? Do you actually have different opinions or do you fear that your real life associates wouid consider your positions and writings  to be absurd? 

Edited Note: I enjoyed your writings about singlehanded  big  boat sailing. And It probably isn’t hard to identify you after all. 

 

I was referring to the officers’ actions With respect to their position as officers of the International Laser Class Association . I was not referring to laws of governments. Governments couldn’t give a Rat’s patootie who builds the toys we use to chase each other around buoys.  Our officers wouldn’t be breaking laws if they changed the game to bowling and approved condoms filled with water for the bowling balls. 

Here is something to help you understand my use of vigilantism. It is the first thing that came up when I googled vigilantism 

*********

A Law Library online encyclopedia defines Vigilantism as, “The act of taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to enact justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, ...

******

As you can see, I was referring to the actions of our well meaning officers who, rather than follow the club rules, skipped the “everybody gets to vote on this” part, and took matters into their own hands. 

 

I'm not actually posting strong opinions much; I'm not the one who is saying what ILCA should do or saying that anyone's uncorroborated claims must be correct. I'm generally raising issues and discussing the evidence and possibilities.

Yes, maybe ILCA could have done things better. Maybe you or I would have done things differently.  But they are hard working volunteers and we are sitting on the sidelines on this issue. I would rather defend volunteers (or raise factual issues with their ideas, as in the CII thread) than abuse them. YMMV.

I do know, from attending AGMs and reading, that LPE's refusal to cooperate with the class on issues like the carbon topmast has been a thorn in the side of the class for years. I do know - because ILCA officials have admitted it at AGMs - that there is personal frustration involved. Maybe they got too emotional, or maybe they realised he would play hard ball in other ways. I'll give them the courtesy of an open mind rather than saying I know it all.

As far as being anonymous goes - this is the internet, and SA. The vast majority of people here are anonymous. I know you are convinced that you are perfect and all-knowing because of your attacks on me in another place, on an issue in which I have years of experience and you have precisely none. But you don't get to decide the etiquette for the net or SA.

 

Share this post


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

Can we take that as fact?? 

45AA73C3-F857-452E-AD46-70D0BC7B053C.gif

Well, logically anyone who accepts whatever they read MUST take accept it when someone writes that they shouldn't accept everything they read.......

Share this post


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

The March letter says that Chris Caldecot, the GM of PSA, had (at an ILCA Technical and Measurement Committee Meeting) confirmed the existence of the additional CSM in the boats identified. 

So don't we now go back to all the laser events conducted, and disqualify these hulls? 

And if they were prepared to do this, what have they done for their 'mates', family? I wonder if there is a whole other private market for "enhanced" laser hulls that exists?

Surely ILCA exist to make sure this doesn't happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flags, would you be happy if people just accepted that anything anyone says about you must be true?  Would you be happy if you were DSQd on allegations that were totally uncorroborated and un-tested, like the allegations LPE has made?

Seriously - do you want to live in a world where an allegation is taken to be guilt?  

It's actually rather revolting that people are prepared to slur people on charges of corruption or negligence, with absolutely no real evidence. 

Share this post


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

It's actually rather revolting that people are prepared to slur volunteers on charges of corruption or negligence, with absolutely no real evidence. 

Happens all the damn time though. The major UK based sailing forum no longer gets any posts from volunteers involved in the administration of PY in the UK  because of the level of such abuse.

Share this post


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

Seriously - do you want to live in a world where an allegation is taken to be guilt?  

I’m with you there, but it looks to me like ILCA made the allegation that LP refused to be inspected and then alleged WS supported the change of name. LP and WS both deny these allegations. 

Worse, ILCA did not, as a matter of fact, then seek membership approval before changing the name and logo as required by clause 17 of the constitution. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m with you there, but it looks to me like ILCA made the allegation that LP refused to be inspected 

No, LP have confirmed that they refused to be inspected by ILCA. They said they wanted someone else instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s an important distinction though. LP did not (they claim) refuse to be inspected. They refused to let ILCA conduct the inspection. They requested (they claim) an inspection from World Sailing. 

So the allegation that LP refused to be inspected is not proven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure World Sailing do these kind of inspections. At least for Optimist, the class rules state: 

3.2.2 Hull Measurement Rules (see also CR 3.1) For GRP hulls, World Sailing or IODA will require samples of the hull laminates to check compliance with the Class Rules. A builder shall permit an approved measurer or class representative to inspect work at any time during production of hulls.

 

GRP Hull Prototype Measurement: It is obligatory for all builders of GRP hulls to ensure that any prototype hull measures correctly before series production commences. Nonprofessional builders shall ensure that the first hull built in any mould shall be measured as a prototype. Only measurers approved by World Sailing and the IODA shall measure prototypes. (see also CR 2.7.3.1)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

That’s an important distinction though. LP did not (they claim) refuse to be inspected. They refused to let ILCA conduct the inspection. They requested (they claim) an inspection from World Sailing. 

So the allegation that LP refused to be inspected is not proven. 

 

As noted by Jim C, LPE admit that they refused inspection; LPE said that it "has refused access to ILCA for inspection in May 2019 given the expiry of the ILCA license from 31 August 2019."  SInce both sides agree that LPE refused to allow ILCA to inspect the premises, it is hard to dispute it. It's a very different situation, as we seem to agree, to accepting just one side's account of the dispute.

LPE's motivation for the refusal, and the validity of the offer to invite WS in (NOT to do the inspection, they say, but "to participate in inspection of LP manufacturing by ILCA" may be in dispute, but that's another issue. One irony is that LPE ensured that its authorised representatives had the right to inspect ILCA's offices to inspect the stuff the class was producing with the Laser trademarks. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Happens all the damn time though. The major UK based sailing forum no longer gets any posts from volunteers involved in the administration of PY in the UK  because of the level of such abuse.

And it's a safe guess that those who complain would be the sort of people who don't volunteer at all themselves, but sit back and carp.

Share this post


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

Flags, would you be happy if people just accepted that anything anyone says about you must be true?  Would you be happy if you were DSQd on allegations that were totally uncorroborated and un-tested, like the allegations LPE has made?

Seriously - do you want to live in a world where an allegation is taken to be guilt?  

It's actually rather revolting that people are prepared to slur people on charges of corruption or negligence, with absolutely no real evidence. 

Its clearly a very sensitive topic, upon which I was trying to add some levity by the way of an extreme observation. I unreservedly apologise for upsetting you, I'm sure that PSA and all the other manufacturers have never done anything untoward during the manufacture of these boats. :)

Share this post


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

That’s an important distinction though. LP did not (they claim) refuse to be inspected. They refused to let ILCA conduct the inspection. They requested (they claim) an inspection from World Sailing. 

Nevertheless its not disputed that the regular inspection by the same body who have always carried out the inspections was refused.

There's no shortage of organisations who'd like to pick their own inspector. Its rarely considered a good thing though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Flag. It's sensitive because there are also other people who are gullible enough to believe everything one side says and to use that "information" to accuse ILCA's volunteers of dishonesty, inefficiency and perhaps corruption. That is a pretty scummy act.

 

Share this post


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

That’s an important distinction though. LP did not (they claim) refuse to be inspected. They refused to let ILCA conduct the inspection. They requested (they claim) an inspection from World Sailing. 

So the allegation that LP refused to be inspected is not proven. 

Important to whom?  Relative to the ILCA's ability to terminate LPE for cause all that matters is the language in the contract, no?  LPE dug the hole they found themselves in.  And then they kept digging.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Nice description of vigilantism 

The proper path was and still is available. Why the excuses? Print the ballot and conduct the vote!!

Why expose the association to unnecessary risk?? 

