Jump to content

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch


Recommended Posts

Going back to the validity of the voting to change the Fundamental rule, it was from memory online, where you provided basic information about yourself before voting. (Name, email address etc) While I'm confident the auditing process verified that each vote was made in the name of a current member, what steps were taken to verify that the vote itself was genuine?

 

What steps were taken to make sure that the votes were cast by the member?

 

It would be interesting to see the legitimacy of the vote and its methodology properly challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When are they going to make a decision? I need to know whether I should be training in my RS Aero or my Laser for Paris 2024.     

@WCB  i seriously doubt there is a soul contributing to this thread who honestly disagrees with my perceptions or the reasoning behind my effort to establish an AERO fleet in Texas and at my home

That is one version of the story but there are other views. Today, many years later, who seems intent on controlling what happens to money that does not belong to them and attacking those elected by

Posted Images

Going back to the validity of the voting to change the Fundamental rule, it was from memory online, where you provided basic information about yourself before voting. (Name, email address etc) While I'm confident the auditing process verified that each vote was made in the name of a current member, what steps were taken to verify that the vote itself was genuine?

 

What steps were taken to make sure that the votes were cast by the member?

 

It would be interesting to see the legitimacy of the vote and its methodology properly challenged.

 

In the UK it was very much presented as 'vote yes or the class will die immediately'. No real information given out either aside from what little you could find on the net at the time (and the ongoing rumours).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deal with it.

 

 

Interesting idea Canntt. All just my opinion (well and that of all the other people you think I am - which is also wrong BTW... deal with it)

 

* The class voted to adopt the new rule by a wide margin. Deal with it.

 

* The class vote easily survived ILCA leadership change without so much as wimper of discord being voiced, and ISAF review as well. Deal with it.

 

* You did not care enough to join the class so you don't get a vote. Deal with it.

 

* Its not just contracts; BKI also sued to take down the Laser trademark and was unsuccessful and that is a big deal. Deal with it.

 

* LPE owns the trademark and its valid and it matters big time to the class and thus the vote. Deal with it.

 

* BKI did not sue ILCA or ISAF for breach of contract and in this regard, the court already tossed much of what was argued. Deal with it.

 

* BTW, that's two big stikes for BKI. Deal with it.

 

* LPE did not delay the new sail as you claimed; your heros did. Deal with it.

 

* BKI has not followed through and produced the Torch or launched the Torch class (welcoming existing Lasers) despite all the hype from BKI. Nothing stops BKI (does not need ILCA or ISAF) from doing this and if BKI wanted to really help the class - I would agree such steps would indeed help the class, especially at the grass roots - I would stand in line to support it and buy it. But BKI didn't. So I guess its not about the class; I guess its about the money as others have said. Deal with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at this on Wikipedia:

Oh and Canntt, since you seem to like Wiki, Wiki also says this:

 

On December 17, 2012, ILCA President Tracy Usher and ISAF CEO Jerome Pels met with the LaserPerformance Board in New York City to review the issues. ILCA and ISAF requested that LaserPerformance mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc. LaserPerformance agreed.

 

On January 31, 2013, Jerome Pels formally wrote LaserPerformance, Bruce Kirby, and Bruce Kirby, Inc., requesting the parties to take their dispute to non-binding mediation. In February of 2013, LaserPerformance again agreed to mediation. Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc., turned down the request.

 

On May 21, 2013, Bruce Kirby, along with his attorney Wesley Whitmyer, met with ISAF CEO Jerome Pels, ILCA President Tracy Usher, and ISAF Vice president Gary Jobson and their council in an effort to resolve the issues between Bruce Kirby and Laser Performance. ISAF and ILCA left the meeting with the understanding that mediation was an option. On May 22, 2013, LaserPerformance directors met with ISAF CEO Jerome Pels, ILCA President Tracy Usher, and their council to discuss actions to resolve the conflict between Bruce Kirby, Bruce Kirby, Inc., and LaserPerformance. At the conclusion of the meeting, ILCA and ISAF requested that LaserPerformance mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc. On May 29, 2013, LaserPerformance agreed to mediation to be held at the New York Yacht Club on June 18, 2013. Bruce Kirby turned down the request.

 

Canntt - Since you would not answer the last question; perhaps you would answer this one. Feel free to reach out to your imaginary friends, uh I mean... the key parties you have been in communication with, LOL...

 

* Is the above Wiki claim accurate and if so why has BK turned down all those requests to mediate while LPE agreed?

 

Look forward to your smoke and mirrors, uh, I mean response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt sent me copies of a couple emails ...

But

Neither of the "key" players is directly involved in the LP vs Kirby fight.

...

Neither is feeding Gantt any special information.

... neither wrote anything not previously said.

 

+++++++++++++++

 

Repeating

None of this matters much.

The question is about whether the old contracts are enforceable and if so to what degree

 

100% right. This is all that matters.

 

This is a contractual dispute between LP and BKI. BKI had a contract with LP . They are seeking to enforce the contract in court.

 

Before we discuss the issues involved in the contractual dispute, let us try and finally kill some of the non-issues that keep on being raised in this thread.

 

1. The copyright of the construction manual is completely irrelevant. We do not need to see the construction manual to know this. See earlier discussion.

 

2. The ILCA is NOT being sued for breach of the 1983 IYRU agreement. IMO, this is because the ILCA is not in breach of the 1983 IYRU agreement.

I recognize that Gannt disagrees with both of these conclusions but readers of the thread can make their own judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the IYRU agreement, ILCA's obligations under this agreement are contained under clauses:


4 - ILCA agrees that class rules and measurement process is subject to approval of ISAF.


6.2 - ILCA agrees to keep the construction manual confidential


8.0 - ILCA agrees that amendments to construction manual has to be agreed by both LSAF and ILCA


11 - All parties agree that the sail can only be made by sailmakers approved by trademark holder.


The ILCA has fulfilled these obligations, and it should be no surprise that ILCA has not been sued for breach of contract.



The agreement bestows certain rights upon the Class Association to inspect the build process and collect a fee from certain builders. The agreement defines what is meant by a builder for purposes of the agreement but there is no obligation in the agreement for ILCA to assist in enforcing any license agreement. Furthermore, ILCA is specifically not included in the process of choosing additional builders in this agreement which states "...The builders set forth in schedule 2...are authorized to manufacture the Laser class boat...Further builders may only be appointed with the prior written approval of Kirby Inc., Trade Mark Owner and the IYRU". There are no clauses which deal with what happens if the Trade Mark Owner and BKI disagree with who should be appointed as a builder. In effect, under this agreement, the ILCA is the recipient of a list of builders whose premises it has a right to inspect and collect a fee from. As far as the ILCA is concerned any changes to the list have to be agreed by all three, Trade mark owner, BKI and ISAF.



BKI's obligations under the agreement in clauses 9.1, 11 and 17 may or may not be a problem for BKI. In particular clause 17. ISAF has announced that BKI is in breach of the agreement. The clock is now ticking on BKI to claim otherwise.



Again, I think this is a side show. The main issue revolves around a contractual dispute between LP, Global Sailing and BKI.


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heart of the legal matter is the builders contract.

Up until now I have not expressed any views on the issues at stake in the builders contracts.

 

I genuinely don't have an opinion on the outcome of the builders contract dispute. I believe that much will depend on discovery. My best guess, considering the outcomes, is that there will be a financial settlement...but it really is a complete guess.

 

Here are some of the interesting issues that some have raised:

 

Consideration,Representation, Warranty and Rescission

I think it was DogWatch that raised the point that BKI's design rights had expired when the contracts were renewed so he asked whether the contracts were valid if BKI was not providing consideration.

 

A similar argument would be that in the contract BKI "represented that together they own all right, title and interest in the design and copyright of the said sailboat" and that by 2005 this representation was false. If LP was induced to sign the agreement in 2005 by this representation in the agreement then would they have a cause to allege fraudulent misrepresentation and claim rescission?

 

I don't think so. The common law claim of deceit requires : conscious knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance on the falsity...and justifiable reliance on the statement.

LP is a major player in the boat building business and has commissioned the design of sailboats.They have plenty of good legal advice. I would be amazed if discovery does not produce evidence that LP understood or should have understood that the copyright of a sailboat design expired between 1983 and 2005. Im guessing that LP would struggle to demonstrate that they were induced to sign the 2005 amended contract by this representation.

 

Will they try? Probably.

 

LP may also focus on the clause "Bruce Kirby and Kirby Inc hereby jointly warrant that they are the exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in and to copyright and industrial design rights in the Licensed Design ...and that the Copyright is valid and subsisting". The inclusion of a warranty of fact in a contract has become more burdensome ever since the 1990 case of CBS v Ziff Davis which resulted in the Ziff Davis rule.

 

The case went to New York's highest appeal court. The issue was whether CBS had a cause of action for breach of warranty regarding the accuracy of the financial statements when CBS purchased a ZD subsidiary. Ziff-Davis argued that CBS did not have a claim because it had known about the problems with the financial statements and had not relied on the warranties. Ziff-Davis argued that the standards for a cause of action for a fraudulent misrepresentation and a breach of warranty both required reliance on the truthfulness of the statement. CBS won the case on appeal. According to the court, a warranty is a promise of indemnity if a statement of fact is false. A promisee does not have to believe that the statement is true. The warranty's purpose is to relieve a promisee from the obligation of determining a fact's truthfulness. US district court judges have ruled that the supreme court in CT would follow the Ziff Davis rule and AFAIK so far have denied referral to the CT supreme court on appeal.

 

The terms "warrant" and "warranty" has thus acquired a very specific legal meaning in a contract.

 

Again, so much will depend on discovery. However despite the warranty in the contract I suspect the odds are slightly in favor of BKI on this issue because it is not clear to me that the warranty survived the 1995 renewal of the contract.Discovery will provide greater insight into this issue.

 

Termination of Contract - Convenience Clause and Good Faith

 

It seems to me that LP got less than spectacular legal advice when they signed the 2005 third amendment agreement. The agreement appears to give either party a 30 day termination for convenience clause. At first glance it appears that BKI, whether owned by the Spencers or Bruce Kirby, can terminate the contract for any reason they like.

