Interesting that you should invite RGD Ontario to comment and not the GDC. The reason RGD dropped out of the GDC was primarily because the RGD board and executive director at the time felt Icograda wasn't worth the money the GDC paid (and subsequently member associations paid) for membership. What about a comment from long-time Icograda member SDGQ? What about something from Icograda itself? A bit more digging and this could have actually been an interesting article!

Ouch. Not sure I see the benefit in dragging up old baggage and opening old wounds David. I'd be suitably peeved by your comment if I were Lionel Gadoury and just showed my public support for Icograda. This is now, that was then. No need to connect those dots. But I agree this article is incomplete without an official quote from our National President Rod Roodenburg—and I'm pretty sure he's available for comment.

I attended the last three Icograda General Assemblies and personally witnessed the birth of the IDA merger proposal and creation of the work group charged with studying the logistics and implications of such a radical structure change for design associations around the world that would see graphic design associations essentially merge with industrial (ICSID) and interior (IFI) design groups, forming one larger, centralized organization.

I don't think it's fair to say that Icograda itself is responsible for "slow progress" for becoming multi-disciplinary. In fact, it was the duty of the task force made up of members themselves—including representation from AIGA—to present clear findings to members at the 23rd Assembly in Beijing for a vote on a direction. I was there, and unlike many speak fluent English, and I didn't really understand the task force's presentation or the implications of their proposed motions. As a GDC delegate, I was left wondering how we should vote that best reflected our members wishes back home in Canada—those we were there to represent. Many of the other delegates in the room seemed baffled as though it was the first time they'd truly considered the risks and implications, so, the fact that many delegates from around the world voted to do further study and delay a final decision until the next general assembly in 2011 didn't surprise me. In fact, it seemed the only reasonable option to me.

I can see how this might be frustrating for the delegates from AIGA who passionately believe a larger, more powerful pan-disciplinary association is the way forward, but I don't understand how leaving the discussion is going to help. Icograda's leadership, made up of elected members obviously, has not declared this change will not happen sooner than later, but like any organization of this kind, must respect the will of its members, and they decided they didn't have enough facts or understanding and needed more time to consult their own members back home before completely changing their structure. Some of these groups only joined the IDA in recent years themselves, so the notion of dissolving their association to form this new body (one huge issue at the core of this situation) is something that would have to be clearly understood by all parties and viewed as the absolute best option going forward. Caution seemed appropriate to me and my GDC colleagues in Beijing last year.

I understand why AIGA wants this to happen—heck, I even mostly agree with the idea behind their stance—but I think that by leaving in a huff they've weakened their ability to affect change in this situation. They cashed out of the game! Their ability to show leadership through this and help ensure all members understand the risks and benefits evaporated the moment they resigned their membership. A shame. I hope they reconsider and come back as their input over the last five years has been tremendous.