 

 

What risk?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will recall that in the Blow Torch thread I expressed an opinion that I thought the ILCA had a strong legal position in the prior dispute where Kirby and Global Sailing endeavored to sue the ILCA. The claim was eventually dismissed.

FWIW, I do not have the same good feeling about the ILCA's legal standing in the current situation. Of course, no law suits have been filed yet but I am guessing they will come .  There is a paucity of hard information so this is based partly on the limited facts we have and partly on the gut instincts of 38 years in the legal profession.  I dont know who is advising ILCA...I hope they are good.

Concern #1 :  ILCA are basing their actions on their view that Laser Performance are in breach of contract because they have not conformed with the "inspection" clause.  In order for ILCA to cancel the contract in its entirety, it is not enough for ILCA to merely demonstrate that there has been a breach of contract, they have to show that the breach is a "fundamental breach" or a repudiatory breach of contract. This entails a breach of contract that is so essential and so fundamental to the effectiveness of the obligations of the contract that the breach cannot be remedied and the non-breaching party is entitled to believe that the breaching party cannot and will not fulfill a material obligation of the contract.

  • A court less sensitive to the politics of sailing might justifiably question whether a suitable remedy would be an inspection by world sailing.
  • If I was LP, I might consider hiring an independent expert to inspect the boats and the facility to demonstrate that the boats themselves comply with the construction manual....and prepare an argument that if the boats comply with the construction manual, then has there been a "material breach"?
  • Finally, could LP remedy the breach by allowing a mutually approved inspector or even just relenting at the last minute and allowing an ILCA inspection?  All those new builders that the ILCA appointed would suddenly be left hanging.

Concern #2 :  The ILCA is withholding WS plaques.  Is the ILCA acting as principal or agent in the issuing of World sailing Plaques? Did WS send explicit written instructions to the ILCA instructing them in unambiguous terms to cease issuing plaques? 

Concern #3 : The new name for the dinghy is "The ILCA Dinghy"?  Ugh.  One thing is crystal clear in this mess is that the LP associated companies own a cast iron trade mark for the boat called the Laser. What does the "L" stand for in ILCA?  Good luck in trying to persuade a jury that it does not stand for "Laser". If a builder is producing an identical product to the product formerly produced by LP and alluding to the name Laser.... then I think all manner of claims are probably being prepared by LP's counsel. I can think of a half dozen off the bat.

Concern #4.  The ILCA class rules do not have a great deal of legal relevancy but where they do, they might appear to provide sloppy and weak protection for the ILCA.   On a strict reading of the rules by a lawyer, I am speculating that the LP lasers comply with the rules except that the plaques are being withheld (see concern #2 above)

I EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS CONJECTURE and uniformed personal opinion because , like all of us, I dont have the full facts in front of me. I am just sharing a few concerns that spring to mind.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bill4 said:

Yup - to change a rule you need a vote. But right now, the rules contains the following definition:

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 a Laser Builder by each of World Sailing and the International Laser Class Association.

LCE is no longer approved by ILCA  so they are no longer a Builder. Done. No vote required. Now, if you want to change this rule so this decision becomes subject to a vote, then (ironically) you need to take a vote. ILCA has not broken anything in disapproving LPE.

The only thing WS has stated they have not acknowledged is the name of the boat:

World Sailing has not endorsed or pre-approved the proposed name change of the Laser to the ILCA Dinghy. 

Making the name change to ILCA Dinghy throughout the rules will require a vote, as it is a change to the rules.

 

Except that the rule was written by sailing rule writers and not written by lawyers.

 "has been approved as a Laser Builder"  has a different meaning in law to " is currently approved as a Laser Builder and remains approved as a laser builder by each......"

FWIW, in the humble opinion of this commentator, World Sailing is correct to be concerned about a proposed name change to the ILCA Dinghy.  One wonders if (for a small lifetime fee) a certain Bruce Kirby would be amenable to the name the "Kirby Dinghy".  It would actually be a helpful name for a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Kirby authorised ILCA to control the builders via his build document then only Kirby or ILCA can do the inspection

Where does WS come into it

the Nacra 17 was a cluster due to the one builder and faulty mast design, hence the court cases running to sue WS.

The more builders the better

Share this post


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

if Kirby authorised ILCA to control the builders via his build document then only Kirby or ILCA can do the inspection

Where does WS come into it

the Nacra 17 was a cluster due to the one builder and faulty mast design, hence the court cases running to sue WS.

The more builders the better

The inspection by WS was a condition in the Olympic selection tender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bill4 said:

The inspection by WS was a condition in the Olympic selection tender.

So that might settle the 'is it a one design and can it sail in the Olympics' but how about the kirby build doc ilca issue?

ILCA should be IKirby TorchA

this domain was created Jan 2019

http://www.ikta.org/

Share this post


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

Except that the rule was written by sailing rule writers and not written by lawyers.

 "has been approved as a Laser Builder"  has a different meaning in law to " is currently approved as a Laser Builder and remains approved as a laser builder by each......"

FWIW, in the humble opinion of this commentator, World Sailing is correct to be concerned about a proposed name change to the ILCA Dinghy.  One wonders if (for a small lifetime fee) a certain Bruce Kirby would be amenable to the name the "Kirby Dinghy".  It would actually be a helpful name for a lawyer.

Seems a bit like the class is trying to take control of its own destiny.  If so and they are going to break free.. then break free of all the mess! and be beholden to nobody.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Except that the rule was written by sailing rule writers and not written by lawyers.

So "has been approved as a Laser Builder"  has a very different meaning in law to " is currently approved as a Laser Builder and remains approved as a laser builder by each......"

I am not sure how much of the Constitution and Rules were written/reviewed by lawyers. I can't imagine there was no legal input.

 

1 minute ago, Sailabout said:

So that might settle the 'is it a one design and can it sail in the Olympics' but how about the kirby build doc ilca issue?

ILCA should be IKirby TorchA

It just answers the question you put forward "Where does WS come into it". LPE saying they "asked" WS to do an inspection sounds suspect to me. 

Share this post


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

You will recall that in the Blow Torch thread I expressed an opinion that I thought the ILCA had a strong legal position in the prior dispute where Kirby and Global Sailing endeavored to sue the ILCA. The claim was eventually dismissed.

FWIW, I do not have the same good feeling about the ILCA's legal standing in the current situation. Of course, no law suits have been filed yet but I am guessing they will come .  There is a paucity of hard information so this is based partly on the limited facts we have and partly on the gut instincts of 38 years in the legal profession.  I dont know who is advising ILCA...I hope they are good.

Concern #1 :  ILCA are basing their actions on their view that Laser Performance are in breach of contract because they have not conformed with the "inspection" clause.  In order for ILCA to cancel the contract in its entirety, it is not enough for ILCA to merely demonstrate that there has been a breach of contract, they have to show that the breach is a "fundamental breach" or a repudiatory breach of contract. This entails a breach of contract that is so essential and so fundamental to the effectiveness of the obligations of the contract that the breach cannot be remedied and the non-breaching party is entitled to believe that the breaching party cannot and will not fulfill a material obligation of the contract.

  • A court less sensitive to the politics of sailing might justifiably question whether a suitable remedy would be an inspection by world sailing.
  • If I was LP, I might consider hiring an independent expert to inspect the boats and the facility to demonstrate that the boats themselves comply with the construction manual....and prepare an argument that if the boats comply with the construction manual, then has there been a "material breach"?
  • Finally, could LP remedy the breach by allowing a mutually approved inspector or even just relenting at the last minute and allowing an ILCA inspection?  All those new builders that the ILCA appointed would suddenly be left hanging.

Concern #2 :  The ILCA is withholding WS plaques.  Is the ILCA acting as principal or agent in the issuing of World sailing Plaques? Did WS send explicit written instructions to the ILCA instructing them in unambiguous terms to cease issuing plaques? 