 

I suspect it will be more complicated than that. My guess is that "good faith" will start to play a very important role as this case unfolds. The courts can apply a duty of good faith and fair dealing on any contract and an objective standard of bad faith. That duty of good faith cannot be waived by the language of the contract. "Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and enforcement" (Section 205. Restatement second contracts)

 

Several courts have found that where a contract is terminable at will, the parties must act in good faith in terminating the agreement.

 

IMO, this is why LP have brought up the issue of PSA and Global sailing's attempts to sell Lasers into LP's territory and why they are insistent that it was while BKI was owned by Global Sailing that they received notice of termination. One suspects LP are going to argue that they were not terminated for failure to pay royalties or for building inferior quality boats but because PSA wanted some of LP's territory and thus the termination was in bad faith.

 

Showing bad faith in contract is not an easy path compared to a simple breach of contract. LP's lawyers will have their work cut out and this will revolve around discovery rather then the docs we have seen so far...but my bet is that this is a route they will be going down. Based on the tiny information we have at the moment, I slightly prefer BK's odds over LP.

 

When I look at the difficulties both sides face in this case, and the upside/downside of the outcomes it seems to me that there are very good reasons for a negotiated settlement.

Furthermore ISAF and ILCA hold some important cards that should encourage both sides to reach an out of court settlement.

 

 

In short, I slightly prefer BK's odds in the contract suit vs LP. However the upside has limitations and there is some significant downside.

I think BK's claim against the ILCA for tortious interference is doomed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Going back to the validity of the voting to change the Fundamental rule, it was from memory online, where you provided basic information about yourself before voting. (Name, email address etc) While I'm confident the auditing process verified that each vote was made in the name of a current member, what steps were taken to verify that the vote itself was genuine?

 

What steps were taken to make sure that the votes were cast by the member?

 

It would be interesting to see the legitimacy of the vote and its methodology properly challenged.

 

In the UK it was very much presented as 'vote yes or the class will die immediately'. No real information given out either aside from what little you could find on the net at the time (and the ongoing rumours).

 

Yes agreed Jeffers. The UKLA officially agreed too. There were all kinds of issues with the vote, I recall you were one of many who raised concerns when the rule was passed (and before if memory serves me correctly).

 

So add to that the possibility that the votes themselves were not verified properly.

 

If the methodology was challenged, and it was found that there was the potential for anyone to make votes in a valid member's name, I wonder if the ILCA could be forced to take the vote again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So how will the ILCA guarantee the integrity of the class if they can't control the quality of the product (in terms of fitting the "one design" criterion)?

 

We have heard from IPLore that the Laser Construction Manual is not about Copyright and quotes US copyright law detail. (Do we expect to believe that IPLore 'knows' that the Construction manual was written in the US? But I digress). Its probably true that its not about copyright law, the key players are not suggesting it is. (Are we falling victim to yet another misdirection?)

 

This talk of copyright does not speak to the full significance of the Laser Construction Manual (LCM). This from Chris Caldecoat / PSA, who as a Laser Trademark holder and builder, who would be aware in detail of the various parties' obligations:

 

Any changes to the LCM (including changes to the plaques) requires approval of all the signatories, these include Bruce Kirby Inc. and PSA. Without those signatures any boats built are not Class legal boats.


http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/ISAF-Laser-intervention---Supply-problems-looming?/109036

 

So to answer RobG, maybe the ILCA can't.

 

Isn't this as big problem as supply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes agreed Jeffers. The UKLA officially agreed too. There were all kinds of issues with the vote, I recall you were one of many who raised concerns when the rule was passed (and before if memory serves me correctly).

 

So add to that the possibility that the votes themselves were not verified properly.

 

If the methodology was challenged, and it was found that there was the potential for anyone to make votes in a valid member's name, I wonder if the ILCA could be forced to take the vote again.

 

Gantt, my fellow class members and I voted on the issue, and overwhelmingly voted to change the class rule. I really have a significant problem with you throwing your opinion around about this, when you could not even be bothered to join the class. Your opinion is worth nothing, particularly when you start throwing around unfounded accusations with absolutely nothing to back them up.

 

We made a decision for ourselves about how we wanted our class to run. You were not a class member so I'm very happy to say that you had no input into that decision.

 

I really try to avoid making judgements of people on the internet, because you just don't know someone's story and how they got to be where they are. But I really don't understand your motivations. The amount of words you put into this thread is just crazy - even if most of your words don't make much sense it must still take a ridiculous amount of your time to produce them. Why do you bother? You're obviously not a paid troll, or if you are you should have been sacked months ago. If you are trolling for fun then you're not very good at that either, and it's weird way to get your kicks. The only remaining option I can see is that you're for real - that you really believe all the tripe you keep serving up, and you really think it matters. Which just makes me feel a bit sorry for you.

 

Try a little bit of introspection. Go back through the eighteen months of this thread, and look at what you've written - look at it from an outsider's point of view. Doesn't it just seem a little crazy for someone to care so much about something so inconsequential?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We have heard from IPLore that the Laser Construction Manual is not about Copyright and quotes US copyright law detail. (Do we expect to believe that IPLore 'knows' that the Construction manual was written in the US?

 

The case is being brought in Connecticut. Connecticut was the 5th state to join the Union in January 1788. Since then the courts of Connecticut have been applying US law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm really enjoying reading all this. Talking of good faith, I find it hard to have faith that Rastegar has the good of the Laser sailor at heart. I would hope, if only for emotive reasons, that Kirby does. IPL puts a good defence but I think it comes down to this:

 

LPE paid BKI a fee for every Laser thet sold.

BKI sold whatever rights they believe they had to GS.

LPE stopped paying the fee to GS.

BKI buys back the rights from GS.

LPE still don't pay fees.

Subsequently ILCA change the class rules. GS and BKI claim they can't do this.

 

So it seems that either LPE were paying fees unnecessarily, or the agreement became invalid when sold to GS, or fees were due - at least up to the point the rules were changed and possibly still. It is unlikely that the agreement became invalid when sold to GS, so in my simple mind that leaves two options. Either LPE paid the fee to BKI when they didn't need to or they didn't to GS when they should have.

 

Incidentally, even before this incident Rastegar has not been great for brand Laser. I imagine he bought it thinking the Laser was a cash cow, and he culled lesser selling boats in the stable - the SB3, 2000, 4000, 5000 etc. He didn't have sailors interests at heart then and I doubt he does now. He has stopped attending, and thus supporting, the RYA Dinghy Show. Another company he owns, Maclaren, has a history of avoiding paying fees claimed. Clearly this isn't evidence in this case, but really, if you had to decide who had the best interests of the long term future of the class in mind, which side would you pick? LPE will almost certainly file for bankruptcy if they lose and avoid paying what's owed (if the court finds that way).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt, my fellow class members and I voted on the issue, and overwhelmingly voted to change the class rule. I really have a significant problem with you throwing your opinion around about this, when you could not even be bothered to join the class. Your opinion is worth nothing, particularly when you start throwing around unfounded accusations with absolutely nothing to back them up.

 

Less than 8% of the membership voted. I was underwhelmed.

 

We made a decision for ourselves about how we wanted our class to run. You were not a class member so I'm very happy to say that you had no input into that decision.

 

I really try to avoid making judgements of people on the internet, because you just don't know someone's story and how they got to be where they are. But I really don't understand your motivations. The amount of words you put into this thread is just crazy - even if most of your words don't make much sense it must still take a ridiculous amount of your time to produce them. Why do you bother? You're obviously not a paid troll, or if you are you should have been sacked months ago. If you are trolling for fun then you're not very good at that either, and it's weird way to get your kicks. The only remaining option I can see is that you're for real - that you really believe all the tripe you keep serving up, and you really think it matters. Which just makes me feel a bit sorry for you.

 

Try a little bit of introspection. Go back through the eighteen months of this thread, and look at what you've written - look at it from an outsider's point of view. Doesn't it just seem a little crazy for someone to care so much about something so inconsequential?

 

According to Redstar I'm crazy. I have taken the time to re-read not just my posts (including the errors I have made), but everyone's. It's interesting how Redstar, IPLore (who claims to be neutral) and Wess featured before I first posted and have been posting again and again in favour of the ILCA position. (Except IPLore who claims to be neutral). I really don't have a problem with rational debate, however all three take several steps further. These three have been posting against FlyFishSer, SimonN, JimC (Sorry Jim, I know I've been feeding the trolls), BalticBandit, KiwiJoker and many many more. (I don't claim that people I have listed all agree with me, we are after all, different people.) These are people who have had disagreements (putting it mildly) or have been attacked personally by "Redstar", "IPLore" and "Wess". Frankly I have to be a bit crazy to be posting like I have. Yes it is crazy Redstar. Perhaps in the interests of balance can you comment on Wess? Looking at just this page, another heavy poster is IPLore so perhaps him! Though of course they can't be crazy, because they support Redstar's position!

 

Redstar, you don't need to go back further than this page to see that a little post about the ILCA results in a flurry of posting from particularly Wess and IPLore, whom have not (nor cannot) address the question of the validity of the votes.

 

Speaking of crazy here's a little gem:

 

 

Does anyone else think that Wess might the LaserPerformance North America's Bill Crane?

I have no idea who Wess is or who Bill Crane is either, but I do know that Wess's viewpoint is so one sided and blinkered that it makes it look as if he has some alliance he isn't telling us about.

 

Check out the date.

 

Believe me Redstar, I am very comfortable with you believing that I am crazy and my opinion is valueless.

________________________________________________________________________________

 

But there is a serious side to Redstar's post, saying my accusations are "unfounded with absolutely nothing to back me up".

 

Here's the UKLA release on their website which as I posted agrees with Jeffers that there was insufficient information. They then advised the UKLA membership not to rush with voting: http://www.laser.org.uk/news/uploaded/20110330ICLARuleChange.pdf

 

Redstar likes the way the vote went and doesn't want to question it's methodology. I don't like the way the vote went and do wish to question it. Both of our positions are not relevant to the question. It's a question (not accusation) of whether or not the methodology of the voting would stand up to proper scrutiny. It's of interest particularly when other questions and controversies surround the vote. Here it is again, edited:

 

Regarding the fundamental rule change vote in 2011: what steps were taken, if any, to verify that members votes cast were made by the actual member and not by someone claiming to be that member?

 

Normally, with on-line voting, there is a registration pre-process to validate voters. That did not occur with the ILCA's fundamental vote.

