RE: Motion regarding foreign registrations

[cheryl deaton <region15kids@hotmail.com>]

Hello everyone,
My education has increased in the past 24 hours after talking to a few foreign
hybridizers and others.  For the most part, EVERY Associate Registrar performs
a service to their hybridizers, for which they charge a fee. (None of us would
argue that by performing a service, fees should NOT be charged).  The AIS
provides each Associate Registrar with access to IrisRegister so that they
have the most current information regarding reserved and used names of irises,
which they research before sending the registration to our Registrar/Recorder.
Also, even in English speaking countries there is a slight difference in the
language which is corrected by the Associate Registrars
and the translation services provided by non English speaking countries is
invaluable. In some countries the fees charged are shared by the Associate
Registrar and the foreign society.

To answer some of Andi's questions, we are not per se raising fees for foreign
hybridizers, but asking them to pay the American Iris Society for
registrations the same way that American hybridizers have been paying for
years.  As an extreme example, a New Zealand hybridizer pays nothing to
register an iris, and I pay $15 to register an iris.  Then you have the other
foreign hybridizer that is charged $23 by their Associate Registrar, which is
$8 more than I have to pay.  Because the Associate Registrars and foreign
societies charge differently for their registrations, there will always be an
inequity.

Will some foreign hybridizers object? Of course.  Will they stop registering
their iris with us?  It is a possibillity, but I think on the whole they will
continue to register their irises with us.  Understand that there are some
hybridizers that do not register irises at all and sell their "named" irises
willy nilly, including some in the Unite States!

As to John's statement that the R&Is bring us money, that is somewhat true,
but on the other hand we have an inventory in the AIS Storefront of prior year
R&Is that are costing money to sit in storage.

John's motion, on reflection, seems to be the most equitable solution, and I
highly support it.  The world is ever changing and I imagine that we as a
society will make many changes in the next few years to reflect those
changes.
Cheryl