Concern #3 : The new name for the dinghy is "The ILCA Dinghy"?  Ugh.  One thing is crystal clear in this mess is that the LP associated companies own a cast iron trade mark for the boat called the Laser. What does the "L" stand for in ILCA?  Good luck in trying to persuade a jury that it does not stand for "Laser". If a builder is producing an identical product to the product formerly produced by LP and alluding to the name Laser.... then I think all manner of claims are probably being prepared by LP's counsel. I can think of a half dozen off the bat.

Concern #4.  The ILCA class rules do not have a great deal of legal relevancy but where they do, they might appear to provide sloppy and weak protection for the ILCA.   On a strict reading of the rules by a lawyer, I am speculating that the LP lasers comply with the rules except that the plaques are being withheld (see concern #2 above)

I EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS CONJECTURE and uniformed personal opinion because , like all of us, I dont have the full facts in front of me. I am just sharing a few concerns that spring to mind.

Thanks for posting that.  Interesting view re #1.

I wonder if ILCA is using same counsel as last time around.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

So that might settle the 'is it a one design and can it sail in the Olympics' but how about the kirby build doc ilca issue?

ILCA should be IKirby TorchA

this domain was created Jan 2019

http://www.ikta.org/

What is this Kirby build doc to which you refer?

AFAIK, no such thing has ever existed.  Ian Bruce prepared the first build document and subsequently all the parties agreed that it would be controlled by WS and ILCA. Do you have something we dont have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bill4 said:

I am not sure how much of the Constitution and Rules were written/reviewed by lawyers. I can't imagine there was no legal input.

 

It just answers the question you put forward "Where does WS come into it". LPE saying they "asked" WS to do an inspection sounds suspect to me. 

Hmm,  quoting from the LP FAQ section on their website:

+----------

6. Why has LP not allowed inspection of Laser manufacturing facilities

• It should be noted that ILCA has not inspected LP manufacturing since June 2015.

• LP has refused access to ILCA for inspection in March 2019 given the expiry of the ILCA license from 31 August 2019.

• LP has offered and World Sailing has agreed to participate in inspection of LP manufacturing by ILCA.

• The issue is not about non-compliance by LP, it is about ILCA’s lack of a proper inspection regime.

• It is an absolute responsibility of the class to inspect its builders. ILCA have not done so for the past four years whilst issuing plaques to LP. This attests to the strong compliance culture and commitment of LP to One Design.

7. Is LP cooperating with World Sailing?

LP has met with World Sailing and has fully briefed and discussed its position. They have indicated that they would be willing to participate in a meeting with ILCA. WS has also confirmed that it stands ready to participate in an inspection of LP manufacturing.

+-----------

 So, LP have published a statement that WS has agreed to participate in an inspection by ILCA, and further that WS have confirmed they stand ready to do so.  

  It's also worth noting that WS have challenged ILCA's claim that they have WS's "full support", stating that they have not approved any official class or manufacturers position; and LP are not claiming to have that "approval", claiming only that WS have agreed to participate in an inspection.

 I remain curious about how the UK Nationals will play out: LP are sponsoring the event and supplying new boats for charter. Given that UKLA have indicated that non-plaqued boats could be subject to protest, I wonder if LP will have to supply "new old stock" hulls for charter?

Cheers,

               W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

Hmm,  quoting from the LP FAQ section on their website:

+----------

6. Why has LP not allowed inspection of Laser manufacturing facilities

• LP has offered and World Sailing has agreed to participate in inspection of LP manufacturing by ILCA.

7. Is LP cooperating with World Sailing?

LP has met with World Sailing and has fully briefed and discussed its position. They have indicated that they would be willing to participate in a meeting with ILCA. WS has also confirmed that it stands ready to participate in an inspection of LP manufacturing.

 

I guess WS has amended Phase 2 of their tender process. 

Phase 2 steps:

(1) Evaluation of shortlisted tenderers on the basis of Profesional Qualification (see Section 11);

(2) Visits to production and/or assembly sites for shortlisted tenderers by World Sailing Technical and Offshore Department Staff;

So it sounds like the visits became more of a "we might visit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv - I love the view from the place where you say you are going to but sure don't like the path you take to get there.  Do you think the employee has gone rogue... or is he following direction of the volunteers?  Do you think either the employee or volunteers have any personal vested financial interest in the path the class is on?  I think I know your answer to both those questions so I just can't understand why you continually walk around spilling gasoline on the floor and haphazardly tossing lit matches into the puddles.  So unfair to people who can't defend themselves.  :(

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like between the (all alleged) new rigs, no trademark agreement renewal, no inspection, non CM boats, new name, new club Lasers, build contract termination and timing of votes and WS announcements re Olympic slot recommendations and decision there is enough freaking things on fire already.   Not to mention IPL's thoughtful analysis.  Maybe put the gasoline away?  Just sayin...  :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

  Maybe put the gasoline away?  Just sayin...  :)

Does that include all the Socks?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

 

Summary: The two people primarily involved are our President and our paid employee. 

Where is your evidence that the VP, Regional Chairs, technical head and others were not equally involved? At least one of them gives the very strong impression that he is.

Share this post


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

Which posts in this thread, “other than Gouvernail,” do you believe are authored by the writer who posts as Gouvernail?

note: Anyone can play!! This should be fun!! 

Are you me?

1 minute ago, Curious said:

Where is your evidence that the VP, Regional Chairs, technical head and others were not equally involved? At least one of them gives the very strong impression that he is.

Does it matter? ILCA as a body are not above accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lost in this whole irrelevant tangent is a nice thoughtful analysis by IPL.  :mellow:

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Does it matter? ILCA as a body are not above accountability.

Yes, volunteers are accountable, but it's also fairly widely accepted that they are treated differently to professionals - and a damn good thing too IMHO. 

Lots of sports organisations are aware of the problems caused by volunteers being abused by players, and have Codes of Conduct that prohibit it. It's already hard enough to find volunteers to run sports; the sort of insults they cop from the internet can only make it harder. Why would people give up their time and get abuse in return?  Maybe sailing should adopt a Code of Conduct that discourages abuse of volunteers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

I wasn’t in any way shape or form disparaging our employees. I was simply explainimg the fact our organization has never been a “volunteer ILaserCA.”

the fact we have ALWAYS had psid employee’s is likely the reason iour game has been so successful.

in fact , if our employees only worked as many hours as it took to be paid the same hourly rate as the typical class member gets at his /her paid job, they wouldn’t do anywhere near half the work they do . 

Volunteers?? No

in it for the love of the game?  Hell yes!!

Note: LP keeps suggesting we set up a professionally run organization. Every time I read that I think to myself, “That must really piss off mr Faust.”

...

summary. I may be tossing gasoline t the fire every time the flames go down a bit, but I am have not and will not suggest either Eric or Tracy is involved in some sort of bullshit conspiracy. 

 

ILCA World Council composition (non-builders):

Exec. Sec: Eric Faust (paid): President: Tracy Usher (volunteer); VP: Hugh Leicester (volunteer); Regional Chairs -- Asia: Aileen Loo (volunteer); South America: Carlos Palombo (volunteer); Europe: Jean-Luc Michon (volunteer); Europe: Alexandra Behrens (volunteer); NA: Andy Roy (volunteer); Oceania: Ken Hurling (volunteer); Africa: Nuno Gomes (volunteer); Treasurer: Nick Page (volunteer).  Total paid positions = 1, volunteer positions = 10

Although Eric and Tracy carry the bulk of the weight, everyone above has been closely involved via many emails and Zoom conf. calls.  In my opinion it is a professionally run organization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Adding to the above. The various people on that list have been involved with Lasers for as many as forty years, 

Compared to ANYONE we might hire, They each know more, care more, and bring along their experience and training from their “real life” jobs. 

