I'm very grateful for the insight given to us by Patrick Boylan - I think
they will add great value to our current debate.

I am left feeling a little confused, however - more likely the result of my
own stupidity rather than Patrick's adroitly conceived notes:

Patrick was very emphatic that ICs and AOs should not have the same status.
One reason advanced was that:

"the Affiliated Organizations are all able to charge their
own membership fees and therefore manage their own finances,
while the  majority of them, perhaps all, are independently
incorporated as legal bodies in their own right"

But at the same time states elswhere that:

"I can personally see no real alternative to at least the larger
International Committees - and perhaps all of them - becoming
registered legal entities in their own right and therefore
responsible for their own legal and financial affairs,"


Is Patrick suggesting that some ICs should be like AOs or???

I am not clear on this essential point.

In my opinion ICs should be independent organizations - both legally and
financially - there is no other way for them to be viable or to resolve the
problems conveyed by French law.  (We are waiting with great anticipation
in ICOM-CC for this development - we see it as rescue!)

There is a proviso that the link with ICOM will have to be maintained for
multitude of professional reasons.

If this does not mean ICs becoming something like an AO then what does it
mean?

Yours somewhat confused.

DAvid Grattan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html