The term "Championships" should be reserved for races held with the sanction of the IFBMA, on a closed course, with insurance and permits and such things that accord a race "legitimacy" in the public eye. What is meant by this is that to be able to call your race a "Championships", and be able to add "presented by the IFBMA" or some such, it must be closed course, with the neccessary permits, insurance etc. Calling an event a "Championships" when it is outside of this format restriction is ok, but organizers are requested to not put the IFBMA's name on it.

Short answer - no. Cities who are holding a particular year's CMWC, ECMC, NACCC etc are encouraged to start communication early amongst themselves to avoid date overlap, and cites bidding for a CMC should make a rough window of time for their event date part of even their earliest proposals.

This item was decided to have been dealt with under the above agenda item, and thus moot.

As the submitted logos had been posted at CMWC for voting to occur, this was not neccessary to deal with at the open forum. Results will be available shortly.

Those present were unanimously reluctant to standardize CMC rules, preferring to declare that this type fo thing should be left up to individual host cities. However, host cities are admonished to be as specific and clear as possible in definining the rules for their event.

This was unanimously (and rapidly) tossed out by the open forum, in favor of declaring that in light of the possibility of bids coming from only one continent (as they did for CMWC 2005), we cannot demand that cities unwilling to bid for a certain year present a proposal simply because they're on the right continent. The best bid, regardless of location, should always win. May the subject never come up again.

This item, presented by the DCBCA, was discussed at length, and agreed upon. The IFBMA has been crippled by an inability to act in between Open Forums. Being that they have previously only occurred once per year, at CMWC, this has made it difficult to rule "officially", and in a timely fashion, on application and interpretation of the By-laws. The council idea was accepted as defined by the DCBCA, which suggested the council consist of no less than 3 people, and that its responsibilites should include:

• To assign tasks related to, and ensure the existence of a good open forum at CMWC

• Issue statements of support for local BMA's

• Respond to press/media articles and reports, communicate with the press/media, and issue press releases

• Maintain and archive IFBMA documents

• Utilize the messenger email list to solicit comments before acting on anything

At that time, nominations for council members were taken (and fortunately all those nominated were present at the open forum), and of the 8 nominated, the following 5 were chosen:

Martin "Banana" (Copenhagen)
Joel Metz (San Francisco)
Shawn Bega (Washington DC)
Squid (NYC)
Anja Raecher (Bern)

Other nominees had included Biker Bill (Edmonton), Jean Andre Vallery (Sarasota) and John Kenda (Boston/Philly/SF/where next? :) )

Tabled as something for the newly-formed council to deal with

Initially tabled until after discussion on the council proposal, as a major rewrite of the document is needed. That being said, it was decided that replacement proposals should be accepted on a first-come, first-serve basis, with a deadline of the CMWC at which the final decision is to be taken. That is to say - replacement bids, provided that the open slot has not already been filled, may submitted up until the last minute.

It was decided that in light of the restrictions placed on action by the IFBMA by a decion-taking body only being assembled once a year, and the increasing availability and use of email for communication amongst the messenger community, that online open forums are indeed a valid medium for discussion. Online open forums should happen at least once or twice a year, and their timing and agenda shall be announced one month in advance. It was suggested that a separate email list, or, preferably, an online forum, be created for this purpose.

It was decided to continue to disallow late bids in any form. The only situation in which late bids are acceptable is as outlined in the exception involving bidding cities dropping out.

This item was tabled for discussion by the council

Being as they've been in use for several years now, this was approved.

This was agreed upon, provided the exception for replacement bids is noted in the rewrite.