[RTTY] ARRL board of Directors meeting this week

Sun Jan 12 23:32:15 EST 2014

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 at 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 at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>