 

Irrespective of what Redstar says, it would be interesting to see the legitimacy of the vote and its methodology properly challenged.

 

Maybe what I'm saying is a little less unfounded than Redstar wants you all to believe. Relating to Jeffer's comment (which is what in part prompted Redstar to pass comment) certainly is backed up by verifiable facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

International intrigue! Conspiracies! Contract breaches! Double agents! Personal attacks! Riged voting! Amateur legal practitioners! And a little boat on a napkin... Who'd have thunk it. Long live SA!

 

Rigged...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then, Gantt, I'll express myself a little differently.

 

What concern is it of yours what process an organisation follows to vote on a rule change, when you are not a member of that organisation? If you are not a member then the ILCA is not answerable to you.

 

Because I am a member (and occasional volunteer in various local roles) and have been for something like 30 years, the ILCA is answerable to me. Sometimes I'm satisfied with the answers they give me and sometimes I'm not. Sometimes they don't answer at all, and if you have indeed read every post then you will no doubt have seen me expressing frustration about that. But the difference is that as a class member, I am entitled to my frustration. You're not owed anything.

 

If I thought there was something to question about the ILCA's methodology, then don't worry - I would question it. I'm sure if Bruce Kirby or ISAF were worried then they would question it as well. But here we are, listening to you take up the fight for Bruce instead. I'm sure he appreciates it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> what concern is it of yours...

 

If you were talking about the xyz 15 with a couple of hundred boats in a limited geographical area then none at all.

 

But like it or not the Laser is different. It's the nearest thing there is to a genuinely international class, and it's health or otherwise affects much of the sport.

 

The conduct of the ballot as regards propaganda, FUD, enabling the electorate to make an informed decision etc was IMHO, appalling but I don't doubt legally it was legitimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Redstar, I doubt that Bruce Kirby 'appreciates' my posts, reads them or is even aware of them.

 

Redstar raises a legitimate question, and even though as members of the same forum I am under no obligation to answer, or even to treat his question with any respect, especially just after Redstar insinuated that I am crazy. But out of respect to the question, I will answer. (Or perhaps it's because I am crazy).

 

The majority of Laser sailors do not belong to the ILCA. There are big numbers in clubs all over the world who get their kicks out of having a blast around a race course with like minded sailors - in Lasers.

 

There are many reasons that these passionate Laser sailors are not members of the ILCA. They include (but aren't limited to) a large range of personal reasons, some have resigned (or not renewed) because they are dissatisfied with ILCA's treatment of Kirby, some are 'just passing through the class', for many it simply isn't a consideration because their club is completely focussed on local sailing, others see ILCA membership as only necessary when they sail in ILCA sanctioned events. They might be burnt out volunteers or who were somehow burnt by their Laser experience. I've seen examples of all of these in my years as a Laser enthusiast.

 

Do not underestimate the passion that some of these non ILCA member Laser sailors have for the Laser class or the ILCA.

 

Do not make the mistake that just because someone currently is not an ILCA member that they don't care about the ILCA's actions. I understand Redstar's sense of proprietary from his years of membership. The way I see it, the ILCA is a subset of something much bigger. I agree that I'm not owed anything by the ILCA or that they are not obligated in any way to answer my questions on this forum, nor would they seem to be obligated to answer member's questions. I have been and am a beneficiary of the Laser: it's designers, the ILCA, the builders and the small army of volunteers, fellow competitors and officials - members and non members of the ILCA that make it all happen.

 

Redstar, I knowingly have not answered your question with my personal information, I can't at this point see the value of it. My personal information simply does not add or subtract from the discussions in this open forum. I know current members who don't want to speak out in case they are personally attacked (No Wess, you can't have their names!) much like when you said I'm crazy.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I appreciate that you say that you are happy with ILCA's methodology with the 2011 Fundamental rule change vote..

 

Redstar, you may be surprised to learn that I voted on the ILCA's website with the fundamental rule. At the time I was not a member. How come I was not prevented from voting?

 

Finally, the questions I asked previously remain:

 

Regarding the fundamental rule change vote in 2011: what steps were taken, if any, to verify that members votes cast were made by the actual member and not by someone claiming to be that member?

Normally, with on-line voting, there is a registration pre-process to validate voters. That did not occur with the ILCA's fundamental vote.

As JimC said, the vote was probably 'legal'. Does that make it beyond challenging, particularly if information came to hand that the methodology used was unacceptably flawed? (I dislike the concept of any organisation being beyond reproach.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So how will the ILCA guarantee the integrity of the class if they can't control the quality of the product (in terms of fitting the "one design" criterion)?

 

[…]

 

This talk of copyright does not speak to the full significance of the Laser Construction Manual (LCM). This from Chris Caldecoat / PSA, who as a Laser Trademark holder and builder, who would be aware in detail of the various parties' obligations:

 

>Any changes to the LCM (including changes to the plaques) requires approval of all the signatories, these include Bruce Kirby Inc. and PSA. Without those signatures any boats built are not Class legal boats.

 

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/ISAF-Laser-intervention---Supply-problems-looming?/109036

 

So to answer RobG, maybe the ILCA can't.

 

Isn't this as big problem as supply?

 

 

I asked about who controls the manual (i.e. who can say who can and can't use it) as it's one of the keys to building a class legal boat (ignoring the Laser trademark). I had thought Kirby had control, however IPLore seems to think it's now controlled by the ILCA. If so, that's an important part of ensuring the integrity of the class.

 

The other part is the moulds and tooling.

 

It seems the plaques have already been (unilaterally?) altered by the ILCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked about who controls the manual (i.e. who can say who can and can't use it) as it's one of the keys to building a class legal boat (ignoring the Laser trademark). I had thought Kirby had control, however IPLore seems to think it's now controlled by the ILCA. If so, that's an important part of ensuring the integrity of the class.

 

As far as I am aware ILCA control the construction manual but, as with any change to the boat, all parties need to agree to any changes. If the plaque it specified in the manual (and a specimen drawing/picture supplied) in theory they cannot change it and keep boats 'class legal' without everyone agreeing.

 

In practice however they have. Does anyone know what plaques the PSA built boats are using? I would guess the new ones by now.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canntt, paging Canntt to the milk aisle with a mop...

 

Canntt you just answer one question?

 

I looked at this on Wikipedia:

Oh and Canntt, since you seem to like Wiki, Wiki also says this:

 

On December 17, 2012, ILCA President Tracy Usher and ISAF CEO Jerome Pels met with the LaserPerformance Board in New York City to review the issues. ILCA and ISAF requested that LaserPerformance mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc. LaserPerformance agreed.

 

On January 31, 2013, Jerome Pels formally wrote LaserPerformance, Bruce Kirby, and Bruce Kirby, Inc., requesting the parties to take their dispute to non-binding mediation. In February of 2013, LaserPerformance again agreed to mediation. Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc., turned down the request.

 

On May 21, 2013, Bruce Kirby, along with his attorney Wesley Whitmyer, met with ISAF CEO Jerome Pels, ILCA President Tracy Usher, and ISAF Vice president Gary Jobson and their council in an effort to resolve the issues between Bruce Kirby and Laser Performance. ISAF and ILCA left the meeting with the understanding that mediation was an option. On May 22, 2013, LaserPerformance directors met with ISAF CEO Jerome Pels, ILCA President Tracy Usher, and their council to discuss actions to resolve the conflict between Bruce Kirby, Bruce Kirby, Inc., and LaserPerformance. At the conclusion of the meeting, ILCA and ISAF requested that LaserPerformance mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc. On May 29, 2013, LaserPerformance agreed to mediation to be held at the New York Yacht Club on June 18, 2013. Bruce Kirby turned down the request.

 

Canntt - Since you would not answer the last question; perhaps you would answer this one. Feel free to reach out to your imaginary friends, uh I mean... the key parties you have been in communication with, LOL...

 

* Is the above Wiki claim accurate and if so why has BK turned down all those requests to mediate while LPE agreed?

 

Look forward to your smoke and mirrors, uh, I mean response.

Did you know that a Crane is a very inquisitive bird?

 

Wess (aka Bird Crane)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of Laser sailors do not belong to the ILCA

This is BS royale!

 

Maybe majority of Laser owners do not belong to the ILCA, but then, we don't give a FF for plain dumb Laser owners! They can do whatever they want, but they have NO SAYING in anything related to ICLA.

If they don't want to race with the rest, it's their choice. But if they do, then, please, be so kind and either join the class or GO AWAY!

 

It's the RULE, like all other RULES!

 

No person is permitted to race a Laser in any Fleet, interFleet, District, or other sanctioned event unless at least one member of the crew is a current member of the International Laser Class Association (a member of a District Laser Association duly established in accordance with the Constitution is a member of the International Laser Class Association).

http://www.laserinternational.org/rules/classrules/parttwo/classmembership

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The majority of Laser sailors do not belong to the ILCA

This is BS royale!

 

Maybe majority of Laser owners do not belong to the ILCA, but then, we don't give a FF for plain dumb Laser owners! They can do whatever they want, but they have NO SAYING in anything related to ICLA.

If they don't want to race with the rest, it's their choice. But if they do, then, please, be so kind and either join the class or GO AWAY!

 

It's the RULE, like all other RULES!

 

>No person is permitted to race a Laser in any Fleet, interFleet, District, or other sanctioned event unless at least one member of the crew is a current member of the International Laser Class Association (a member of a District Laser Association duly established in accordance with the Constitution is a member of the International Laser Class Association).

http://www.laserinternational.org/rules/classrules/parttwo/classmembership

 

WOW....

 

So 200,000 plus Lasers built if the majority are members then they have a membership of over 100,000!!! If they have under 100,000 members then the majority are NOT members.

 

I do not know or care, just surprised by your claim that the ILCA has such a big membership.

 

Learn something new every day!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So how will the ILCA guarantee the integrity of the class if they can't control the quality of the product (in terms of fitting the "one design" criterion)?

 

[…]

 

This talk of copyright does not speak to the full significance of the Laser Construction Manual (LCM). This from Chris Caldecoat / PSA, who as a Laser Trademark holder and builder, who would be aware in detail of the various parties' obligations:

 

>Any changes to the LCM (including changes to the plaques) requires approval of all the signatories, these include Bruce Kirby Inc. and PSA. Without those signatures any boats built are not Class legal

boats.

