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
Comment
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
In my view, this discussion belongs in Additional World Record Issues (not in Guidelines)
Comment
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
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
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
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
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
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
Any more comment on this or can it put the proposal to vote?
Comment
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.
Comment
Any more comment on this?
I might change the part about getting a signature from the committee chair. We could keep it flexible by wording it as 'signed by member of the world record committee'- that way any member of the committee can be delegated the task of signing and sending out certificates. What do you think?
In terms of editorial numbering- I don't think we need to change this proposal for that- it can be incorporated in the appropriate section of the new edition. Or you have something specific you have in mind Jan?
Comment
> We could keep it flexible by wording it as 'signed by member of the world record committee'- that way any member of the committee can be delegated the task of signing and sending out certificates.
I think it's good to have this freedom. In the end, the World Record Committee can still decide internally that, as a rule, the committee chair will sign.
> Or you have something specific you have in mind Jan?
I meant that, in my opinion, it makes sense to divide new rules into individual numbered paragraphs (see below). As I said, we can of course also do this in a subsequent proposal and consider whether it might be useful to combine the new rules with other existing rules.
1. 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 performance achieved, the rider’s name, the date and location (place, city and country) of the record attempt, and wil be signed by member of the world record committee, alongside the IUF logo.
2. Past record holders may request an official IUF World Record Certificate provided the record was broken under IUF rules and approved by the IUF.
3. A charge may apply for postage and administration.
Comment
Regarding point 3: If at all possible, I would avoid charging record holders to obtain their certificate. I consider the certificate as a present by IUF, and it's not done to ask people to pay for their present. Besides, the cost per certificate would be around 5 - 10 euros by my estimate, including the printing, packaging and postage, and it would probably happen about 10 times per year or less. Surely IUF can carry that?
In the unfortunate case that it's unavoidable to charge, I would at least delete "and administration" from the wording. IUF is run by volunteers, who don't charge anything for their services such as administation.
Comment
> If at all possible, I would avoid charging record holders to obtain their certificate.
I agree with you 100% here – nevertheless, I believe that it is not wrong for us to have the option of passing on any costs that arise. That is not to say that the IUF should make use of this option, and I am happy to discuss with the IUF Board which annual costs can be covered by the IUF in this regard. But I also understand the rule to mean that we simply want to keep this option open in case, for whatever reason, the IUF is unable to cover the costs.
> I would at least delete "and administration" from the wording. IUF is run by volunteers, who don't charge anything for their services such as administation.
I agree that the IUF is run by volunteers, who don't charge anything for their services such as administation, but on the other hand, I would also include the costs for printing the certificates under “administration.” But maybe there's a better word for that?
Comment
I think we should do everything we can to avoid charging costs to record holders, especially if a record holder would not be able to choose the option not to receive a certificate. I can see that in extreme cases, we want to have to option to charge, but then again, must this be published for everyone to read, while it most likely would never happen? It doesn't look very nice. The option could be in our internal rules only, and if the extreme case may arise, we can confront a new record holder as yet with the cost.
It seems logical to me that IUF would cover the cost we talk about. Maybe they want to set a maximum per year, as you mention. I estimate that € 200 should be more than enough.
As long as I am a member of this committee (even if non-voting), I am willing to personally cover the excess costs up to a maximum of € 200 per year. That's how much I value the principle. If others would join and the excess costs would be shared equally, the burden should be relatively low. And I repeat that I expect IUF to cover this in the first place. Please discuss with the board, Jan.
To avoid the word "administration", what about
3. A charge may apply for printing and shipping.
(That would include envelopes or other packaging etc.)
Comment
I don't envisage us charging at all, but put it there to keep our options open in case we are overwhelmed with records or the IUF is short of funds for other reasons (eg underwriting a large Unicon loss).
If we charge, we don't need to state explicitly in the WR guidelines, but it makes it easier to justify. Agree with Klaas about deleting 'administration' and just put 'A charge may apply for printing and shipping'.
Comment
I still strongly oppose the idea that we should charge new record holders for a certificate. That's not how you give a present. Therefore, I also oppose to include a clause about a possible charge in the public WR Guidelines. It is downright shameful, in my opinion.
I suggest that Jan talks to the IUF Board first as he said he would, about their ability to pay for printing and shipping. I see three possible outcomes:
(1) Maybe they'll say they will simply pay for that, without restriction - problem solved.
(2) If they can't pay anything, I propose that we abandon the idea of sending physical certificates, and revert to digital certificates to be sent through email, including a (scanned) signature of the WRC chair.