> From: andinsky@gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:05:09 -0600
> Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Motion regarding foreign registrations
> To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
>
> Hey John, thanks for the explanation. I find your points very detailed and
> more clear for me to understand being a newbie.
>
> I have some questions, but the Board may have already explored them.
>
> AIS seems to need to clarify its own role on this. I understand that we
need
> to cover our own expenses, but as we have taken the role of World registrar
> for irises that many years ago, we need to see each country, and each
> hybridizer in other countries as a brother/sister that speaks another
> language, that's all. Would we raise prices on our own? I mean, they are
> already paying a fee.
>
> A- So, my first question is: do we want -- to continue -- to be the world
> registrar for all irises? And if so, are we being impartial by -- basically
> -- raising the price for foreign registrations only.
>
> B- Instead or raising prices, which will end up costing the little guy/gal
> everywhere more to register, and discourage registration (a main goal to
our
> worldwide role) couldn't funds be raised in a different way? Could we find
a
> sponsor to cover registration costs? I mean, since we don't suppose to make
> a profit, it would be nice to ask someone (a company) that can afford it It
> would worth the effort to try to find someone. Discover a new source of
> income!
>
> C- Even though we were/are consulting with foreign registrars, who we are
> really affecting are the foreign hybridizers. Aren't we? Should we consult
> with them? Again, shouldn't we then treat them as a U.S. hybridizer (that
> speaks are foreign language) and think of them equally? I mean, they are
> already paying a fee.
>
> D- The possible perception at foreign countries that we're treating them
> differently because they need to pay more in order to register their iris
> create a descent by foreign hybridizers? Have we thoroughly thought of the
> the consequences if this was they case?
>
> Again, you may have all already discussed these points, but they came to
> mind.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to read these.
>
> Andi Rivarola
> PS: Writing while enjoying a beautiful raising sun at Yellowstone National
> Park, WY.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:44 PM, John Jones <jijones@usjoneses.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we need to clarify some issues and put some things in
perspective.
> >
> >
> > 1: While AIS was not receiving any money for registrations from foreign
> > hybridizers, that does not mean that they were not paying a fee to
register
> > their iris (to their Country Associate Registrar). In fact, almost all
> > foreign registrants paid a fee, as enumerated on one of my previous
posts.
> >
> >
> > 2: AIS is not supposed to make a profit by charging for registrations.
The
> > ICRA allows Registrars to charge a fee to COVER COSTS. It was not the
intent
> > of the original motion to charge foreign registrants a fee in order to
> > "balance the AIS Books."
> >
> > 3: Because we were not charging foreign registrants, we were in a deficit
> > condition based of current expenses, specifically:
> >
> > Registrar's salary (annual) $9600.00
> > Approximate costs for shipping, postage, paper, toner, and other office
> > costs: $900.00
> > 5 year depreciation schedule for Registrar's computer system: $1300.00
> > (aprox)
> >
> > Total annual costs: $11,800
> >
> > Assuming for the point of discussion that there are 600 registrations
> > annually from North America and 700 from other countries.
> >
> > If the AIS were to receive $15.00 from each registrant that would
generate
> > $19,500 far exceeding out costs. And before anyone jumps in and says "yes
> > but we have to print the R&Is and Checklists", that is true but we make a
> > profit on that as well.
> >
> > Remember also that before the Board decided to charge foreign registrants
> > we would only receive 600 X $15.00 or $9000.00 (less than our current
costs.
> >
> > 4: The real point of my current motion is to recognize that foreign
> > registrants, under the current fee structure, would be paying more (in
> > almost every case) than North American registrants (the AIS $15.00 AIS
fee
> > plus their country Associate fee). My current motion is an attempt to
> > mitigate that issue.
> >
> > The foreign Iris Societies set the fee that the Associate Registrars
> > charge. Whether that fee goes to the Associate Registrar or not is their
> > business, not ours. Remember that the AIS pays their Registrar (me) a fee
> > supported by the fee charged to registrants.
> >
> > As i detailed in a previous post, the Associate Registrars provide a
> > valuable service to me, making my job much easier. (Note that that is a
> > relative statement. The job of Registrar is still very difficult. Even
> > dealing with some of the North American registrants is a challenge...)
> >
> > Before we worry too much about giving away $5.00 per foreign
registration,
> > remember that 45 days ago we weren't getting anything from them. We need
to
> > try to be as fair and even handed to everyone as we can. We also need to
> > have a uniform approach to all foreign countries. We can't have different
> > standards for different countries or people.
> >
> > In receiving $10.00 per foreign registration we will generate an
additional
> > estimated $7000.00 for a total registrations revenue of $16,000 which is
> > still in excess (significantly) of our estimated costs. Even if we adopt
my
> > "fee sharing" approach, the fee foreign registrants pay will go up from
what
> > they are accustomed to paying and I believe that additional fee will
cause
> > the number of foreign registrations to diminish to some degree, but
> > obviously I have no specific data to support that.
> >
> > Also if we don't allocate $5.00 of the $15.00 dollar registration fee to
> > the associate registrar (thus reducing the total cost to the registrant)
we
> > may find that foreign registrants just stop registering irises (which is
the
> > antithesis of our purpose). There is also some concern that some other
> > country may petition the ICRA to become the World Wide Registrar for
> > non-Bulbous Irises and the all North American registrants would end up
> > sending registration requests to some foreign country just as a result of
> > our raising the fee at all.
> >
> > So far I have had two responses to a recent email to all foreign
Associate
> > Registrars describing my revenue sharing approach:
> >
> > Jean Peyrard of France: "I agree it's a good solution, I transfer to the
> > French Society",
> >
> > Sergey Loktev of Russia: "I consider the suggestion logical".
> >
> >
> > As to Susan's questions, my comments are interspersed below.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Susan Boyce wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > Now that I am home from work, I can finally sit down and put my
> > thoughts
> > > into words about this.
> > > In my opinion, I would like to find out some more information before I
> > would
> > > vote to send $5.00 to the associate registrars in other countries.
> > > 1. Does the money the foreign associates receive go into their own
> > pockets,
> > > or does it go into their respective iris societies coiffers.
> >
> > answered above
> >
> > > I would really
> > > hate to see us send an extra $5.00 just to end up in someone's pocket.
> >
> > Remember that AIS pays me to be Registrar from registration revenues.
> > Foreign Associate Registrars are performing a service at the behest of
their
> > respective Iris Societies. They deserve, under the rules of the ICRA, to
> > charge a fee to mitigate their costs. But because they do and because we
> > have decided to charge foreign registrants a fee, the registrants are
faced
> > with paying a double fee. That is not particularly fair and it is what I
am
> > attempting to mitigate (among other reasons) with my motion. To as great
an
> > extent as possible, we should create an environment where by all
registrants
> > face the same fee structure. Granted given all the various economies and
> > specific country variations, we will never have perfect uniformity, but
we
> > can do our best.
> >
> > > 2. What exactly does the foreign associates do?
> >
> > Described in an other email
> >
> > > Do they just forward the
> > > registrations onto us? Do they translate effectively and/or correctly
> > the
> > > registrations before sending them to us?
> >
> > Some translate more effectively than others, but certainly better than I
> > could. Plus they add experience as to how to describe an iris clone and
> > correct/clarify the registrations.
> >
> > > All of these questions should be answered before we should vote on any
> > > changes.
> > > Susan Boyce
> > >
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > >
> > >> Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Motion regarding foreign registrations
> > >> From: jijones@usjoneses.com
> > >> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:55:46 -0700
> > >> To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
> > >>
> > >> The whole point of having a discussion after a motion is made is to
get
> > > thoughts on the table and vet the subject.
> > >>
> > >> HOW ABOUT SPEAKING UP!
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> On Aug 16, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Michelle Snyder wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> John Jones moved and Cheryl Deaton seconded the below motion. As such
> > it
> > > is open for discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>> "That each foreign registrant pay a fee of USD$15.00 (or its
equivalent
> > in
> > > the country currency) per iris registration or iris name reservation to
> > the
> > > country Associate Registrar. That the country Associate Registrar keep
> > > USD$5.00 (or its equivalent in the country currency) per iris
> > registration or
> > > iris name reservation and pay the AIS USD$10.00 per iris registration
or
> > iris
> > > name reservation, such payments to the AIS to be made via a PayPal
system
> > or
> > > such other arrangements as may be enumerated by the AIS
> > Registrar-Recorder for
> > > his convenience. All payments to the AIS registrar to be made in USD.
The
> > AIS
> > > respectfully requests, but does not require, the country Associate
> > Registrars
> > > to accept the USD$5.00 stipend as full payment for their services as
> > Associate
> > > Register in managing iris registrations and iris name reservations.
That
> > the
> > > services of the country Associate Registrar include, but may not be
> > limited
> > > to, iris name checking against the irisregister.com database, !
> > >> translation (as appropriate), transliteration (as appropriate), and
> > > description review ad editing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Michelle Snyder,
> > >>> AIS Secretary
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> > __________________
> > John I Jones
> > Registrar-Recorder
> > American Iris Society
> > aisregistrar@irises.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> > <aissecretary@irises.org>
> > The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> > http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> <aissecretary@irises.org>
> The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/