I would agree to adopt the proposed rule, as it will keep costs of competing sensible.
Regarding the carbon beam issue (Part 2) I think it could be re-evaluated if carbon beams become cheaper in the future, however this will always be region-specific. It may be cheaper in the UK & US than in AUS & SA relative to aluminium.
On the subject of regulating the beams, I`ve had a look at the proposed Tornado class rule changes, they have a MAX. thickness limit on the aluminium walls of their beams, to prevent competitors from making HEAVIER beams, so that they could then build lighter hulls & have the same platform weight, with the weight taken out of the hulls & positioned where you would want it, more centralised in the platform. I don`t know if anyone in the F16 class would go to such lengths to try & gain a small advantage, but perhaps we should look at regulating this as well.
While on the subject of Carbon being expensive, how can the class allow full carbon hulls if one of the goals of the class is keeping it affordable ? Or is it just that manufacturing beams in carbon costs so much, while using it for hull manufacture is not ? This raises the same issue, you can build superlight hulls in full carbon & add lead where you want it, keeping most of the weight centralised, a plywood boat the same weight would be at a distinct disadvantage in this regard. Is this within the spirit of the F16 class & it`s intentions ?
We need to consider these points carefully, or our class will become F16HT very quickly, and the entry cost will escalate. We need to be careful here : one of the main attractions of the class is that you can have similar performance to A-class & F18 at a much lower cost. If the costs go up, the attractiveness of the class diminishes.

Regards
Steve