(3) If they'll pay but up to a reasonable maximum, I repeat that I am willing to provide financial backing, up to € 200 per year, as long as I am member of the WRC.
If we decide to send physical certificates and include that explicitly in the WRG, then if the funds run out, it is an exceptional situation. We can then as yet switch to digital certificates, pointing to the exceptional situation to justify.
Alternatively, we could even include in the WRG that new record holders receive a certificate in physical or digital form, without further specifying what drives that choice. That would negate the need to justify sending a digital certificate.
Comment
> I think we should do everything we can to avoid charging costs to record holders, especially if a record holder would not be able to choose the option not to receive a certificate.
Of course, everyone should be given the option to waive the certificate if a free certificate is not possible (for whatever reason). In any case, costs may only be charged after consultation and consent with the record holder, but to me it goes without saying that something cannot be charged without consent.
> I can see that in extreme cases, we want to have to option to charge, but then again, must this be published for everyone to read, while it most likely would never happen?
I would say yes, because if it is not stated anywhere that the certificate may not be issued free of charge, then in my opinion nothing can be charged for it. Because the rules then suggest that every record holder is always and without restriction eligible for a certificate.
> Alternatively, we could even include in the WRG that new record holders receive a certificate in physical or digital form, without further specifying what drives that choice. That would negate the need to justify sending a digital certificate.
I completely agree with you here, as that would indeed solve the “problem.” But as an athlete, I would prefer to have a physical certificate, even if I have to pay a little for shipping, rather than just receiving a digital one. Therefore, I think it would be fair to inform athletes that they always have the option of receiving a physical certificate, but that shipping costs may be incurred.
But I will definitely bring the issue up with the IUF Board and see what the response is!
Comment
I would like to suspend our decisions on payment options until after we know the Board's position on this.
Comment
Regarding the certificate, I understand Klaas’s position. It’s true that Guinness charges record holders for these certificates, and I think Ken was referring to that, but GWR is a commercial company. Personally, as an athlete, I don’t place much importance on a certificate, and if it were only digital, I wouldn’t see the added value. At least a paper certificate is a tangible object and can be seen as a gift from the IUF. Major federations (for example, World Athletics or World Aquatics) offer athletes tens of thousands of euros for breaking records.
Klaas has convinced me that if we provide paper certificates to record holders, the cost should be covered by the IUF and never by the athlete. Regarding the design of the certificate, does anyone have ideas? It’s a small thing, but details such as graphic design, font, paper weight, etc., give value to such an item. And for a certificate, I suppose the ideal is to settle on a design and stick with it.
Since the question of the certificate and that of the record history are two separate proposals, I think it’s still not too late to make them two distinct topics. This would allow us to move forward and vote on the record history independently.
Comment
I wonder if GWR do things differently in different countries... in the UK they do not charge for the supply of individual records, but only for group records. You also get a different certificate for individual than you do for group records (which is annoying if you want to line them up!).
Why not supply PDF automatically and a certificate that is presented at UNICON?
GWR records certificates have changed over the years and are not great in their design. We are a community of talented people, why not ask for designs on Unicyclist.com? it will also be a good way of advertising that IUF does work for the unicycle community.
Comment
Thanks all,
Jan- when's the next IUF board meeting? I know how long these things take to organise around different timezones
My feeling is that the cost should be covered by the IUF, and the cost is unlikely to be prohibitive. If I take it out of the proposal, it doesn't mean the IUF can't charge for postage and printing- it doesn't have to be explicit.
Simon- I think the proposals are related but will revise this proposal and add a new one for record keeping. I agree that a printed certificate is important- not every athlete will appreciate it, but I think many will. A PDF is like getting your medical degree emailed for you to print out yourself. I think it's important to have good quality paper/card with a logo and maybe the official seal of the IUF.
Roger- many records, even if set during Unicon, will not be verified until some time after, so may still end up needing to be posted.
Comment
I have already contacted the IUF Board, and as soon as I have a response, I will share it here.
Comment
I have revised this proposal to remove the charge for postage and printing. Hopefully it's just formality for the IUF to approve this expense. If not, then I'll sponsor it myself (but I might require an Adventure Unicyclist logo on it!)
Also made a new proposal (waiting on Jan to approve), separating the record keeping section from this proposal.
Comment
Any more comments or can I put it to vote?
Comment
I think the rule is worded broadly enough that we won't run into any problems even without a fixed budget commitment from the IUF.