Originally Posted by macca
Franck,

There is no interpretation needed for the term "shall" ISAF has already defined it for us and it is a mandatory item. The WC must follow the terms set out in the constitution and as such the decisions taken last month are no valid.

Regarding 11.1, The Australian association has submitted a motion to the WC to set aside the rulings from the recent WC meeting and re-hold the meeting within the bounds of the constitution.



the text:
"but members unable to attend shall pass proxy votes to the President of the IF18CA"

I do respect what you think, but be as kind to accept they could be a discussion. The "shall", full mandatory no doubt, obviously (even for a non native english spoken) apply to members not to the WC.
You can't say I do not do my duty so the decisions are invalid. Too easy.

Here you contest decisions taken by representative of 74% of worldwide members, in a very formal way.
So the same people will read carefully the 11.1 and those representative of 74% members see that the WC decide on this dispute and " whose decision shall be final and binding."

For me this it looks like a "formal" dead end and a "formal" waste of time.