Most would Tell you.  “I only do that other job to pay the sailing bills.”

consider this: we have Physicist level talent running the  show. If we HIRED a president we could only afford West Marine Store level talent. 

 

 

 

 

Just did the math. My first Laser regatta was in '74, so 45 years. Still learning.  My first "new boat" I bought right at the plant near Montreal. Ian Bruce helped my tie it down to the roof of my rusty Ford Maverick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Curious said:

Flags, would you be happy if people just accepted that anything anyone says about you must be true?  Would you be happy if you were DSQd on allegations that were totally uncorroborated and un-tested, like the allegations LPE and ILCA has made?

Seriously - do you want to live in a world where an allegation is taken to be guilt?  

It's actually rather revolting that people are prepared to slur people on charges of corruption or negligence, with absolutely no real evidence. 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a nice drawing of the updated PSA glass layup on the front page. I find it amazing that one of the 3 builders of a class that is supposed to be the fairest in the industry unilaterally upgrades the layup. As shown in the drawing that is a ton of extra reinforcements in the bow. There were several people sitting at a table making that decision. The boats have always gone soft in the bow so it’s an obvious improvement. The fact that the class immediately adopted it there by changing the construction manual is dodgy as well. We have endured decades of minor slow upgrades in rigging sails, spars. They have had 50 years to improve the layup which has been lacking. The secret layup change took place with no input from the class members. Keep in mind this is the same class that spends 2 years arguing about water bottles.4 years testing new sail designs. Refuses to simply use modern cloth in the old sail design. 

Its just plain sad what has happened to a superb class over the last 20 years. 

This is the perfect opportunity to make a few more upgrades while changing the logo, but they won’t. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

What is this Kirby build doc to which you refer?

AFAIK, no such thing has ever existed.  Ian Bruce prepared the first build document and subsequently all the parties agreed that it would be controlled by WS and ILCA. Do you have something we dont have?

the build doc being controlled means what, ownership or enforcement or?

then Kirby went to court over what? ( Post Ian Bruce passing away)

What did Kirby sell to PSA that upset rastagar so much and we know its not the name?
 

Share this post


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

ILCA World Council composition (non-builders):

Exec. Sec: Eric Faust (paid): President: Tracy Usher (volunteer); VP: Hugh Leicester (volunteer); Regional Chairs -- Asia: Aileen Loo (volunteer); South America: Carlos Palombo (volunteer); Europe: Jean-Luc Michon (volunteer); Europe: Alexandra Behrens (volunteer); NA: Andy Roy (volunteer); Oceania: Ken Hurling (volunteer); Africa: Nuno Gomes (volunteer); Treasurer: Nick Page (volunteer).  Total paid positions = 1, volunteer positions = 10

Although Eric and Tracy carry the bulk of the weight, everyone above has been closely involved via many emails and Zoom conf. calls.  In my opinion it is a professionally run organization.

 

Treacherous waters around here, aroy...

Share this post


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

 

 

FB2A2336-A6B8-4422-8F0F-882CD7D281ED.jpeg

These bows look like they have a little extra glass in them. Modified by Schroth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, inhiding said:

What is a schroth?

A furry mammal found only in Texas. Approach it with care, wearing thick gloves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists believe it's the immortal aquatic mutant offspring of a drunken fling between a fibreglass chopper gun and the Easter Bunny. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to EurILCA publishing opposition to ILCA's moves, it seems that the German, Italian and Portuguese Class associations are opposed. The Italian association is apparently the biggest in Europe (nearly 2000 members, 50,000 active sailors), I understand Germany isn't far behind.

 The UKLA remains "neutral", according to their website.

Not sure how a vote would be managed. I guess members would be polled somehow? or decided at an AGM/EGM?

..assuming the vote is held at all, of course, there doesn't seem to be much appetite for it, given that ILCA have already stated that the name change is done & dusted.

Remind me who ILCA represents...?

               W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sailabout said:

the build doc being controlled means what, ownership or enforcement or? WS and ILCA control "the content" of the build book and also who gets to look at that content. Any changes to the content of the build document must be approved by ILCA and WS. The WS contract also limits disclosure of the build book. It is an instruction manual so there is no "copyright" per se for anyone to "own".  LP has right of access to the content of the build book.

then Kirby went to court over what? ( Post Ian Bruce passing away)  Nothing to do with the build book.  Kirby was suing (on behalf of Global sailing it turns out) for breach of contract regarding a contractual fee he was previously paid per boat and for tortuous interference for ILCA and WS interfering in his contract with LP. 

What did Kirby sell to PSA that upset rastagar so much and we know its not the name?  He sold a company called BKI to the parent company of PSA.  BKI has no ownership or control of the build book. BKI was the party to the contract that earned fees per boat. In effect Kirby endeavored to sell the stream of fees coming from the builders.  It is alleged that Global sailing terminated the contract with LP, thus ending the fee income.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

In addition to EurILCA publishing opposition to ILCA's moves, it seems that the German, Italian and Portuguese Class associations are opposed. The Italian association is apparently the biggest in Europe (nearly 2000 members, 50,000 active sailors), I understand Germany isn't far behind.

 The UKLA remains "neutral", according to their website.

Not sure how a vote would be managed. I guess members would be polled somehow? or decided at an AGM/EGM?

..assuming the vote is held at all, of course, there doesn't seem to be much appetite for it, given that ILCA have already stated that the name change is done & dusted.

Remind me who ILCA represents...?

               W.

Its members... as represented on the World Council where I would speculate there was a vote on the decisions/course of action which passed with only 2 opposed.

I will also look into my crystal ball and predict that if this plays out as expected by ILCA (Olympic slot retained, new builder named, boat price and event boat supply similar to past) that it will all pass a membership vote as well which will happen in the near future.  :)

Now how long does that edit and delete button last?? :P 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Remind me who ILCA represents...?

               W.

Wess,

Further to your answer to WGW, what does the "L" stand for in ILCA?

 

Cheers

 

IPL

Share this post


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

Wess,

Further to your answer to WGW, what does the "L" stand for in ILCA?

 

Cheers

 

IPL

No fair; I was just about to type a question for you about this LOL.

Obviously its always stood for Laser in the past and Lord knows I have no clue what flies in court if it goes there but perhaps ILCA wants it to stand for "Laser-Like" in the future!  I am joking obviously.  I don't see how they can escape a long history of L being Laser.

One of the questions I had for you (re your analysis) was...

  * Do you see any benefit to ILCA to keeping the "L" or exact organization name?  I don't but wonder if I am missing something. At first I thought it like the BMW owners club...  it would be fine under fair use but I see your point in the analysis. So its odd that they kept the L.  Would have been so easy to break free of everyone and everything by just calling it the ISDCA (International Single-Handed Dinghy Class Association) or similar and run zero risk.  It seems so easy so I am lost as to why they didn't take that one little extra step.

Second question...

  * Was your concern re #1 of your analysis (right to terminate) general in nature or specific to a reading of the builder contract(s)?  I though that document was available from the last time in the barrel and recall (perhaps incorrectly) reading it and the class having certain spelled out rights to termination with no breach cure with this being one but I could easily be wrong.  But geeze if they don't have a clear right to terminate this would be one hell of a risk and I would have thought LPE would have made that clear by now no?  And/or taken steps to cure/mitigate (which perhaps the invite to WS is but again how simple it would be if they could cure to just say fine and let ILCA in).  Anyway, I thought the class had a black and white right to walk here but you have me wondering so I ask...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, volunteers are accountable, but it's also fairly widely accepted that they are treated differently to professionals - and a damn good thing too IMHO.

