Re: AIS: REF: AIS as International Registration Authority

So far in this discussion I have tried to present different ideas regarding the various image topics that have been discussed. Now I want share some thoughts as to why it may NOT be the right time to impliment an image requirement with registration.

The primary functions of an ICRA (registration authority) are: 1) To register cultivar and cultivar-group epithets in the denomination class for which they have accepted responsibility, and to ensure their establishment; 2) to publish full lists of all cultivar and cultivar-group epithets in that denomination class; 3) to maintain records, in as great a detail as is practical, of the origin, characteristics and history of each cultivar and cultivar-group in that denominatin class.

It is not the function of the ICRA: 1) to conduct trials 2) to judge if one cultivar or cultivar-group is more meritorious or more useful than another; 3) to judge distinctness of cultivars or cultivar-groups.

A primary purpose of registration in any society is to limit confusion among registrations. The ICRA serves to help eliminate the duplication of names and to provide an archive for the future. Establising "ownership" of a cultivar can also be a side benefit of a registration. A complete description, along with an image, will go a long way toward strengthening the identity of a particular cultivar, establishing who recorded it , and identifying the original owner.

AIS may not currently be in a position where it is practical at this time to require an image. There are priorities in any system. The input of the registrar is extremely important. I personally do not know the status of AIS registrations or what type of database currently exists. The establishment of a comprehensive database of registrations should be considered a much higher priority than requiring images. There may also be several other priorities that need attention before any additional work or requirements be added to the registration process. I believe the current registrar and past registrars have been very dedicated and highly qualifed to fill the position. As with practically everything, progression continues to be made. Strengthening the current structure for several more years may be a wise decision before taking on a major change or requirment in the process. The current registrar is most knowledgeable about the current status of all things related to registration, and his opinions should be weighed heavily in any new decissions regarding the process.

Something else to consider for the future is that if an image requirment is made, then it should not be implementd immediately upon the decision being made. I feel there should be a period of informing the registrants of such a change. The new rule should probably be published in the society's publication at least a full year before enactment. Additional correspondance needs to be to sent to the recent registrants informing them of the new requirement.

I am a huge advocate of adopting new technologies, but only when the time is right. Just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done. Waiting 4 or 5 years, or however long is necessary, is more prudent than taking on something that will only complicate the process and keep it from progressing in an appropriate fashion.

Please do not think that I am doing a flip-flop on my position. I am simply looking at things from the many different angles and sharing my thoughts on the ideas being discussed.

Bobby Baxter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index