The following is the preliminary agenda for the CMWC 2002 Open Forum. Discussion and inquiry concerning this preliminary agenda are heartily encouraged among CMWC attendees prior to the two open forum meetings pre- and post-event; we regard such threshing out of individual opinions as essential for acheiving informed concensus. They are not listed in order of importance, or in order of how they will be discussed - simply in the order the agenda suggestions were received by the IFBMA. That said, the following are the ideas to be covered in discussion - nothing here is predecided or set in stone - all decisions will be taken at the second of the two open forum meetings. If you would like to add any agenda items to this preliminary agenda, please email them to me. If you have questions about how the Open Forum works, please read "The Nature of the Open Forum". Thanks!

• Use of the term "Championships"
  Should use of the term "Championships" in the context of messenger racing be limited to the CMC events (CMWC, ECMC, NACCC, ACMC)? In recent years, several larger alleycat events have used or proposed using the term "Championships" as part of their name. While this may not result in confusion for the messengers involved, the argument is that overuse of the "Championships" moniker may dilute the event's worth in the eyes of the media, through whom the event is given status which allows us to find sponsors. There is, however, some precedent set for the use of the term "Championships" with several events, namely the East Coast Courier Championships (since 1997) and the Swiss Cycle Messenger Championships (since 1993). Is terming such non-CMC events "unofficial" (as in "Unofficial West Coast Championships") enough, or should the term be used exclusively for the actual Championship events? And should we make exceptions for the ECCC and SUICMC due to their history?

• Scheduling of Championship events
  • It has been suggested that the CMWC and ECMC/NACCC, when occurring on the same continent in the same year, should keep their dates separate by more than a month or so. This would enable messengers local to that continent or region to go to both events without having to either take a large chunk of time off work, or take two vacations in rapid succession. However, this could end up limiting the scheduling freedom of event organizers, but this may be averted by ongoing communication between CMC organizers. Should CMC event dates be subject to scheduling "windows" of time, or should we insist that organizers work together to effect solutions to this scheudling issue?

  • It has also been noted by many people over the years that CMWC being scheduled in the summer, while nice for vacationing, also places the event in the middle of travel high season, and thus the most expensive airline tickets possible for those who have to travel longer distances (Not to mention making any sort of airline sponsorship that much more difficult). It is worth noting that travel expenses will drop dramatically if CMWC is scheduled either before or after the travel season (May-September, roughly). This relates somewhat to the other scheduling item on the agenda, as if the timing of CMWC is changed, it may well affect the scheduling of the other CMC events.

• IFBMA logo needed
  We've been around as an organization for several years now, and it's high time we have a logo. This item is mostly a general announcement that we're looking for one, and will accept submissions from any messengers out there with art skills (or without them...). If anyone chooses to bring a logo design to the open forum in Copenhagen, that's great too. If enough people show up with logo ideas, we may well decide on a logo at that point, depending on the opinion of the assembled membership.

• Uses/sources of IFBMA funds
  The IFBMA collects funds in the form of donations, CMWC proposal fees, and consulting fees levied on CMWC host cities, as outlined in the by-laws. Eventually these funds will accumulate to the point at which they can be spent without immediately depleting the IFBMA coffers. Some of us have envisioned spending such funds on things such as buying tickets for messengers less able to attend CMWC (such as those from Latin American, Southeast Asia or some parts of Eastern Europe), or as a reserve fund to aid a beleaguered CMWC event. Also, once we have a logo, there is the possibility of starting to produce IFBMA paraphenalia as a means of acquiring additional income towards whatever goals we choose. There isn't really a decision required on this item at this point, but brainstorming is encouraged.

• Proxy voting for individuals unable to attend CMWC
  The issue of proxy voting was brought up at the CMWC 2000 Open Forum, but while we agreed that proxy voting for those attending CMWC would only be available for those who had attended the first open forum meeting and would be unable to attend the second, no agreement was reached as to how to deal with the idea of proxy votes for those unable to attend the events. Should those unable to attend be allowed proxy votes, given that they may not be as informed about the bids being put forward? Should we limit proxy votes given to non-attendees to those who attended the previous year's open forum? Should non-attendees be denied proxy votes altogether? Or perhaps some other solution? If proxy votes are allowed, the issue will be how to ensure that those wishing to vote by proxy are as informed about their decision as those attending the open forum.

• Late/replacement proposal deadlines
  It's been established that late proposals for a CMWC are only accepted in one instance - when a city that originally proposed to host has dropped out of the running. What needs clarification is how late in the game such replacement proposals will be accepted. Is 6 months prior to the date of the CMWC open forum a good deadline, or should replacements be allowed up until the last minute?

• DQ "requirements" at CMWC
  Currently, the specific rules of CMWC events are largely left up to the individual organizing cities, typically drawing primarily on previous years rules, and changes thereof. It's not proposed to make a hard and fast rule for disqualification, but to suggest that DQs be handed out more liberally for things that would usually get you fired or at least written up at work, such as being excessively rude towards "clients" (checkpoint workers) and damaging packages (folded large flats, crumpled envelopes, etc). Should it be suggested that things such as these be taken into consideration when DQing competitors?

• Presentation of DCBCA "Industry Safety Report"
  Quick introduction of the DCBCA's analysis of the messenger industry, prepared for the DC City Council