Noticed a lot of what you have posted lately and usually find myself agreeing all.  But this I have to disagree with.  The law is the law, a contract is a contract, and a volunteer will and should be held to the same standard as anyone else.  Paid or not.  I would bet money the good volunteers at ILCA got, followed, and continue to follow legal counsel, as well as took a vote and proceeded on a course of action consistent with that vote. 

I am totally with you re the on-line abuse they take but that was not Sosoomii's point of emphasis.  Volunteers or not there are bounds they have to stay within and I bet they have, are and will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

why does Kirby get a fee per boat, what collateral does he hold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so all the current ILCA members form a new association with Kirby and life starts over trouble free.

They apply to WS for class as they have 200,000 boats worldwide

(Without membership fees the ILCA closes next day)

Share this post


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

why does Kirby get a fee per boat, what collateral does he hold?

Seems to be mostly due to his status as the original designer of the boat, and it was enforced by contracts signed back in the 1980s.  All of the legal arguments the last several years seem to focus on the contracts, not any sort of copyright or "design rights".  The only real collateral he held was his status as the original designer, and it only worked if everyone agreed to get along.

I think we now how all the parties stand on that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

so all the current ILCA members form a new association with Kirby and life starts over trouble free.

They apply to WS for class as they have 200,000 boats worldwide

(Without membership fees the ILCA closes next day)

See: Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch thread. 6 years and 4500 posts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know what CMS is? 

In the Ausi layup schedule (from what I can see) the stacking sequence is 2 off 200 gm CSM, 2 off 450 gm CMS, 2 off 450 CMS + the 300 gm CSM.  whilst not legal, an extra 300 gm CSM on top of a 2200 gm does not seem particularly life changing, given that there must also be an overall weight increase, in the ends.

I always understood that there was some Coremat in the Laser layup, but maybe this is in the deck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cms is probs a typo.

I can’t see this being too material, excuse the pun! But can see it’s an emotive point of principle and probably contractual legality.  

Think there are strips of foam down the bilges of hull and foam in the flat deck, can’t remember coremat but could be wrong. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CaptainAhab said:

There is a nice drawing of the updated PSA glass layup on the front page. I find it amazing that one of the 3 builders of a class that is supposed to be the fairest in the industry unilaterally upgrades the layup. As shown in the drawing that is a ton of extra reinforcements in the bow. There were several people sitting at a table making that decision. The boats have always gone soft in the bow so it’s an obvious improvement. The fact that the class immediately adopted it there by changing the construction manual is dodgy as well. We have endured decades of minor slow upgrades in rigging sails, spars. They have had 50 years to improve the layup which has been lacking. The secret layup change took place with no input from the class members. Keep in mind this is the same class that spends 2 years arguing about water bottles.4 years testing new sail designs. Refuses to simply use modern cloth in the old sail design. 

 Its just plain sad what has happened to a superb class over the last 20 years. 

This is the perfect opportunity to make a few more upgrades while changing the logo, but they won’t. 

Changes to the construction manual are different to changing the class rules.

It may help to think of the hull as a 'part'. It is like changing the construction of any of the other yacht parts - actually, there is no rule to change - just the construction manual which is controlled (according to the contracts signed by the ILCA and the two official builders PSA and PSJ) by the copyright holder. 

Also, the boats concerned did not perform in any way that I (or others) could notice differently to LPE's of the same time. This is non scientific though based on a few LPE boats competing in New Zealand 2005-2011 against the PSA boats.

Share this post


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

Anyone know what CMS is? 

In the Ausi layup schedule (from what I can see) the stacking sequence is 2 off 200 gm CSM, 2 off 450 gm CMS, 2 off 450 CMS + the 300 gm CSM.  whilst not legal, an extra 300 gm CSM on top of a 2200 gm does not seem particularly life changing, given that there must also be an overall weight increase, in the ends.

I always understood that there was some Coremat in the Laser layup, but maybe this is in the deck?

AFAIK

CMS is an acronym for Color Matching System, used by companies like Pantone (who also use PMS), Adobe, graphic designers and printers.

CSM is an acronym for Chopped Strand Mat. (Fibreglass/Fiberglass).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, torrid said:

Seems to be mostly due to his status as the original designer of the boat, and it was enforced by contracts signed back in the 1980s.  All of the legal arguments the last several years seem to focus on the contracts, not any sort of copyright or "design rights".  The only real collateral he held was his status as the original designer, and it only worked if everyone agreed to get along.

I think we now how all the parties stand on that.

The current parties are: ILCA, WS, PSJ, PSA and Bruce Kirby Inc.

All the current parties seem to be getting on just fine. ;)  

And they are currently evaluating builders to build the ILCA for EU and NA. (Maybe in the near future for Asia as well!) There will need to be new contracts (which may already be in existence), however there as yet nothing to indicate that the contracts will be substantially different in any way - which includes the parties of the contracts and what is being agreed to. The big exception is relating to the ownership of the "Laser" trademark clauses, which will no doubt be removed. New clauses relating to the "ILCA" trademark in my view will be 'owned' by ILCA instead of the builders as it was with "Laser".

It is my view that Eric Faust, Tracy Usher and the exec council are doing a great job. :)  Heck, even Italy is back on board! ;) 

Share this post


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

Changes to the construction manual are different to changing the class rules.

It may help to think of the hull as a 'part'. It is like changing the construction of any of the other yacht parts - actually, there is no rule to change - just the construction manual which is controlled (according to the contracts signed by the ILCA and the two official builders PSA and PSJ) by the copyright holder. 

Also, the boats concerned did not perform in any way that I (or others) could notice differently to LPE's of the same time. This is non scientific though based on a few LPE boats competing in New Zealand 2005-2011 against the PSA boats.

 

FUNDAMENTAL RULE

The Laser shall be raced in accordance with these Rules, with only the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sail and battens manufactured by a World Sailing and International Laser Class Association (ILCA) approved builder in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual) which is registered with World Sailing. No addition or alteration may be made to the hull form, construction, equipment, type of equipment, placing of equipment, fittings, type of fittings, placing of fittings, spars, sail and battens as supplied by the builder except when such an alteration or change is specifically authorised by Parts 2 or 3 of these Rules. 

31. AMENDMENTS

Amendments to these Rules shall be approved by each of:

(a) the World Council,

(b) the Advisory Council,

(c) at least two-thirds of the membership casting a vote in response to a ballot published by the International Office of the Class. Only those votes submitted within one month from the date of publication of the rule change ballot shall be valid, and

(d) World Sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bill4 said:

 

FUNDAMENTAL RULE

The Laser shall be raced in accordance with these Rules, with only the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sail and battens manufactured by a World Sailing and International Laser Class Association (ILCA) approved builder in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual) which is registered with World Sailing. No addition or alteration may be made to the hull form, construction, equipment, type of equipment, placing of equipment, fittings, type of fittings, placing of fittings, spars, sail and battens as supplied by the builder except when such an alteration or change is specifically authorised by Parts 2 or 3 of these Rules. 

31. AMENDMENTS

Amendments to these Rules shall be approved by each of:

(a) the World Council,

(b) the Advisory Council,

(c) at least two-thirds of the membership casting a vote in response to a ballot published by the International Office of the Class. Only those votes submitted within one month from the date of publication of the rule change ballot shall be valid, and

(d) World Sailing.

Or do the builders not have to generally abide by the Fundamental Rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bill4 said:

FUNDAMENTAL RULE

The Laser shall be raced in accordance with these Rules, with only the hull, equipment, fittings, spars, sail and battens manufactured by a World Sailing and International Laser Class Association (ILCA) approved builder in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual) which is registered with World Sailing. No addition or alteration may be made to the hull form, construction, equipment, type of equipment, placing of equipment, fittings, type of fittings, placing of fittings, spars, sail and battens as supplied by the builder...