 

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/ISAF-Laser-intervention---Supply-problems-looming?/109036

 

So to answer RobG, maybe the ILCA can't.

 

Isn't this as big problem as supply?

 

I asked about who controls the manual (i.e. who can say who can and can't use it) as it's one of the keys to building a class legal boat (ignoring the Laser trademark). I had thought Kirby had control, however IPLore seems to think it's now controlled by the ILCA. If so, that's an important part of ensuring the integrity of the class.

 

The other part is the moulds and tooling.

 

It seems the plaques have already been (unilaterally?) altered by the ILCA.

 

 

To be precise we should distinguish between who controls the content of the construction manual and who controls access.

 

Content

Any changes to the construction manual have to be agreed jointly by the ILCA and ISAF.

 

Access

In the 1983 IYRU agreement, all parties (BKI, ISAF, ILCA and Trademark owner) agreed that the construction manual was confidential. They agreed that BKI, ISAF, ILCA, the Trademark owners and a specified list of builders are entitled to a copy. They agreed that any additional access needs to be approved by the four parties. ISAF has served notice that BKI is in breach of the 1983 agreement. Unless BKI responds, the position could be taken that additional access only has to be approved by ISAF, ILCA and the trademark owner.

 

So...Content is controlled by ILCA and ISAF. Access additionally requires the permission of the trademark owner.

 

The 1983 IYRU agreement remains in place so long as the Laser is an ISAF accredited international class. If ISAF withdrew that status, the agreement would end. All bets would be off and the construction manual would no longer be subject to the confidentiality agreement.

 

The construction manual is probably not very important. The Laser is a simple boat to build and any half way decent builder could cut up a Laser and build an identical boat. However the builder could not call it a Laser without permission from the trademark owner and the boat could not race in sanctioned events without permission from ISAF and ILCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

T

And!!

There are class members who do not have or sail lasers. I am certain I had a hundred members of the class in 2002 who were simply supporting the game. ( coaches, clubs, old guy former sailors, moms who wanted newsletters to see pictures of the kids, dentists who put newsletters in waiting rooms, boat dealers, parts suppliers, etc)

 

Don't underestimate the "Dentist" vote. :) They make good jurors as well!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On December 17, 2012, ILCA President Tracy Usher and ISAF CEO Jerome Pels met with the LaserPerformance Board in New York City to review the issues. ILCA and ISAF requested that LaserPerformance mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc. LaserPerformance agreed.

 

On January 31, 2013, Jerome Pels formally wrote LaserPerformance, Bruce Kirby, and Bruce Kirby, Inc., requesting the parties to take their dispute to non-binding mediation. In February of 2013, LaserPerformance again agreed to mediation. Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc., turned down the request.

 

On May 21, 2013, Bruce Kirby, along with his attorney Wesley Whitmyer, met with ISAF CEO Jerome Pels, ILCA President Tracy Usher, and ISAF Vice president Gary Jobson and their council in an effort to resolve the issues between Bruce Kirby and Laser Performance. ISAF and ILCA left the meeting with the understanding that mediation was an option. On May 22, 2013, LaserPerformance directors met with ISAF CEO Jerome Pels, ILCA President Tracy Usher, and their council to discuss actions to resolve the conflict between Bruce Kirby, Bruce Kirby, Inc., and LaserPerformance. At the conclusion of the meeting, ILCA and ISAF requested that LaserPerformance mediate with Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc. On May 29, 2013, LaserPerformance agreed to mediation to be held at the New York Yacht Club on June 18, 2013. Bruce Kirby turned down the request.

 

why has BK turned down all those requests to mediate while LPE agreed?

 

We don't know why Bruce declined mediation. Sometimes mediation includes accepting conditions prior to the commencement of mediation which one of the parties cannot agree to.

 

However, at first glance, mediation seems like it would have been a sensible step for Bruce.

1. Mediation is not binding, so if Bruce didnt like the recommendations of the mediator, he still could have gone to court.

2, Mediation is a fraction of the cost of litigation. When facing the deep pockets of Rastegar, mediation would have been a relatively level playing field.

3. Mediation often finds effective solutions.

4. The submissions for mediation often clarify the issues for both parties and really sets out a road map so that both sides understands the risks and benefits of litigation.

5. It may have provided a timely solution. It takes about a month to prepare for mediation and the mediation for a matter like this would generally take about a day. Instead Bruce faces years of expensive litigation.

6. If a compromise could have been found at mediation it would certainly have been a better for the Laser class.

 

If the wiki posts are accurate, then the unique aspect about this mediation opportunity is that it was supported by ILCA and ISAF. They used their leverage to persuade LP to attend mediation. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a worthy compromise could have entailed ILCA and ISAF insisting on the reinstatement of a "designer fee" per boat. Surely it was worth exploring.

 

What does BK win at court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there was the powerplay of the trademark litigation and potential for a global consolidation. But that all went into the shi**er pretty quickly (loved your Yorktown quote much earlier BTW... cost me a keyboard). T'was after his passing on mediation though if accurate. Got a theory but its pure conjecture. In any event, elements of some of the actions seem to defy legal or economic logic and maybe suggest more of an emotional driver. I agree though that it has now distilled down such that what it left of the case is so insignificant (relative to the larger powerplay evident earlier) that mediation would seem to be logical (as would settlement).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that you say that you [Redstar] are happy with ILCA's methodology with the 2011 Fundamental rule change vote..

 

Redstar, you may be surprised to learn that I voted on the ILCA's website with the fundamental rule. At the time I was not a member. How come I was not prevented from voting?

 

Finally, the questions I asked previously remain:

 

Regarding the fundamental rule change vote in 2011: what steps were taken, if any, to verify that members votes cast were made by the actual member and not by someone claiming to be that member?

Normally, with on-line voting, there is a registration pre-process to validate voters. That did not occur with the ILCA's fundamental vote.

As JimC said, the vote was probably 'legal'. Does that make it beyond challenging, particularly if information came to hand that the methodology used was unacceptably flawed? (I dislike the concept of any organisation being beyond reproach.)

 

And I forgot to mention, that the wording for the proposed fundamental rule was changed on the online version during the election to match the version in Laser World. At the time there were calls by ILCA members to start over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I forgot to mention, that the wording for the proposed fundamental rule was changed on the online version during the election to match the version in Laser World. At the time there were calls by ILCA members to start over.

FACTS or it didn't happen!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I forgot to mention, that the wording for the proposed fundamental rule was changed on the online version during the election to match the version in Laser World. At the time there were calls by ILCA members to start over.

FACTS or it didn't happen!

 

No problem ojfd. Incidentally, to reply to the numbers of ILCA members, the NZ Laser Assn publishes a list of current assn members so checking is possible. The number of ILCA members sailing at my former club was six out of the 36 who raced in the summer series last year. At another club I sailed at this year, the number of sailors was 11, with no ILCA members. Another club where I regularly competed in 2013 the number of Laser sailors was 17, with two ILCA members. I think my figures are not exact, my method is not scientific, but it paints a picture.

 

ILCA seems to have published two different versions of the proposed new Fundamental Rule. The new rule is published at two places on the ILCA website. One is the request for online voting published a couple of weeks ago at http://www.laserinternational.org/rules2011. The other is in the LaserWorld March issue which is also circulated to members in paper form and includes a rule change voting form which can be returned by post to the class office.

/snip

 

then

 

I propose that 'we' start all over again.

Even though significant info is still (!) missing, it's clear that a number of ILCA members who have voted want to change their vote based on the discussions in this thread and the ones in the dinghy sections of Sailing Anarchy and Yachts and Yachting Online. And now we find out from Tillerman that there are different versions of the rule we are supposed to be voting on. What a mess! Didn't I state earlier that I had lost confidence in Mr. Wellmann and Mr. Martin?

 

Here's is my proposal:

 

1. First of all, the World Council should have another vote on whether to even propose a (properly formulated) change in the Fundamental Rule. Clearly, at least one of the World Council members was against it. Now that more info is available, perhaps others have changed their mind.

I note that it has become evident from the various discussions that a good case can be made for ILCA to stay out of the contractual dispute between GS and LPE.

 

2. If the World Council does want to move forward, let's have a properly written (proposed) rule change.

 

3. Next, let's have a solid clarification of what the proposed rule change is all about and what it would accomplish for the 'average' sailor and the ones on the Olympic track. Clearly, the current rubbish on the ILCA website is of no help.

 

4. Although I don't mind for ILCA to give us some advice on how to vote, I trust that all of us can think for themselves.

 

To be fair, I have no way of checking that 'Wavedancer' was a member at the time, though he was talking about voting so it's a fair assumption he was. At the time, Gouv was also calling for the vote to be held again.

 

Later that same day (9 April 2011), according to Tillerman, the online version was changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The construction manual is probably not very important.

 

Given that it's the specification for a Laser, I think it's very important and "all parties" seem to think so too. I don't understand the need for confidentiality as I don't see that it serves any useful purpose. If the manual is made public, does that change anything? It's the permission to use it that matters (i.e. being a sanctioned builder).

 

The second part of controlling the one design is the moulds and tooling. I think everyone knows of cases in other classes where builders have pushed tolerances to the limit and others have seen it as effectively a design change or at least non–compliant, even if strictly within the rules. Isn't control of moulds and tooling intended to avoid such tinkering?

 

Who has control over the moulds and tooling?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had forgotten but Gantt is correct that back in April 2011 on the Laser Forum I did point out some minor differences in the wording between two different versions of the ballot question on the Fundamental Rule change.

 

Before this debate goes nuclear let me repeat what I actually posted in 2011. I must have been in a particularly extreme nitpicking mood that day as the differences are hardly earth-shattering...

 

The old rule says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

The new rule in LaserWorld says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

And the new rule on the online ballot says that Lasers shall be manufactured "in accordance with strict adherence to the Laser design specification (known as the Construction Manual)".

I'm not sure why ILCA wants to change the wording here anyway, but surely we need to use the same wording in every version of the ballot? If the new rule passes, which version would be valid if some members had voted for and against one version and other members had voted for and against another version? This may seem like a trivial issue (and I almost feel bad about raising it) but, given that this rule's validity could eventually be challenged in a court of law, isn't it important to avoid any confusion or ambiguity?

