Various proposals to change the electoral regulations and statutes (as a consequence of the 2010 elections)
A proposal from The Philippines that only citizens can represent a country at the Olympiad (This has been proposed and rejected previously btw)
Various complaints about various things(!)
Bids for upcoming FIDE events, including the 2016 Olympiad from Bulgaria, Estonia and Azerbaijan (do read this one btw)
A motion to exclude 5 federations that took legal action against FIDE (moved by the Turkish Chess Federation)
A motion to extend national suspension of a player to cover all international events as well (moved by the Turkish Chess Federation)
There is also the usual proposals from the various committees, although in the case of most of these, the committee itself will discuss the proposals (and possibly reject or amend them) before they reach the General Assembly.
In the case of the two motions from the Turkish Chess Federation, I'm sure that these will excite the most debate. Personally I am opposed to both of them, and will recommend that the PNG Chess Federation votes against them. I would be surprised if the first motion gets up, but am worried that the second one might. The Australian Chess Federation has a similar rule in respect to decisions of its State Associations, and if this is the case with other Federations, then it might have enough votes to get through.
(Disclaimer: I will be a paid official at the 2012 Olympiad)
(Disclaimer: I will be a paid official at the 2012 Olympiad)
1 comment:
The TCF ban-extending motion may seem similar to the ACF rule but it actually differs from it in a very critical regard. The ACF rule gives the ACF the power to decide not to extend a given ban. Although we have, thus far, extended all the half-dozen or so state bans referred to us, this discretion is very important in case we someday perceive that a player has been banned incorrectly, unjustly, excessively or vexatiously by their own state.
The TCF motion contains no discretion - if a national federation bans someone and follows the stated procedures, and the ban gets upheld in that nation's courts, FIDE must then extend the ban. This applies even if FIDE does not agree with the ban (either on matters of fact or on what is the appropriate response.)
The absence of a discretionary clause renders the TCF proposal as currently stated fatally flawed, and therefore I do not support it as currently stated, and I am very confident the ACF will not ask me to vote for it as currently stated.
Post a Comment