Agreed, that is the correct rule which applies to the hull (kind of). The Fundamental Rule is really there for the sailors, after the boat is supplied by the builder. The builders are contractually obligated to follow the Construction Manual, which has the ability to be changed by the copyright holder (I'd need to look at the contracts for the exact language, it's been a while).

Specifically, there historically have been minor changes over the years which have not affected this rule. They include minor changes to the way the deck and hull are joined (issues in the 1980s and 1990s, when boats were made in Auckland, New Zealand) - and I suspect some other minor internal changes (improvements) around the mast step - I vaguely recall issues about the mast rake - though this might have been improved quality controls rather than changes to the Construction Manual. Actually, I don't know for a fact whether or not the Construction Manual was changed back then, but I do know that changes to the boats were made.

Great light has been made of PSA by an ex builder of the ILCA class about the addition of extra chopped mat to strengthen the forward sections of the hull which may or may not have been properly documented in the Construction Manual. Without proper review we won't know, (and the Construction Manual is confidential) but I do know this: that the ILCA is satisfied with the current builders (PSA and PSJ) and their commitment to the ILCA class. I would assume that includes inspections to the satisfaction of the ILCA as PSA and PSJ are contractually obligated to allow to take place at the ILCA's request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's kind of interesting (?) that the possible 'infringement' of the Construction Manual by PSA (2009-2015) started while Jeff Martin was the Executive Secretary and the ILCA office was in the UK.

For reasons that make little sense to me, LP now wants the office to be relocated to the UK.

 

Share this post


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

Noticed a lot of what you have posted lately and usually find myself agreeing all.  But this I have to disagree with.  The law is the law, a contract is a contract, and a volunteer will and should be held to the same standard as anyone else.  Paid or not.  I would bet money the good volunteers at ILCA got, followed, and continue to follow legal counsel, as well as took a vote and proceeded on a course of action consistent with that vote. 

I am totally with you re the on-line abuse they take but that was not Sosoomii's point of emphasis.  Volunteers or not there are bounds they have to stay within and I bet they have, are and will.

I may have been unclear; I'm not saying that ILCA should be treated any differently under law in its dispute with PSE just because it's mainly run by volunteers. It's just that the volunteers who run ILCA should not be copping the abuse they are getting from some sailors.

Every Laser sailor has a chance to put their hand up to help run ILCA - as we all know, very few of them do. When most people are sitting back on their arses benefiting from the huge amount of effort that ILCA's volunteers have been putting in for years, they aren't in a good position to insult the ILCA volunteers in the way some of them have been doing. If the critics could have done better they had ample chance to put their hand up and show how it's done.

No one is saying that we can't discuss ILCA's actions and statements (as I did on the CII rig thread) but there is a difference between discussing class direction and issues, and accusations of incompetence and bad faith that often rest on accepting what the opposing party has seen fit to release.

Yes, volunteers should stay within the bounds of the rules and the law, but we don't seem to have sufficient information here to say they have not. What may be very frustrating for them is that they may not be able to reveal their legal advice for fear of losing their right to keep it confidential from LPE.

I'll bet that whatever way this ends up, a lot of the people who are flinging shit at the ILCA volunteers will end up sitting in the dinghy park complaining that no one else has stepped up to run their racing for them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No fair; I was just about to type a question for you about this LOL.

Obviously its always stood for Laser in the past and Lord knows I have no clue what flies in court if it goes there but perhaps ILCA wants it to stand for "Laser-Like" in the future!  I am joking obviously.  I don't see how they can escape a long history of L being Laser.

One of the questions I had for you (re your analysis) was...

  * Do you see any benefit to ILCA to keeping the "L" or exact organization name?  I don't but wonder if I am missing something. At first I thought it like the BMW owners club...  it would be fine under fair use but I see your point in the analysis. So its odd that they kept the L.  Would have been so easy to break free of everyone and everything by just calling it the ISDCA (International Single-Handed Dinghy Class Association) or similar and run zero risk.  It seems so easy so I am lost as to why they didn't take that one little extra step.

I suspect LP's lawyers will file every claim they possibly can, so it is likely that LP will try and prevent the ILCA calling themselves the ILCA  BUT....I think the ILCA will have two strong defenses to a claim of trade mark infringement.   1. Decades of acquiescence and  2. Fair use .   I think I have explained both of these defenses before.  I believe that it is likely that the ILCA can continue to call itself the ILCA if it wishes to fight that fight.

Where I think that the new builders and the class association are on very thin ice is calling the boat , the ILCA Dinghy.  I think this is risky and gives LP a reasonable claim of trade mark infringement.

Second question...

  * Was your concern re #1 of your analysis (right to terminate) general in nature or specific to a reading of the builder contract(s)? 

The ILCA was not a party to the Builders Contracts and I think after the first round of litigation, those contracts are in very poor shape.

I was referring to the so called "World sailing contract" which was signed between WS, ILCA, the trademark owners and Bruce Kirby.  The ILCA cannot unilaterally terminate that contract without cause. As long as the Laser is an international WS class, the contract remains in force.

The ILCA appear to be claiming that LP has breached clauses 6.1 and clause 7 (b) of the WS contract in a fundamental and material manner such that the contract has been repudiated by LP and can no longer be enforced.  I dont think that ILCA are claiming that they have issued notice to terminate the contract, they are claiming that LP has materially breached the contract such that the contract is effectively null and void as between LP and the other parties.  

I though that document was available from the last time in the barrel and recall (perhaps incorrectly) reading it and the class having certain spelled out rights to termination with no breach cure with this being one but I could easily be wrong.  But geeze if they don't have a clear right to terminate this would be one hell of a risk and I would have thought LPE would have made that clear by now no?  And/or taken steps to cure/mitigate (which perhaps the invite to WS is but again how simple it would be if they could cure to just say fine and let ILCA in).  Anyway, I thought the class had a black and white right to walk here but you have me wondering so I ask...

I dont think that the ILCA rights are black and white .. I am concerned that ILCA will have to show that this is a breach so fundamental that it defeats the entire object of the contract and  that the breach either cannot be remedied or that LP has no intention of remedying the breach.  Bear in mind that the contract specifically provides for WS to inspect the production facilities as well as ILCA and the contract clearly states that the objectives of the inspections are to ensure that construction is in accordance with the building manual .   So if WS inspects the production facility and the boats are built in accordance with the manual, has there been a fundamental breach?

One small but important point, LP cannot challenge the ILCA on the WS contract in court.  They can only go to arbitration and the arbitration shall be conducted by a single arbitrator appointed by Lloyds register and English law will apply.  One hopes that the ILCA consulted English counsel.

I would not be surprised to see LP attack this decision on two fronts. One in court claiming tortuous interference and trademark infringement and another in front of an English arbitrator seeking enforcement of the WS contract. 

As I have said before, I think litigation is entirely the wrong practical route for LP. Suing one's customers is a lose:lose strategy .  It would be much smarter to allow inspection and sit down and resolve this mess outside of litigation... but Farzad Rastegar reminds me of a certain Jeff Dunham character...so brace yourself!

Achmed.jpg.ce726d63fe26691107c66230bc773484.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gantt said:

The current parties are: ILCA, WS, PSJ, PSA and Bruce Kirby Inc.

All the current parties seem to be getting on just fine. ;)  

And they are currently evaluating builders to build the ILCA for EU and NA. (Maybe in the near future for Asia as well!) There will need to be new contracts (which may already be in existence), however there as yet nothing to indicate that the contracts will be substantially different in any way - which includes the parties of the contracts and what is being agreed to. The big exception is relating to the ownership of the "Laser" trademark clauses, which will no doubt be removed. New clauses relating to the "ILCA" trademark in my view will be 'owned' by ILCA instead of the builders as it was with "Laser".