My own guess is that the intention was for us to vote for the version in LaserWorld, and the online ballot should have had "strike through" used on the words "accordance with" as it is in the LaserWorld version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Tillerman to have pulled you back into the fray. The differences are small and do not substantially alter the intended meaning of the new rule. (Though you mentioning it's validity being challenged in a court of law is scarily prophetic, the vote was subsequently mentioned in Kirby's court action so it's already on that court room's table.)

The issue of validity is more about the possibility of votes being cast in valid member's names by other persons. Some national associations list the names of members. The result sheets mean that their sail numbers can be accessed. Email addresses are freely given out, in 2011 I was on several lists where I had access to other Laser Sailor's email addresses.

The ILCA had a responsibility to ensure that the vote was conducted in a way that the potential for vote tampering was minimalized. I'm not saying that there was tampering, just the potential for it - and given the commercial interests at stake the need for a secure voting system was higher.

Any proper challenge needs to be both on that basis and that the now well established fact that the ILCA membership was misinformed. (The misinformation included the ILCA statements and ironically by Bruce Kirby announcing that he's bought back his rights, resulting in a SailWorld article that stated there was no need to vote. The article went viral among Laser Sailors.)

I wonder how a ILCA member might challenge the validity of the vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how a ILCA member might challenge the validity of the vote?

 

I assume you've read the ILCA Constitution and know these answers better than I do. I can't believe that you would have put this much time into discussing the Laser Class without having read the constitution. But I'll play along with your game anyway. I don't understand it, but I'll play it.

 

Section 16(a) of the Constitution gives the World Council power to amend By-Law 1, otherwise known as the Laser Class Rules, which includes the Fundamental Rule that was the subject of the 2011 class vote. It does not mandate a process, nor does it dictate that they must consult or poll the membership before they do make any change.

 

Read that really slowly to make sure it sinks in.

 

The World Council does not need to conduct a vote to change the By-Laws. They can change them whenever they want.

 

If they chose to conduct a vote in 2011, it simply shows that they wanted to understand how the class members felt before they made a change. They did not have to do this - they chose to. They made their case for a 'Yes' vote because it's what they thought was the right choice. They wanted the class members to agree with them. The class members overwhelmingly did.

 

So all of your hot air about ILCA trying to mislead members over the vote, and all of your accusations of an improper process, well - they're kind of irrelevant aren't they? Maybe their wording wasn't perfect, but it doesn't really matter.

 

I acknowledge the possibility that I'm misunderstanding the constitution. That would be a bit embarrassing, but I don't apologise for not being a lawyer. It seems to be spelt out pretty clearly to me though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on redstar, it's not quite as simple as that...

 

Section 16(a) of the ILCA constitution actually says...

 

 

16. The World Council may make By-Laws for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this Constitution and of the Association and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make By-Laws

(a) amending the Rules of the Laser Class, hereby established as By-Law 1 of the Association, as provided in paragraph 29 thereof;

 

I think that's a mistake because paragraph 29 is actually about the Laser 4.7. I think they mean paragraph 30 of the Rules which says...

 

 

Amendments to these Rules shall be approved by each of:

  1. the World Council,
  2. the Advisory Council,
  3. at least two thirds of the membership replying in writing to the International Office of the Class in response to a postal ballot published by the International Office of the Class. Only those postal votes returned to the International Office within 6 months from the date of publication of the rule change shall be valid, and
  4. the ISAF.

So, if you read the Rules in conjunction with the Constitution then you do have to have a vote of the members to change any Rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why did LPE pay the fee for so long to BKI if they didn't have to?

 

LP had a contractual obligation to pay the fee.

According to LP's counter claim they continued to pay the fee until the contract was terminated when they stopped paying the fee. I can visualize LP's counsel's opening statement.

 

The more interesting question is why did LP renew the contract in 2005 and why was the 2005 amendment so poorly drafted? The original contract in 1983 was for 21 years and expired in 2004 with annual renewals thereafter. It effectively extended BKI's license fees for 21 years, well beyond the expiration of the copyright of the Laser design and any patents or intellectual property surrounding the design or the Laser.

 

This was a smart move on behalf of BK in 1983. My read is that he got a bit of an opportunity when Performance Sailing (the original manufacturer of the Laser) went bust and so the design rights reverted back to BK. This enabled him to negotiate a 21 year extension to his license income through contract. It is good if you can get it. Contracts like this are not unusual. Someone wants to build something now. You have 5 years remaining on the patent, so you negotiate a contract where your license fees extend beyond the expiry of the patent. 21 years is better than average but not unheard of for a contractual licensing term.

 

The 2005 amendment extended the agreement with 30 day notice period but to my mind it was poorly drafted because it did not restate or clarify the obligations of the parties in light of some very different circumstances from 1983. Both sides would have benefited from a clearly written new contract. I can see each side arguing different implications of the 2005 extension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IPLore -

 

You have quite a few posts that go right to the heart of the matter, but alas they get lost in all the smoke and mirror from one and tendency of some to endlessly chase squirrels.

 

There really is so much that is interesting, relevant, factual, and worthy of discussion regardless of if an individual is pro-BKI, pro-ILCA, pro-grass roots/access, etc... but it gets lost in the noise here. I gotta go back to stirring mode and remember that its SA. Good entertainment but just not the place for an intelligent discussion around this.

 

I now return you to a page long whiney b*tch session about the vote as if that matters. Sigh...

 

Wess

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole debate about the Class rule change is a side show.

 

Am I the only one who is enjoying the irony of Gannt criticizing the democratic process of the ILCA when his proposal is an autocratic system where one person or corporation has control over the selection and approval of the Class builder?

It reminds me of Mussolini criticizing the British electoral system between 1935 and 1945 (no general election was held during the War, but at least they were elected. The irony of a dictator criticizing the imperfections of a democracy's electoral process was amusing)

 

The current process is that builders must be approved jointly by the ILCA and ISAF . Laser owners get to elect their ILCA representatives.

 

What is the alternative that Gannt would like to see? Is he seriously proposing that the Laser class reinstate BKI corporation after this mess? A corporation that we have already seen can be sold to the highest bidder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BK has a contractual dispute with LP.

 

In 2005, LP saw enough value in BK's services to renew the contract with BKI.

 

There may have been a breach in LP's contractual obligations.

 

The Class Association does not have a role to play in this dispute other than encouraging both parties to find a resolution.

 

IPL over and out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more interesting question is why did LP renew the contract in 2005

At a guess the termination clauses. It will be interesting to hear why Rastregar etc think the termination clauses don't apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more interesting question is why did LP renew the contract in 2005.

 

Surely with the way that the Laser Class Fundamental Rule was phrased in 2005, LP had very little choice but to renew the contract with BKI. If they didn't have an agreement with BK or BKI then their Lasers would not have been recognized as legal Lasers by the class.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

See 2123 and 2159. If you go to 30,000 feet the question is why renew (and under those terms/conditions)?

 

Tiller - yes but think about the vote, what type of sailors makes up the class and what is important to them, and why the vote went the way it did and why there is no backpeddling at all (if anything a clear double down even from regional associations and leadership change). Given that, in theory the same would have happened in 2005 because there is one drop dead absolute they cant get away from... If you want a boat that is called a Laser, there is one party you need more than all the others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how a ILCA member might challenge the validity of the vote?

 

If they chose to conduct a vote in 2011, it simply shows that they wanted to understand how the class members felt before they made a change. They did not have to do this - they chose to. They made their case for a 'Yes' vote because it's what they thought was the right choice. They wanted the class members to agree with them. The class members overwhelmingly did.

 

So all of your hot air about ILCA trying to mislead members over the vote, and all of your accusations of an improper process, well - they're kind of irrelevant aren't they? Maybe their wording wasn't perfect, but it doesn't really matter.

 

Again Redstar, there is a big difference between making accusations of an improper process and questioning the validity of the voting system.

 

The question: what steps were taken, if any, to verify that members votes cast were made by the actual member and not by someone claiming to be that member? should be easily answerable. The ILCA at some point may be required to answer it. I wonder if Kirby will get to ask the ILCA this in his legal action? (In discovery or in court?). So far he has only raised the misinformation issue.

 

Tillerman was right to speculate that the rule change's validity could eventually be challenged in courts. If by questioning the voting system results in a more secure system then that's a great outcome.

 

______________________________________________

 

If the ILCA executive and world council screw up, by what process does a member hold them accountable?

 

Asking questions and hoping for an answer did not really work in 2011 for the fundamental vote. People on forums and at meetings did not know how to require the ILCA to answer very pertinent questions, so they went unanswered. The membership was informed that if ownership was returned to Kirby, then the issue could very well go away. It was reversed. It didn't. Accountability and transparency go hand in hand and having a process that gives member this power formally helps achieve better governance.

 

I'm wondering that as the ILCA is a ISAF class association, maybe it's though the ISAF that the ILCA can be held accountable (once direct appeals to the ILCA itself are exhausted).

 

If there is a formal process of the ILCA exec being answerable to it's membership, then I have missed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the Laser should remain a tight OD, as that has been key to its success in the past. There is, however, nothing stopping anyone starting a class association for Generic Lasers that subsumed the ILCA and the Torch. A Federation of Boats a Named After Light Emitting Devices, as it were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv,

 

Odd that we find ourselves here. I agree with most everything you write (except the Kirby part). I would phase it a bit differently but if you look back I have long long said I am pro-grass roots/access.

 

If being serious, my ideal outcome, also written here long ago (highly unlikely and impossible now that BKI gave up on the trademark litigation), was that:

 

1.) BKI was successful in taking down the trademark.

2.) BKI failed in his contract claims.

 

With that outcome all the money grubbing hanger-ons would be kicked out and the class would essentially be on a path to allow for the generic Lasers. Lower cost = improved access at grass roots level = more fun game for the masses.

 

The SMOD-camp will scream that is not Laser and they are right (but it is still OD, and OD enough for the grass roots level), and they will want their Olympics and Championships, and again they are right to want it, but that is why they could not walk away from the trademark holder. For them, there was and is one party they need more than the others. Nothing we can do to change that.

