Discussion: Who makes decisions?

Decision making process (1-10). 10 is good.
Transparency (1-10)
New WOC Q model (1-10)

My Votes:
Decision making process is rather hidden and not clear. Important facts and influence from big nations are hidden in this process. (4)
They don't update their minutes regularly by the book, but at least they do time to time. Why we pay people at IOF if they can't provide information on time? (5)
New WOC model. It is protective for big nations and it is rigid. At the end they probably read only what Blair prepared for them. Council is not able to find a wider group of people to deal with this issue, because from federation's replies it is evident that comparison of different qualification models should be done before final decision is taken but they don't trust anyone beside the FOOT Commission members. (3)

FINAL
What is better or worse under new president?

I would like to see that president step out and say clear about how he see the future and why we should follow IOF vision. Not via official IOF news, magazines etc. For me it is normal that when historical decisions are taken that president is able to say more than just what his PR team can produce.
It is a forum and people's opinion should matter, right? But not in orienteering.

You know that the WOC in the Future thing started well before the current president was voted in. In fact, the new WOC programme and new president were voted in in the same week, so it doesn't really make sense to say we are worse off because of him.

I don't think the closed decision making started during the current presidency. We cannot blame Brian Porteous for this, just hope for him the start open up the IOF and secure transparency.
The WOC in the Future project is a shining example of how closed the IOF works. First I must admit it was talented political tactics which was applied during the GA in Lussanne. The different votes were setup in a way, where the former IOF president had foreseen the outcome. They knew Councils proposal would not be accepted, unless the setup the vote in a tactical way. That's okay, but the problem is that in the end all(or at least most) Feederations present did not know what the were voting for, and the result was the only option no-one wanted.
One could think that Council knew this, and fears the decision will be overturned at the next GA. As a result Council was in a hurry and accepted ITA proposal of integrating the new WOC program into the WOC 2014. Council said yes, knowing that this effectively secured the new WOC program.

This is where we are today. Today we are in a situation where a new qualification model is desperately needed, as there as a consequence of ITA implementing the new program in 2014 are a urging need of a such model. Council argues it follows the decision of GA 2012, but was there any decision at GA 2012 on the qualification model? Was there any decision at the GA 2012 that a such model could apply for WOC 2014. The answer to the last two questions is a loud NO. In fact, when Council (or the IOF sports director) argues they are following the decision made at the GA 2012, they are on thin ice. No such decision where made, and I believe most Federations were expecting a thorough and transparent process, where all had the opportunity to be heard. The current model was in reality already decided before the so-call hearing during spring(no chances where made, despite a majority of critical responses).

To me we have some issues that need to be solved:
- which WOC program do we really want, and how often should WOC be organized? Is a split WOC like the Nordic Countries proposed a way forward?
- how should qualification for WOC be solved? Should it be based on performance level(i.eg. World Ranking), Nation Strength (like the current proposal), Should this be supplemented by a low key qualification race? Or are qualification races still needed (despite many say the need to go, but is this true?)
- WRE need to tweeked to give better picture of who is the currently best orienteer. If done WRE could be used as both qualification model and seeding for WOCs in the future.

On top of all this, we also has to consider have any change will affect the development of orienteering in less developed orienteering countries. The current debate shows a great need of this.

As for WRE, I think the current scheme is working well(or was until the bonus was removed 1½ year ago). I know there still were somw issues in less developed countries, but these could both be solved by allowing countries to host more races and may prolonging the eligibility period to 18 month (thereby increasing the number of potentially ranked runners).

"Council argues it follows the decision of GA 2012, but was there any decision at GA 2012 on the qualification model?"

I think this need to be solve first. We can't expect that Council will put any limitation on how they govern the sport or what rights they have between two GA meetings. In my opinion we need a clear bullet proof document about which issues are under responsibility of GA. Council is controlling the decision making process no matter if decision is strategic or operational nature. If Council is not able to develop this organizational rules than federations need to propose how divided responsibility between Council and GA should work.