It is my view that Eric Faust, Tracy Usher and the exec council are doing a great job. :)  Heck, even Italy is back on board! ;) 

Italy is back on board? Can you point me to your source for that, please? I can't see anything on their website or fb feeds to suggest it.

Thanks,

               W.

Share this post


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

Italy is back on board? Can you point me to your source for that, please? I can't see anything on their website or fb feeds to suggest it.

Thanks,

               W.


"ILCA announces the recognition of Associazione Italia Classi Laser (“AICL”) as the official ILCA District association responsible for Laser activities in Italy and San Marino. The announcement comes after ILCA had revoked recognition of the previous association due to an ongoing, unresolved dispute in December 2017."
https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2018/01/17/new-district-association-named-in-italy-and-san-marino/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some comments where some persons are sharing opinions which are simply not supported by fact. Some are suggesting that the ILCA and the builders did not have a contractual agreement. That notion is wrong.

This, from the ILCA website:

Quote

 

ILCA would like to now answer some of the numerous questions we’ve received from ILCA members and dinghy owners as well as to correct some of the erroneous information that is now floating around the web.  We invite anyone with additional questions to send an email to office@laserinternational.org with the term “FAQ” in the subject line so we can try to answer them and add them to our list.
 

https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2019/04/06/faq-6-april-2019/
 

Q: What is happening? I don’t understand why ILCA rejected the builder?

A: The previously approved builder of class-legal boats in Europe breached the terms of the Laser Construction Manual Agreement (LCMA), which seeks to ensure the identical nature of all Laser class boats wherever they are built which is a fundamental principle of the class.  This is the same Agreement signed by every ILCA approved builder worldwide.  After the European builder unequivocally indicated that they wouldn’t abide by the term of the LCMA that requires all builders to allow ILCA to inspect their factories, ILCA terminated the agreement with respect to the European builder only in order to protect the one-design principle of the class.  As a result, ILCA is now moving forward with the review and approval of applications from interested and qualified manufacturers to complement the existing network of class-approved builders and dealers.

 

 

Share this post


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


"ILCA announces the recognition of Associazione Italia Classi Laser (“AICL”) as the official ILCA District association responsible for Laser activities in Italy and San Marino. The announcement comes after ILCA had revoked recognition of the previous association due to an ongoing, unresolved dispute in December 2017."
https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2018/01/17/new-district-association-named-in-italy-and-san-marino/

Sorry, Gantt, I'm not seeing the relevance of that article (dated January 17th, 2018) to the current situation. 

The very recent article published on saily.it strongly suggests otherwise.

Furthermore, I don't think the issue is around the existence of a contract between ILCA and their builders, so much as whether they are within their rights to terminate it as they have on the grounds they have cited. It's possible that they are in a weaker position than it appears from their public statements.

Cheers,

                W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Achmed.jpg.ce726d63fe26691107c66230bc773484.jpg

Thank you. And I see the lawnmower is back. I think it’s you who owes me a keyboard for that comment. Damn that was funny...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I may have been unclear; I'm not saying that ILCA should be treated any differently under law in its dispute with PSE just because it's mainly run by volunteers. It's just that the volunteers who run ILCA should not be copping the abuse they are getting from some sailors.

Every Laser sailor has a chance to put their hand up to help run ILCA - as we all know, very few of them do. When most people are sitting back on their arses benefiting from the huge amount of effort that ILCA's volunteers have been putting in for years, they aren't in a good position to insult the ILCA volunteers in the way some of them have been doing. If the critics could have done better they had ample chance to put their hand up and show how it's done.

No one is saying that we can't discuss ILCA's actions and statements (as I did on the CII rig thread) but there is a difference between discussing class direction and issues, and accusations of incompetence and bad faith that often rest on accepting what the opposing party has seen fit to release.

Yes, volunteers should stay within the bounds of the rules and the law, but we don't seem to have sufficient information here to say they have not. What may be very frustrating for them is that they may not be able to reveal their legal advice for fear of losing their right to keep it confidential from LPE.

I'll bet that whatever way this ends up, a lot of the people who are flinging shit at the ILCA volunteers will end up sitting in the dinghy park complaining that no one else has stepped up to run their racing for them.

Agree. And yes I noticed you were the first to comment thoughtfully on the CII rig. That whole thing is still a bit of a WTF (?!) move that doesn’t seem to fit into the bigger picture. And they sure did step back away fast since. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gantt said:

There are some comments where some persons are sharing opinions which are simply not supported by fact. Some are suggesting that the ILCA and the builders did not have a contractual agreement. That notion is wrong.

 

 

I have not seen those comments ....but it is important to be as precise as possible.

1. The so called "Builder Agreements" which were referenced in the prior litigation and discussed in the Torch thread. These were between BKI and four regional trademark owners/builders.  The ILCA were not party to these contracts.  The ILCA did not appoint these builders, they were appointed by the trademark owners and originally approved by WS and subsequently by the ILCA. 

2.  The 4 party agreement (colloquially referred to on these forums as the WS agreement) which established the terms for the Laser becoming a World Sailing International Class. Under this agreement, the trademark owners agreed that the ILCA and WS shall have the right to inspect all master tooling and production facilities. Among other things it defines who shall approve changes in the Laser Construction Manual and specified the confidentiality of the LCM.  This agreement forms the basis of what the ILCA are now calling the LCMA.   Both ILCA and the predecessors of the LP group of companies were signatories to this contract.  This contract was Exhibit #3 in the prior suit from Bruce Kirby.  Paragraphs 6 and 7 deal with the inspection rights of the ILCA.

3. The right of the ILCA to approve builders is not contractual. It was created by the class rules. A class is entitled to introduce a hurdle that restricts competition within it's private association to boats built by builders it approves but it must be careful to exercise that right in accordance with certain equitable doctrines.  In particular, if they exercise that right in a manner which causes economic harm to a party, they need to have their ducks very carefully lined up.

4. The right of WS to approve builders is enforceable by contract.  The Trade mark owners, the ILCA, (and incidentally Bruce Kirby) all agreed that any new builders must be approved of by WS.  WS is thus in a stronger position to approve or disapprove new builders than the Class Association.

5. It is important to be precise with descriptions. If we allow the acronym LP to cover the group of companies owned and controlled by Rastegar then their most important legal status is that of "Trademark owner".   It is as trademark owner that their contractual obligations to WS and the ILCA are defined. LP also builds and distributes the Laser. LP also subcontracts the building of the Laser to a Chinese subcontractor that is not owned by Rastegar.  The Chinese manufacturer will almost certainly have a contractual relationship with LP but it may or may not have a contractual relationship with WS . The Chinese manufacturer is a "builder"  but the obligations to enable inspection rest with the trademark owner (LP) which in this case is also a builder. 

6. The WS contract also specifies that the Trademark owners must approve in writing the appointment of any new builders in the region where the trademark owners owns the trademark.   Thus in order for ILCA and WS to appoint a builder without the prior approval of LP....an arbitrator appointed by Lloyds register is going to have to find that LP has breached the terms of the contract in such a fundamental manner that their rights under the contract are null and void.

Changing the name of the boat is not going to abrogate the ILCA and WS's obligations under the WS contract because the sailboat is defined as a "13 foot 10 1/2 inch sailboat designed by Bruce Kirby and pictured in schedule 1"

The nub of this matter is that if WS and ILCA want to appoint new builders in North America and Europe, they have to find a way to render the WS contract with LP as void.  ILCA appear to claim that preventing an inspection of the facility renders the contract void.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont get me wrong. I support the Class Association. I just want them to be careful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

IPLore ------ I don't think the WS/ISAF agreement you refer to is the agreement that ILCA has terminated. Their press release looks like it was talking about something else :

"Laser Performance (Europe) Limited (LPE), breached the terms of the Laser Construction Manual Agreement (LCMA)..."  http://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2019/03/27/announcement-regarding-ilca-approved-builders/

See IPL's #2 in his post 934 above. That 4 party agreement is the LCMA.  I believe.  And its available (or was at least).  I long since deleted those files LOL!  Who knew...  :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gouvernail - Its not time yet!

