I have also made a request of my [new] director that he not only
introduce a motion to withdraw RM-11708 but that he request a
*recorded vote* on the matter so that the membership can see where
each director stands.
If nobody introduces the motion and/or any motion is defeated on
a non-recorded vote, we will all know just how gutless the whole
stinking power structure is. What's the saying - a fish rots from
the head?
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 1/12/2014 10:38 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
Here's what I sent to my director and vice-director. I explicitly asked
him to make a motion at the BoD meeting to rescind RM-11708. The Rules
of Order during meetings then require a second on the motion and a
discussion. I know my director is technically astute, but the main point
would be to get this thing pulled from consideration at the FCC so it
can be drafted with a more "reasoned" approach.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Request regarding RM-11708
Hello Greg and Kent,
My request is that you make a motion at the next BoD meeting for the
ARRL to withdraw RM-11708 from the FCC. There are a variety of reasons
why I feel this action would be prudent for the amateur radio community
at large, and the ARRL in particular.
My first reason is because RM-11708 was (apparently) not vetted with the
ARRL Board, let alone the membership, or even the sub-group of digital
operators. This has created a huge (in the digital community) "us vs.
them" standoff which can be seen by the volume of comments posted on the
FCC website. There are technical aspects, but more so, there is a strong
political "distaste" regarding how this proposal was submitted.
My second reason to request withdrawal is because RM-11708 is poorly
written, with omissions and outright flaws. It appears to be driven
(written) by one *Special Interest Group* that wants to bring
unnecessary HF bandwidth capability to the ham bands. It is a poorly
disguised attempt to allow Pactor 4 to become "legal" on the ham bands.
I have some first hand local experience regarding ECOM desires and
needs. I attended a county-wide "Emergency Preparedness" meeting with
Chisago County officials a number of years ago. The needs of
communication was discussed at length, including their need for *secure
communication channels during a civil emergency*. The officials want
encrypted links when dealing with the variety of emergency issues.
I did not make any comments regarding the open communication
characteristic of amateur radio at that time. But I did say to myself
that their "need" pretty much dismisses the amateur radio contribution
that could be made. That's because the *FCC regulations do not allow
encrypted communication on the amateur radio bands*.
It is my understanding that Pactor 3 and Pactor 4 are proprietary
protocols. The encoding/decoding is not open source. So I do not
understand why the manufacturer and users believe these are legitimate
transmissions within the amateur radio bands. Especially when it is
explicitly forbidden in the amateur radio regulations.
Another aspect of encoded transmissions is it would diminish the "self
regulatory" aspect of amateur radio. If an encoded transmission causes
harmful interference, it is not possible to quickly identify the source
of that interference. This therefore thwarts any "self regulation" by
the radio amateurs themselves.
In these regards, RM-11708 needs to be withdrawn. There are other
technical aspects to consider, but I don't need to dig that deep to
decide to write and ask for your effort to remove RM-11708 (as it
stands) and take a more encompassing look at this kind of proposal.
A dialog with the digital community would be in the best interest of the
ARRL and for the amateur radio community at large. This has the
potential to become another "Incentive Licensing" debacle which, as you
know, drove a deep wedge in the membership. It's repercussion is still
apparent today after decades have passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Chudek - KØRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1/12/2014 5:40 PM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:
Yes! Please do email your director now with your opinion on RM-11708.
It's VERY IMPORTANT.
If there is a motion by one of the directors to withdraw the petition,
that director will need the support of seven additional
directors in order to have a majority (there are 15 ARRL Divisions).
A list of directors and vice directors can be found here:
http://www.arrl.org/divisions
73, Don AA5AU
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:23 PM
To: RTTY contest group
Subject: [RTTY] ARRL board of Directors meeting this week
Be sure your Division Directors are aware of your opinions on rm-11708
(or anything else) as this will be the time they can address
your concerns with the powers that be.
I personally am hopeful that the lack of response to my emails is
because with the pending BOD meeting they wished to defer any
answer until it had been addressed at this larger forum.
Mark. N2QT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|