 

I will point out that your vision could be achieved by BKI today. As even Sosoomii notes there is nothing... zero, zilch, nada, nothing, that stops him from doing what he said he would do and produce and sell the Torch boat and launch the Torch class and welcome existing Laser into it. Today. Yesterday. Tommorrow. If he cared about grass roots sailing and the class. He does not need ISAF or ILCA to do it. He could sell it at a decent price (and clearly as parts and sails teach us, there is room to produce a more affordable boat) and just like generic sails are widely used at the grass roots level, Torches would be too. I even said I would support such a thing and buy it (am not as anti as BKI as you might think; I am anti the BKI actions thus far). But did he? Will he? Sadly... no.

 

Oh and they didn't cut ties with the designer. Really. Seriously. Take emotion out of it for a moment and stop falling for the smoke and mirrors BS that gets posted here. All they did was remove themselves from the position of being his enforcer. If he is due money from the builder the court will say he is due money and he will get his money. The class has not and will not cost him a single dime if he has a valid contract with and is entitled to those dimes from the builder. Read that a few times and think about it. The class actions has not cost him a dime if he is entitled to a dime as decided by the court. All the class did was say we are not your enforcer. How the heck is that a bad thing? And given that the entity on the other side from BKI in this dispute is the LASER trademark holder - even though you and I don't care if its LASER; most Olympic and Championship level sailors do as is evident by the vote, no push-back on the vote, and the double down on the vote position - no one in their right mind would suggest they should be his enforcer. Now, further consider his willingness to sell to the highest bidder, the attempt at a global consolidation, his apparent refusal to mediate (from the Canntt Wiki) and the really, really relevant stuff that impacts this in 2159. So, no, the class did not cut ties with him, they said don't make us your enforcer - take the builder to court and let those that deal with contract disputes, deal with this contract dispute. In return BKI cut ties with the class.

 

Oh, and Canntt are you ever going to tell us why he refused mediation over and over while LPE agreed or is the Wiki you cited wrong and he didn't refuse mediation? For sure the "key players" you claim to "communicate directly with" would answer that, no? You must know, right?

 

All just my opinion of course. Your milage may vary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a formal process of the ILCA exec being answerable to it's membership, then I have missed it.

 

Gantt, the process for holding ILCA leadership answerable is very simple. It is exactly the same as it is in any democratic organization. You stand for office on a platform of being more competent than the current leadership, or having better solutions than the present leadership, and you defeat them in the elections and then you use your superior experience and insight and abilities to do a better job than the current leadership.

 

Seriously. You obviously have a lot of passion about the ILCA and how it should be led and enormous energy to analyze this issue and write about it. Please join the class and run for office and get yourself on the World Council and lead us out of this mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder how a ILCA member might challenge the validity of the vote?

 

If they chose to conduct a vote in 2011, it simply shows that they wanted to understand how the class members felt before they made a change. They did not have to do this - they chose to. They made their case for a 'Yes' vote because it's what they thought was the right choice. They wanted the class members to agree with them. The class members overwhelmingly did.

 

So all of your hot air about ILCA trying to mislead members over the vote, and all of your accusations of an improper process, well - they're kind of irrelevant aren't they? Maybe their wording wasn't perfect, but it doesn't really matter.

 

Again Redstar, there is a big difference between making accusations of an improper process and questioning the validity of the voting system.

 

The question: what steps were taken, if any, to verify that members votes cast were made by the actual member and not by someone claiming to be that member? should be easily answerable. The ILCA at some point may be required to answer it. I wonder if Kirby will get to ask the ILCA this in his legal action? (In discovery or in court?). So far he has only raised the misinformation issue.

 

>

Sorry Tillerman to have pulled you back into the fray. The differences are small and do not substantially alter the intended meaning of the new rule. (Though you mentioning it's validity being challenged in a court of law is scarily prophetic, the vote was subsequently mentioned in Kirby's court action so it's already on that court room's table.)

The issue of validity is more about the possibility of votes being cast in valid member's names by other persons. Some national associations list the names of members. The result sheets mean that their sail numbers can be accessed. Email addresses are freely given out, in 2011 I was on several lists where I had access to other Laser Sailor's email addresses.

 

The ILCA had a responsibility to ensure that the vote was conducted in a way that the potential for vote tampering was minimalized. I'm not saying that there was tampering, just the potential for it - and given the commercial interests at stake the need for a secure voting system was higher.

Any proper challenge needs to be both on that basis and that the now well established fact that the ILCA membership was misinformed. (The misinformation included the ILCA statements and ironically by Bruce Kirby announcing that he's bought back his rights, resulting in a SailWorld article that stated there was no need to vote. The article went viral among Laser Sailors.)

 

I wonder how a ILCA member might challenge the validity of the vote?

 

 

If you read the original post from the class site:

http://www.laser.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=948:international-laser-class-association-results-of-fundamental-rule-change-voting&catid=21:official&Itemid=250

 

"The voting for the change to the Laser Class Fundamental Rule and other Technical Rule Changes closed at midnight Friday 23 September 2011. Thereafter the votes were verified for membership validity by each District or Region. The results were then audited by an independent audit firm, which reported 1017 ‘yes’ votes (89,3%) and 122 ‘no’ votes (10,7%), showing that over two thirds of the voting members approved the rule change as required by the ILCA Class Rules, part five, article 30©."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tillerman, I understand a bit about democracy, I really do, having been personally involved with the democratic process of very small legislative changes back in the 1990s.

 

Irrespective of who the ILCA leaders are, they cannot govern without the mandate of their constituents. And the system does not work well if they are not obligated to listen to their constituents. Those countries that have greater checks and balances, have better democracies. (http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm)

 

Here's a working paper of accountability for not for profits. It's a serious subject.

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-069.pdf

 

Yes I have a lot of energy and passion for Laser sailing, and as a result, the ILCA.

 

At this point in my life, I would not seriously consider standing for office in the ILCA. However if someone were to stand on the basis of more open governance and a commitment to the values outlined in the working Harvard paper above, then I would be happy to help. How about you Tillerman? I know I'm not the first to ask!

 

But back to the issue at hand, have you (Tillerman) taken a look to see if there is a process? (Maybe I should ask Pam). Your voice is far far bigger than mine. (Seriously - you have quite a following!)

 

___________________________________________________________

 

Eric_R, I was aware of the release and have studied the exact wording. What it says is that the votes received were in the name of actual members. (sorry to restate, but the message gets lost otherwise). My questions surround whether those votes were actually cast by the members, or were they cast by a fraudster? There was a commercial interest in the outcome of the vote so there was motive. Online voters, so far as I can tell had no verification process. Neither did the snail mail. So someone could have completed the votes on behalf of legitimate members, using publicly available information. (There was no personal identifier, like a membership number). Again, I'm not saying that it happened, just asking at this point if there were any security measures to prevent it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Online voters, so far as I can tell had no verification process. Neither did the snail mail. So someone could have completed the votes on behalf of legitimate members, using publicly available information. (There was no personal identifier, like a membership number).

Little you know, Gantt, talk you too much..

post-55189-0-34952100-1416450258_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent ojfd!!! I'm genuinely glad you posted that.

 

 

Online voters, so far as I can tell had no verification process. Neither did the snail mail. So someone could have completed the votes on behalf of legitimate members, using publicly available information. (There was no personal identifier, like a membership number).


Little you know, Gantt, talk you too much..

 

There is a membership number on the form!! I was speaking from memory - I know I completed the online form without one. Thanks. Am genuinely happy to be wrong about the membership number being there.

 

(Please, remember that I was asking a question relating to the voting procedure, not making an accusation. Accusation is someone else's word.)

 

I'm glad you answered, and even more glad that it had a field for membership. On closer inspection you will see it is not a compulsory field so the question remains for those votes that were cast without the personal identifier. (Just out of interest, do any current members know their membership number?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Gaant be true

OK Gouv, now you owe me a key board. Geeze, between you and IPLore...

 

Hey Gouv, seriously, we don't always agree but can usually find a way to have a semi-fact based discussion and appear to have similar interests re growing the sport at the grass roots level, so my response back at ya in 2169 was not stirring - was/is honest opinion in this sea of insanity. Do you understand how and agree that the actions did not cost him anything? That if he is right, the court will grant him all he asks and the class's action just allowed the class to stop being his bag man? At its most basic all they said, was "go fight your own battles and fight them in the venue they belong (ie take a contract dispute to court)". Am curious if you do disagree, why that is so.

 

I know, I know... a serious fact based discussion in the middle of this thread has little chance but I thought to ask at least.

 

All just my opinion...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the removal of the class rule about a contract with Kirby ends the need for a contract with Kirby.

 

Gouv,

 

A lot of what you wrote spills from the above statement. But its not accurate. Really; its not. Not trying to change your mind about anything that spills from it, but above ain't so.

 

The class saying you don't have to have a contract has no effect - zero, zilch nada, none - on an existing contract. Or even a future one. We all agree that Kirby does not own a patent on the boat. But lets assume he did own a patent, or owned the trademark (that was sold to LPE). Even if the class said you don't need a contract w Kirby, legally LPE would. The class has no standing in that regard.

 

I don't understand if folks don't understand this or somehow deny it but the class's actions really did not have any impact at all on the validity of any existing contract w BKI or the need for any future contract w BKI. If BKI has rights that need to be honored legally, then LPE will need a contract w BKI, regardless of what the class rules say. A class rule can NOT take away any legal right Kirby has. Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not ever! A class rule can not undo the law!

 

The only thing the class has done is said we are sailors and not bag men. We are sailors not lawyers. What the class has done has no impact on the validity of existing contracts, or the need for future ones.

 

Sorry but one more time for absolute clarity: A class rule can NOT and did NOT take away any legal right Kirby has, had, or will have.

 

* Really am curious - do you disagee this statement?

 

We do agree on the grass root/access stuff, but on above you lost me.

 

Again, just my opinion.

 

Wess

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv is right there is no need for the contracts after the class rule was changed. Go back to Kirby's statements on Sailworld. There are no patents etc just the renewable contracts. He was quite clear.

 

You can also note the time and energy that Gannt ... Can't... Won't (whatever) and kirby put into arguing about the class rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh... party 3 saying that party 1 and party 2 don't need a contract in no way shape or form invalidates any contract existing between party 1 or party 2, or the need for any future contract to protect the legal rights of party 1 and party 2 with respect the other. Unless of course party 1 is the Supreme Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Gouv says is true, if the parties concerned hadn't already entered into contracts - but they have. The ILCA controls who plays the game at ILCA sanctioned contests, which is where many new boats start their lives.

 

The grass roots sailing at club level is dominated by second hand boats owned and sailed by non ILCA members. The ILCA has it's own agreements, including the ones with ISAF, the ones with Kirby and the ones with builders like Laser Performance. I'm not saying that the game will always be this way, but this is the way it is now. A big part of the way the game is being played is Kirby, if you remove him and all of his agreements and documents, then there needs to be replacement rules. (For example, Kirby registered the Laser Construction Manual in 2007. It's creation date was 2005. It's registration number is TXu001362085).

 

I agree with Wess, the contracts are very relevant, because the important parties have obligations.

 

This has already been covered, and is summed up by IPLore who said: "There may have been a breach in LP's contractual obligations." What I've been saying for over a year (in addition to what IPLore said) is that for a breach to be found, the contracts must first be found to be valid by the courts. If found to be valid there are termination clauses that will affect Laser Performance once the contract is terminated.

 

The ILCA has a say in the future of the Laser, and the same people may even have a big part to play if Kirby's boat is renamed because of their contacts and infrastructure. Current members of the ILCA and other interested parties would not like the ILCA to act in the same way in the future of any class association. Some people don't mind this. A lot don't care.

 

It's been demonstrated that the ILCA's fundamental rule change vote was made on the basis of misinformation from the ILCA. There are outstanding questions surrounding that information and therefore the legitimacy of that vote by ILCA members that have so far not being answered. The misinformation of this vote is mentioned in Kirby's legal action.

 

Part of a good solution has to be a class association that performs better than the ILCA has in the past. A small minority disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard this being expressed so clearly:

 

Before the rule was changed LP's customers could not sail their Lasers in ILCA events.

 

Why the ILCA have not said that so clearly, I will never fathom. I suspect that message was lost in the debate over the outrageous claims about historic design rights and patents. Here's what they said:

 

 

There, the ILCA was not clear and misinforms it's membership.

 

The ILCA's questionable behaviour, the misinformation given out by the ILCA and most of all acting without proper consideration of their membership (specifically, failing to answer questions) was and is not acceptable.

 

We know that the ILCA's actions (and continued inaction) has been a source of frustration. Their actions have certainly resulted in the ILCA being named in the dispute and as a result has cost the ILCA in the form of legal fees. Now, going down the path the ILCA appears committed to, expect for legal fees for it's appearance in court, then if successful at cutting Kirby out, still more legal fees at negotiating replacement contracts.

 

As it turns out, the termination clauses in the builder's contract take supply into consideration. As it turned out the rule change never needed to be made for the reasons claimed. The termination clauses that were part of the LPE builder's agreement in 2005 are:

 

 

Agreement of Licencee on Termination

10.7 Licensee agree that termination of this Agreement for any reason shall not relieve Licensee of the obligation to pay the royalty payments and fees as provided herein which have accrued up to the effective date of termination hereof and the obligation to pay the royalty payments and fees for all Kirby Sailboats manufactured prior to the effective date of termination but not delivered until after such date.
10.8 Licensee agrees that in the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason, Licensee shall attempt in good faith to negotiate a sale to Kirby Inc., or to negotiate a sale to another licensee of Kirby Inc., all plugs, moulds and tooling then owned by the Licensee relating to the manufacture of Kirby Sailboats at fair market value not to exceed replacement cost.
10.9 Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, Licensee shall forthwith discontinue manufacturing Kirby Sailboats and shall discontinue the use of and shall refrain from using the production tooling, moulds and plugs particularly associated with the manufacture of Kirby Sailboats. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Licensee shall be permitted (against a letter of credit or other similar assurance that royalties and fees shall be fully paid) to complete the manufacture, subject to all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, of Kirby Sailboats in the course of manufacture, and sell all such sailboats, together with any Kirby Sailboats in a finished state at the effective date of termination hereof provided that in each case Licensee pays all royalty payments and fees with respect to such Kirby Sailboat at the rate, time and manner provided for in Article 8 hereof.

 

While the ILCA may not been aware of these clauses, there is a reasonable expectation that Laser Performance was not only aware, but very happy for the ILCA to take the action it did.

 

Article 8 refers to Royalties as payments to Kirby Inc, ILCA and IYRU (now ISAF).

 

All of this does not even take into consideration the IYRU agreement, signed by ILCA (Jeff Martin) which is referenced to within the builder's contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never before seen such a place where up is down and the sky is apparently green.

 

There is so much so wrong that its impossible to know where to begin. Lets make it short and sweet and all just my opinion of course.

 

If party 3 says there is no need for a contract, we agree that it does not take away any existing contract between party 1 and 2 or legal right that either party would have with regards to a need for future contract. So lets go the other way which is what you seem to be saying. If party 3 says there has to be a contract, but party 1 holds no legal right to offer as CONSIDERATION to party 2, is there a valid contract between party 1 and party 2?

 

If you don't care for that one, might I inquire why the hell party 3 should be forcing party 2 to pay for nothing? Party 3 may love party 1. Bestest of buddies. But if party 1 has no legal right or thing to offer for sale and as consideration anymore, why the hell should I care that you and party 3 might be bestest buddies and have to pay as a result. Open a PayPal account and make your bestest buddy more rich; nobody will care. But stop telling others what to do and who to send our money to, absent a legal basis and some legal right or thing to offer for sale as consideration. "He is my bestest buddie" does not rise to that legal standard. And maybe just maybe in a democratic society you should not be forcing your opinions and views on others.

 

In the words of IPLore, over and out. I leave you to your new forms of gravity and green sky and wish you well with it.

 

I am willing to bet somebody canntt resist saying something about design rights, copyrights, or construction manual as a response either because they love smoke and mirrors or are simply not capable of understanding that the sky is really not green, not matter how much they want it to be.

 

If you really cannttt understand what is happening from about 6 or 7 posts on this page alone (more than half of which are not mine), there really is no hope. Its all there. Monkey math.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing

LP owns the trademark name Laser. LP can build inflatables with 59 HP engines and call them Lasers.

 

 

They have already done this:

 

Laser Vortex

Laser EPS

Laser 2000 (now just the 2000 built by RS, LP removed as builder due to a contract dispute/non payment of royalties)

Laser 3000 (now the V3000)

Laser 4000

Laser 5000

Laser SB3 (now SB20, called Dart SB3 in Aus/NZ due to TM considerations. The class removed LP as the builder following a contract dispute over royalty payments, sound familiar?)

Laser Vago

Laser Bahia

 

The TM is only with respect to sailing dinghies, certainly in UK and Europe IIRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And of all those 'Lasers' only the last two are still made/sold by LP. They don't have a history of supporting the sailor that hands them their cash. You can add the Laser 2 to that list as well.

 

Missed that. Should also add the the Vortex class are looking to get moulds made and start building some hulls (this was after LP scrapped the moulds despite the class wanting to buy them).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Start your own class association then. Allow Lasers and anything that looks like one. If your offering is better, current ILCA members will join you.

 

 

surely that was meant to read, join the RS Aero then, and help 're-write the play book'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet ILCA has a ruke limiting those of us who play the game to one monopoly equipment supplier.

 

Weird that some argue so passionately that the ILCA should have no part in commercial agreements, yet their actions provide monopolies to certain businesses.

 

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, only pointing out that they do.

 

Still waiting for an answer on the tooling question. Went back over 1,000 posts or so and despite 3 different posters asking the question, no one seems to have a response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yet ILCA has a ruke limiting those of us who play the game to one monopoly equipment supplier.

 

Weird that some argue so passionately that the ILCA should have no part in commercial agreements, yet their actions provide monopolies to certain businesses.

 

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, only pointing out that they do.

 

Still waiting for an answer on the tooling question. Went back over 1,000 posts or so and despite 3 different posters asking the question, no one seems to have a response.

 

This is probably covered in the contracts and hence why no one knows.

 

I did read somewhere, probably on TLF that the 'rights holder' owns all mould and tooling and these are required to be returned should the contract lapse or be terminated (so this is probably one of the many things that will come out where it eventually goes to court).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Start your own class association then. Allow Lasers and anything that looks like one. If your offering is better, current ILCA members will join you.

 

I so wanted to walk away from the train wreck but yes, yes, yes, that is it exactly. And BKI said they would do this and they could have done this yesterday, today and tomorrow with the Torch. Its the one strategy where even Canntt would be happy. Gouv would be happy. Those favoring growing the sport from grass roots sailing and improving access (me) would be happy (assuming competitive pricing). Laser Olympic and championship sailors, and the ILCA would not have been thrilled but it would not have been fatal. The Torch might effectively become the Laser B or silver fleet. Be as common as generic sails at the club level. But even though this would help Laser sailors, BKI has not done what they said they would do and launch the Torch. In my opinion because it was never about helping the class its about helping BKI (which to be fair is what any business is going to be about).

 

Gouv, you are getting close with 2191 but not there yet. Please restart with an understanding that the contracts have a term (end date). Party 3 actions as outlined don't change anything re party 1 and 2 existing contracts or their validity or consideration. It does not change it for new future contracts either. As noted a rule can't take away somebody's legal right. What maybe :-) happened here is that valid contracts with valid consideration were entered into between party 1 and 2, with a defined term (end date). That end date as IPLore noted is related to the lifespan of the consideration. The lifespan of the consideration from party 1 eventually ended as is normal and perscribed under the law. Under ordinary circumstances the contact between party 1and 2 around that consideration would not be renewed thereafter as there is no reason for party 2 to renew.... Unless party 3 says you must have a contact. The party 3 rule is now the sole reason the contract between party 1 and 2 gets renewed even though party 1 no longer has any consideration that is alive to offer party 2. Party 3 is now a pawn in a party 1 business enrichment strategy and party 2 is a slave. Should this stand, party 1 has infinate leverage to extract infinate money from party 2 even though the valid consideration associated with the original contract died long ago and the contact would never have been renewed in ordinary circumstances. This a great gig and set-up for party 1 to get money for nothing... forever. Bring on Dire Straits. Its not so good obviously if you are party 2 or a customer of party 2, because those costs are passed on to you. Party 1 gets rich while customers, party 2, and party 3 get nothing in return.

 

Oh, by the way, lets magine that party 3 represents the customers of party 2. And the customers of party 2 cant leave party 2 because party 2 owns the trademark to what they want. Its very clear what party 3 should do. Party 3 should say, hey wait a minute; I represent the customers and this was fine while party 1 had something valid to sell, but that consideration has died or been sold now, so this works well for you party 1 but not so well for party 2, us, or the customers we represent. So unless there is a valid contract between party 3 and party 1 (with consideration given from party 1 to party 3) that says party 3 must always insist that party 2 have a contact with party 1 (even absent any consideration) and such contacts are upheld in a court of law, party 3 has the right (and damn good reason) to change the rule to stop party 1 from making party 3 the pawn/bag man and party 2 the slave. Clearly the people party 3 represents would be better off without this rule.

 

Finally, this is not what this was about. Its at least an interesting tangent but still a tangent. Somebody a ways back said "do the math." IPLore sort of suggested the same. All above is about a 2% royalty, yes? On how many boats? Chump change. Tangent. This started as a play to leverage the rule into a global consolidation and that is why the trademark litigation was launched. There were 3 parts to it in my opinion:

 

1.) Global consolidation/trademark litigation - This is what it was about and this is where the big bucks were. BKI chances are ~0%. See court action and litigation dropped.

 

2.) Old royalty money from LPE to BKI - This is above and I see this as 50:50. But chump change and surprised no settlement or mediation.

 

3.) New royalty money from LPE to BKI - Slighty better than chump change but can only happen if class is forced to return to old rules. If contracts between party 1 and 2 found valid (per 2 above) there is little to reason party 2 will renew at next cycle absent party 3 class rule saying they must. Guessing BKI chances at <10%. Given the highly unusual nature of such an arrangement and the uncertainity if it would withstand a legal challenge I am surprised there is not setlement or mediation. To me items 2 and 3 only make sense relative to legal costs if somebody else is paying the legal costs. Somebody suggested (no idea where or if accurate) GS was paying BKI legal costs and if so that is logical in an efort to try to set things up for step 1 again.

 

All just my opinion... There are nuances to all above but I really must resist.

 

Really over and out. Thank God weekend frostbiting is coming soon.

 

Wess

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tooling Questions:

 

Ownership? The tooling is owned by the builders.

Control of One Design Standards? The tooling is inspected and measured by ISAF and ILCA. See 5.1 of IYRU agreement where ISAF has the right to inspect tooling and make any periodic investigations necessary to ensure that the Laser is built according to the one design standards in the construction manual. ISAF also has to approve any changes in the construction manual.

 

Monopoly Question:

All of the stakeholders chose the Single Builder One Design model for each region back in 1983. It was probably the way to go to grow the class. Builder support is a critical part of growing a one design. Some mature classes have successfully switched to a multi-builder model but it usually means the end of builder support because one builder doesn't want to subsidize the other.

 

In the case of the Laser, the Class is currently locked into the single builder model by the IYRU agreement and the Trademark ownership. Currently only ISAF and the trademark owner can approve new builders. But if ISAF wished to propagate a shift to a multi builder model, it could possibly be done. After 2016 ISAF theoretically may be able to terminate the 1983 IYRU agreement and then approve a new class rule that allowed multi builders. This power might be what ISAF used to encourage LP to participate in mediation. If BK had worked with ILCA and ISAF instead of suing them, one wonders whether a recommendation in mediation that BK receive some kind of fee per boat could have been enforced by ISAF. What I think is unacceptable to ISAF and a substantial number of members of ILCA is that a commercial corporation which is unaccountable to the Laser members or ISAF should ever again have the right to terminate builders without cause. IMO, that rule will never be reinstated and folks need to get over that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still waiting for an answer on the tooling question. Went back over 1,000 posts or so and despite 3 different posters asking the question, no one seems to have a response.

I did read somewhere, probably on TLF that the 'rights holder' owns all mould and tooling and these are required to be returned should the contract lapse or be terminated (so this is probably one of the many things that will come out where it eventually goes to court).

 

I vaguely recall it being discussed after the builder's contract went public. Either way, the termination conditions in the builder's contract says that ownership is with the builder, so it's ownership with conditions. Here's the important bit:

 

10.8 Licensee agrees that in the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason, Licensee shall attempt in good faith to negotiate a sale to Kirby Inc., or to negotiate a sale to another licensee of Kirby Inc., all plugs, moulds and tooling then owned by the Licensee relating to the manufacture of Kirby Sailboats at fair market value not to exceed replacement cost.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chump change

Precisely

The big fight is over the chump change royalties to BKI and the ILCA has decided not to be a part of causing anyone to pay that chump change

 

Meanwhile.

The ILCA, while it was in the process of throwing BKI and the chump change per new boat fees off the sailor's backs

Re-wrote and RENEWED the SELF ENFORCED special inflated tape our wallets prices for sails and parts from the monopoly trademark owner!!

Fer gawd's sake folks THINK!!!!!

BKI was extracting $120 on a $6000 boat.

LP is taking $400 per sail

LP grabs over $100 EXTRA for every piece of shit bust next regatta top section

LP extorts (with help from the Stockholm Syndrome affected ILCA) an extra $200 for a vang kit

Compared to other similar boats, LP enjoys a $2000 higher price for its priduct

BECAUSE the ILCA says we can't bring exact duplicate toys to their sanctioned events

 

Call it extortion for a forty year old napkin drawing if you choose but the fact is the ILCA has cut off the chump change ONLY PAID ONCE PER BOAT to the guy who actually designed the world's most successful boat in history

While helping some baby buggy manufacturer who is only in it for the money extort money FOREVER for EVERY teeny tiny part we ever need!!!

One more time:

If ILCA is bound by some ill conceived contractual agreement to fuck us, we must disband ILCA

If ILCA is simply teaming with LP to fuck us, somebody needs to perform a hostage rescue operation, get the ILCA the therapy it needs to break its Stockholm Syndrome and we need to write monopoly supplier out of our rules

 

This is NOT an attack on the hostages!!!!

It is a call for their rescue!!!!

Gouv,

 

Its a bit unfair (?) / unrealistic (?) to ask the ILCA to change what they are doing. ILCA is high level sailors. They are doing exactly what they should to protect that SMOD game for their members which love that SMOD game called LASER. You and I may disagree with their focus but hey their members have a right to pick their own focus and protect their own interest. You might as well ask the sun not to rise. It will. It should.

 

I don't understand why you don't direct the flame at BKI. They said they would do what you want. They could do what you want. With the Torch. Long ago. But he does not. Why don't you call them out as you do ILCA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BKI was extracting $120 on a $6000 boat.

LP is taking $400 per sail

LP grabs over $100 EXTRA for every piece of shit bust next regatta top section

LP extorts (with help from the Stockholm Syndrome affected ILCA) an extra $200 for a vang kit

Compared to other similar boats, LP enjoys a $2000 higher price for its priduct

BECAUSE the ILCA says we can't bring exact duplicate toys to their sanctioned events

 

Call it extortion for a forty year old napkin drawing if you choose but the fact is the ILCA has cut off the chump change ONLY PAID ONCE PER BOAT to the guy who actually designed the world's most successful boat in history

While helping some baby buggy manufacturer who is only in it for the money extort money FOREVER for EVERY teeny tiny part we ever need!!!

 

BKI is paid approx 2% of the value of the wholesale boat. That puts it closer to $60 per boat.

 

ILCA get paid royalties on sails, for the plaques and for inspection fees. The last financials they published they were paid by builders 75K for one year - I think that was about 2010 and I think the currency was British pounds. The ILCA gets paid inspection fees. The ISAF gets paid for the plaques.

 

Laser Performance gets paid more when it sells direct, and encourages parties to talk direct for bulk sales and give out big discounts when they do. This competes with it's own dealership base.

One more time:

If ILCA is bound by some ill conceived contractual agreement to fuck us, we must disband ILCA

If ILCA is simply teaming with LP to fuck us, somebody needs to perform a hostage rescue operation, get the ILCA the therapy it needs to break its Stockholm Syndrome and we need to write monopoly supplier out of our rules

 

This is NOT an attack on the hostages!!!!

It is a call for their rescue!!!!

 

So if the agreements are historical, exactly what is the arrangement between the ILCA and Laser Performance? This will become even more important if Kirby loses his legal action.

 

My hope is that ILCA is not disbanded and makes significant improvements to the way it operates, for example it never again runs a vote in the way they did, and that the ILCA returns to more open governance. Some now say that they have stopped talking because of the legal action, however their lack of communication pre-dates the legal action by a wide margin.

 

Why is it that the last time they put their financial in Laser World was some years ago? (2011 from memory?) How come the Laser sales figures last published by the ISAF in 2010 are out of date? (http://www.sailing.org/classesandequipment/LSR.php) Have sales dropped? Is ILCA membership still about 15,000?

 

What exactly happened in 2010 / 2011 with the ILCA? Was the change anything to do with the meetings with Farzad Rastegar in early 2010?

 

If the ILCA was more open, some of these questions could be put to rest.

 

So how can an ILCA member require of the ILCA to answer a question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If members aren't satisfied with the performance of the current ILCA executive a very public campaign for a new executive ought to do the trick. Start the electioneering immediately...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tooling Questions:

 

Ownership? The tooling is owned by the builders.

Control of One Design Standards? The tooling is inspected and measured by ISAF and ILCA. See 5.1 of IYRU agreement where ISAF has the right to inspect tooling and make any periodic investigations necessary to ensure that the Laser is built according to the one design standards in the construction manual. ISAF also has to approve any changes in the construction manual.

 

Monopoly Question:

All of the stakeholders chose the Single Builder One Design model for each region back in 1983. It was probably the way to go to grow the class. Builder support is a critical part of growing a one design. Some mature classes have successfully switched to a multi-builder model but it usually means the end of builder support because one builder doesn't want to subsidize the other.

 

In the case of the Laser, the Class is currently locked into the single builder model by the IYRU agreement and the Trademark ownership. Currently only ISAF and the trademark owner can approve new builders.

[…]

 

 

So it would seem that the tooling provisions in the contracts are there to protect the builder's investment in them in the event that the builder's contract is cancelled, not to enforce exclusive use.

 

The ILCA/ISAF/IYRU are fundamental to enforcing the builder monopoly within trademark regions. It seems they have quite a bit of work to do to extricate themselves from commercial agreements (if they are attempting to do that).

Link to post
Share on other sites