I now return you to your regular commercial before the start of the second act.  :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lemonpepper said:

IPLore ------ I don't think the WS/ISAF agreement you refer to is the agreement that ILCA has terminated. Their press release looks like it was talking about something else :

"Laser Performance (Europe) Limited (LPE), breached the terms of the Laser Construction Manual Agreement (LCMA)..."  http://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2019/03/27/announcement-regarding-ilca-approved-builders/

Lemon and Wess,

It is very possible that LPE , ILCA and WS updated their agreements since the WS agreement we saw as an exhibit during the BKI lawsuit.

However I am skeptical that LPE would have granted the ILCA the right to unilaterally terminate the agreement. I guess its possible that their eye was off the ball and they were focused on their dispute with Global sailing and trying to curry favor with WS and ILCA and did not pay close attention to an updated draft of the contract....but given LP's propensity for lawsuits I somehow doubt it.

ILCA's language in their FAQ is a bit opaque.

"since the agreement with the former European builder has been terminated, it would need to enter into new arrangements with ILCA and the remaining parties to the agreement.  Any reapproval would be under the same FRAND terms as will apply to all other builders."

The reference to the "remaining parties" suggest a multi-party agreement similar to the WS agreement. Is WS a party to the agreement that ILCA puroprts to have terminated?

ILCA refer to ILCA terminating the agreement but they also refer to LPE "breaching the terms of the agreement.....a fundamental principle...."  suggesting they are claiming a fundamental breach of contract by LP rather than ILCA simply giving notice to terminate.

We are speculating without the contracts in front of us.

Either way, a version of the WS contract almost certainly still exists and under that contract, no new builders can be appointed without the written permission of the trademark owner.  For that contract to be nullified, the ILCA will have to show a fundamental breach of contract that cannot be remedied.   The way around that would be for WS to rescind WS international status. 

Have you heard the old joke about blowing your head off to prevent someone stealing your cap.

They are not fighting over the rights to distribute Coca Cola in Brazil. This is a tiny funky business where the principals should sit around a table and sort it out, facing the reality that everybody loses with a legal battle.   The poor distributors and dealers must be shaking their heads in despair, while RS rubs their hands in glee. This is a business which requires people skills, an ability to motivate volunteers and build compromise. Im not sure that Rastegar has the right  blend of personal skills for the recreational sailing market. Maybe he can win in a legal fight with the Class but how did he get into the third legal battle in a couple of years?  What can he possibly gain from this dispute?

Anyway....we'll wait and see what happens next.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

Sorry, Gantt, I'm not seeing the relevance of that article (dated January 17th, 2018) to the current situation. 

The very recent article published on saily.it strongly suggests otherwise.

Furthermore, I don't think the issue is around the existence of a contract between ILCA and their builders, so much as whether they are within their rights to terminate it as they have on the grounds they have cited. It's possible that they are in a weaker position than it appears from their public statements.

Cheers,

                W.

Wasn't aware there was a new issue. Do you have a link, Laser is mentioned a lot on saily.it.

I don't think any of the parties have ever contested the existence of the agreements between the ILCA and the builders. A copy of the IYRU agreement (as it was originally known) is in the legal documents submitted. It defines rights and is referred to in the builder's agreements. It's only poorly informed commentators on forums who speculate about the existence of contracts between WS, ILCA and the builders. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

OK... it seems we are at a total standstill until some things  happen:

1. New toys start selling in the part of the world where Velium hold the rights to sell Lasers.

**At that time we will see whether there is a lawsuit, many lawsuits, customers, and etc.

2. What will become of the International Laser Class Association? (And other subgroups of that  association.)

**** How will  those who are setting up the new ILCA be able to access the assets and membership files of the International Laser Class Association ? 

++++Will the officers who have currently abandoned the International Laser Class Association return and conduct the voting processes and properly seek approval to make the changes necessary to continue as the same entity? 

++++Will no one pay attention or care about the Constitution of the International Laser Class Association?

++++Will some World Council Member, Builder Representative, regional officer, district officer, fleet captain, of member step up and lay claim to the International Laser Class Association and begin whatever processes might be available to seize all the assets and records so the International Laser Class Association can continue to follow its Constitution? ( Perhaps that individual or group would do so to SUPPORT the goals of the renegade ILCA and could find a way to create ballots, take votes, and seek approval from WS to merge with the new ILCA)

3. What will happen when sailors with Lasers that are in every way identical to the ILCA boats show up at ILCA sanctioned events? 

***Will anyone anywhere actually seek to remove these sailors from the games?

**** Will anyone be able to keep a straight face while claiming the rules of the ILCA cannot simply be ignored (as the ILCA has been ignoring International Laser Class Rules)

**** Will a parent who has invested in toys, gear, a tow vehicle, a coach, a RIB, travel, entry fees, and motels only to be told the kid can’t play, hire a lawyer and sue the host club, the ILCA, the officers of the ILCA, World Sailing, the manufacturers of BOTH the kid’s toys and whoever is selling toys that do not fit the Internstional Laser Class Association rules? 

(If you think the parent suit angle is far fetched consider this. If that parent wins, the kid wins. All a parent needs to win the “youth worlds or whatever”  is a wallet and a lawyer.) 

$&&&&&&&&&&&&&$$$$&&&&&&&&

I could continue adding to this post but the horse has already been beaten to death.

There is a right way to remove the IP restrictions and change the name of the toys and the association.

Until the changes are made the RIGHT WAY, the changes cannot be OFFICIAL. 

Official chsnges can only happen within the rules. 

It is way past time to print up some ballots and get started. 

 

There is a vote coming. Likely in a few weeks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have not seen those comments ....but it is important to be as precise as possible.

1. The so called "Builder Agreements" which were referenced in the prior litigation and discussed in the Torch thread. These were between BKI and four regional trademark owners/builders.  The ILCA were not party to these contracts.  The ILCA did not appoint these builders, they were appointed by the trademark owners and originally approved by WS and subsequently by the ILCA. 

IPLore, you authored many of 'those comments'.

So just taking your first point, and fact checking what you wrote:

"These were between BKI and four regional trademark owners/s builders". 

Kind of, and I agree, it does pay to be precise. For example, the agreement appointing a builder back in 1983 was signed by IYRU, ILCA, BKI, Bruce Kirby and Laser International Holdings (1983) Limited.

" The ILCA were not party to these contracts. "

False. The ILCA is named as a party to the contract - refer to page 2 of the 1983 builders agreement, under the title "Parties". The ILCA is the second from the top.

"The ILCA did not appoint these builders, they were appointed by the trademark owners and originally approved by WS and subsequently by the ILCA. "

Misleading and false. The builders were licensed to hold the trademark Laser. In the 1983 agreement, the appointment was not by the Trademark owners. IYRU (Which became the ISAF, then WS), and ILCA were parties to the agreement, so they as well as BKI and Kirby himself, gave their approval.

Please, be my guest, and check for yourself. You will find that I am accurate in the above.

There are many many inaccuracies in what opinions etc IPLore has put forward in addition to the above. However we do need to thank IPLore's best efforts to make a positive contribution to this topic. There are accuracy issues with the balance of his points, and IPLore has been singled out behind closed doors as a source of misinformation. ;)  :) 

No doubt we will need to suffer through IPLore's response to what I have just written. Sorry. :( 

PS: Thank you all for the personal messages welcoming me back!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites