Nick Nicholson
America's Cup Measurement Committee
January 9, 2003

The America's Cup Class Rule is a fairly complex document of about 40 pages defining what constitutes an America's Cup Class yacht. Five measurers - James Dadd and John Warren of the UK, Ken McAlpine and Shaun Ritson of Australia, and myself - are responsible for interpreting and enforcing the Rule. In the four America's Cups this Rule has been in use, we have issued some 200 interpretations, all of which are now in the public domain.

At the end of each America's Cup, we produce a revised version of the Rule for use in the next Cup. Those revisions incorporate some, but not necessarily all, of the previous interpretations. The revised version of the Rule must be acceptable to both the new Defender and the new Challenger of Record, and this inevitably involves politically-motivated negotiation as well as changes based on technical considerations.

Each syndicate employs experts of various types - lawyers, designers, rule experts-to seek out weaknesses and loopholes in the Rule. Because the core requirements of the Rule are fairly firm, the experts look for the "soft" edges for advantages to be gained, particularly where wording might be ambiguous. Syndicates may ask for confidential or public interpretations of the Rule. Some six months before the America's Cup, even the confidential interpretations go into the public domain, and are available for all to analyze.

The source of each request for interpretation is never revealed. Only the syndicate asking the question is certain about the provenance of any interpretation.

Requests for interpretation can be legitimate and straightforward questions, questions anticipating what other syndicates may be contemplating, or pure red herrings. They are rarely simply phrased or straightforward to answer.

In all cases, we must consider the "words on the page" when making interpretations. The concept of the "intent of the Rule" is a can of worms. Many people were involved in the creation of the Rule, each with his own idea of what the intent might be. Inevitably, we do pay attention to what we may believe to be the "intent", but pure innovation frequently falls outside of anything that might have been contemplated when a rule was written.

I would suggest that before condemning the process, people read what the Rule and its interpretations actually say. They might then have a greater appreciation for the subtlety and subterfuge that makes the America's Cup as much an intellectual challenge as it is a sailboat race.