Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

[jeffers]

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.......

 

[Wess]

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)

 

[ojfd]

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

 

[Jon711]

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!!

 

[IPLore]

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]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)?[/SIZE]

[…]

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.

 

[IPLore]

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!

 

[IPLore]

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?

 

[Wess]

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).

 

[Board skiff]

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

 

[Bruce Hudson]

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.

 

[ojfd]

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!

 

[Bruce Hudson]

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.

 

[RobG]

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?

 

[ojfd]

Gantt,

Reference to some person's blog on the internet are NOT FACTS!

 

[Wavedancer II]

Gantt,

Reference to some person's blog on the internet are NOT FACTS!

ojfd is blowing against the wind...

(on the ILCA voting issue)

 

[tillerman]

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.

 

[Bruce Hudson]

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?

 

[JimC]

Reference to some person's blog on the internet are NOT FACTS!

At least as reliable than Wikipedia though...

 

[redstar]

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.

 

[tillerman]

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.