Certificates for world records and making historical world records available

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 14 Dec 03:47

Comment 18 Dec 03:21

Hello Ken,
Thank you for starting this discussion. Perhaps you could repeat the key points here in the discussion? I think it would be easier if we had all the information in the discussion and could use it to draft a proposal for a rule change based on that.

Basically, I completely agree with both of your ideas—both in terms of official certificates and the history of records. However, I do wonder which of these ideas we need to translate into a rule proposal and include in the World Record Guidelines, and which we need to process differently. Right now, your proposal isn't something we can simply incorporate into the World Record Guidelines as it stands (and perhaps we don't need to).

What do the others think?

Comment 18 Dec 03:51

In my view, this discussion belongs in Additional World Record Issues (not in Guidelines)

Comment 28 Dec 04:42

I realise most of the committee are on Christmas/ New Year break, and I only have my phone with me to access this committee.  

The main points from the proposal: 

• current world record holders are sent a certificate to recognise their achievement
• Previous record holders may also obtain a certificate on request 
• Each IUF world record entry should display past records 

While it doesn't have to be written into our guidelines, formalising the above will ensure that unicyclists attempting a record know what they are entitled to, and the committee is obligated to uphold this.  Having a reward and formal recognition will encourage more unicyclists to break world records. Currently, people attempt records under Guinness because they get a certificate, whereas the only thing they get from the IUF is an entry in the website which is deleted once their record is surpassed. 

The cost can either be covered by IUF funds, or, if excessive, there a courier/postage fee could be charged. 

I will get the proposal into a guideline format once I have access to a computer after the New Year. 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment 28 Dec 05:07

I think Ken's point that formalization has some advantages is certainly very valid. I think inclusion in the guidelines makes perfect sense from this point of view. This would specify in the guidelines what the riders can expect and at the same time impose an obligation on the IUF. In my opinion, that sounds reasonable.

Comment 06 Jan 04:29

I have rewritten the proposal and put in Section 1

Old rule: none

New rule:

Section 1.9 World Record Certificates 

• An official IUF World Record Certificate will be sent to every new world record holder.  The certificate will display the record title and new record mark, the rider’s name, the date and location (place, city and country) of the record attempt, and the signature of the World Record Committee Chair, alongside the IUF logo.
• Past record holders may request an official IUF World Record Certificate provided their record was broken under IUF rules and approved by the IUF
• A charge may apply for postage and administration

Section 1.10 Record keeping

• The IUF will publish the current world records on the IUF website
• The IUF will archive old records and make them available on the IUF website

Comment 07 Jan 07:48

I think publishing the record history is particularly important. As for the certificate, I wonder who would be responsible for printing and sending them.

And as for the proposal, I think that if there are problems with the certificate for one reason or another, it would be a shame if that got in the way of publishing the record history. I would prefer it if these were two separate topics.

Comment 07 Jan 09:01

I agree, publish history is important.

With the easy availability of high quality printing at relatively low cost, I will suggest that you only offer to send out a PDF. 

It would not be hard to generate this and save it out as a PDF, it could even be locked. This could potentially even be automated.

Comment 07 Jan 18:46

I don't think it's too onerous to print and send a certificate.  It takes a lot more work to certify a record and update the website.  All that needs to be done is for the certificate to be filled in, signed and posted.  We should have the mailing address as part of the correspondence with the record holder.  If not, then it's their responsibility to get it to us if they want a certificate. 

PDF file- I'm a bit traditionalist and I think an ink signature is better.  

In terms of responsibility- I put it as the chair of the WR committee, but that can be changed.  It could be designated to a member of the certifying committee.

Simon- I put both Section 1.9 and 1.10 as one proposal, but to me they are related and equally important.  It seems more a formality to put both into the guidelines, but if you prefer I can separate the proposals. 

Comment 13 Jan 22:41

Any more comment on this or can it put the proposal to vote?

Comment 14 Jan 02:38

I would say that I agree with the content of the proposal. The wording leaves room for interpretation as to whether the certificate must be printed or whether it could also be a PDF file. Personally, however, I find a printed certificate more appealing than just a PDF file.

The only comments I have are of an editorial nature and can be implemented in a second step from my side. I would also have further editorial comments on the first chapter.
- I would number individual paragraphs, as has been done in chapters 2–7.
- I would consider whether the proposed rules 1.9 and 1.10 could be combined with the existing rule 1.5, as all three rules basically have something to do with how records are made visible and how they remain visible over time. One option could be to add them as sub-points (1.1.1 and 1.1.2) to the current rule 1.1.