September 2007 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: [arrl-od:2373] January 2008 Board Meeting Location
by Bill Edgar 11 Sep '07

11 Sep '07

Dave, What are the cost projections for board meetings at Hartford and for board meetings at Houston, TX. Additionally, I'd like a roll -call vote for this vote to go on record publically. - Bill N3LLR From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:43 PM To: arrl-od Subject: [arrl-od:2373] January 2008 Board Meeting Location Earlier the Board authorized staff to investigate an alternate location to the Hartford area for the January 2008 Board Meeting. Staff completed its investigation and has reported to the Executive Committee that the best available site is Houston, Texas. Space is being held for us at the Marriott-Greenspoint North, about 15 minutes from Houston's Intercontinental Airport. As authorized by the Executive Committee, President Harrison has instructed me to offer the following resolution for consideration by the Board: "Moved, that the 2008 Annual Meeting be held in the vicinity of Houston, Texas." An "aye" vote is for the meeting to be held in the Houston area; a "nay" vote is for the meeting to be held in the Hartford area. Please respond, either to me or to arrl-od @arrl.org, with your vote. David Sumner, K1ZZ, Secretary

1 0

RE: Confidential: BPL Appeal Memo
by Bill Edgar 11 Sep '07

11 Sep '07

Chris and Jay, Thanks for the heads-up and your assessments. I am a firm believer in you get what you pay for. We certainly dont want and cant afford to risk sending any unintended messages to the FCC nor the BPL coalition. I believe that we need to stay with W-H. - Bill N3LLR From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:28 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Confidential: BPL Appeal Memo My Comments: 1. The work product of Wilmer-Hale has been first rate. 2. A good faith estimate is just that, it is an estimate not a guarantee. 3. The discussion between Chris and Mr. Frankel reflects W-H understanding that the fees have substantially exceeded and pushed the outer limits of the estimate, as well as, an appreciation of an obligation to see this appeal through to the end. 4. Changing counsel at this point would be expensive and may indirectly send an unintended message. 5. I believe Chriss is correct that Wilmer-Hale has a reputation for excellent work and is not going to reduce their effort and risk tarnishing that reputation if they agree to cap the fees in this matter. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:38 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Confidential: BPL Appeal Memo MEMORANDUM [Text Removed]

1 0

IARU Region II Conference - Day 1 Report
by Joel Harrison 10 Sep '07

10 Sep '07

Greetings from Brazil, Your ARRL Delegation to the triennial Conference of IARU Region II all arrived safely in Brasilia, Brazil although Dave and Kay (individually and on separate flights) were delayed several hours due to connection difficulties in Sao Paulo. The conference is being held at the Naoum Plaza Hotel in Brasilia, Brazil, where we are all staying. It is a very nice hotel located in Bloco 5 adjacent to a shopping mall and several businesses. If you've ever wondered if Fogo de Chao, the Brazilian gaucho steak houses in the U.S. are real Brazilian steak houses, I can confirm there is actually one located a block from the hotel! McDonald's is one block the other way in the shopping mall. :-) The conference began this morning with a call to order and an opening welcome address by IARU Region II President Rod Stafford, W6ROD. Rod expressed his appreciation for the effort Region II has made in maturing the relationship we have with CITEL, the communications arm of the Organization of American States. Rod also noted his concern that no society took advantage of Region II's offer from the last conference of $25,000 to assist a Society in promoting Amateur Radio in their country. He expressed his desire for member societies to work to resolve differences in countries that have a competing national Amateur Radio organization that cannot belong to IARU (because only one society in a country may be the IARU society) but have a much better relationship with the government there. President Stafford emphasized that our mission is to be inclusive, not exclusive in the pursuit to promote Amateur Radio throughout the region. Following Rod was conference host Gustavo Franco, PT2ADM who welcomed the attendees and then introduced the President of LABRE (the Brazilian Amateur Radio Society) Roberto Batista Pereira, PT7YV who welcomed the group to Brazil and wished us success in our conference. Ronaldo Sardenberg, the Director of ANATEL (the Brazilian FCC) spoke to the plenary next. Mr. Sardenberg stated that Amateur Radio is much more than a "pass time" activity primarily due to its public service through emergency communications. Mr. Sardenberg identified the recent earthquake in Peru as an event in the region where Amateur Radio provided an enormous benefit to the public. Mr. Sardenberg noted the concern of radio amateurs over the potential and existing interference caused by Power Line Communications (PLC), more commonly known to us as BPL. He acknowledged that power lines were not designed to transmit radio signals and the concerns of radio amateurs must be addressed. He also acknowledged growth in Amateur Radio in Brazil during the past two years, crediting the elimination of the Morse licensing requirement. He praised radio amateurs, "the same who created the requirement years ago when a need existed, to recognizing it no longer was required and moved to eliminate it for licensing." Joao Cordero, ITU Regional Administrator, followed Mr. Sardenberg. The ITU has a vary small number of regional administrators around the world in order to provide a local relationship with ITU since it is located in Geneva. Mr. Cordero expressed his respect for Amateur Radio and its value to the world. After lunch, the chairperson and secretary for each committee were selected as follows: Committee A (Administrative) Chair - Norma Leiva, HR2NL Secretary - Jon Silverling, WB3ERA Committee B & C (HF & VHF/UHF) Chair - Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK Secretary - Paul Rinaldo, W4RI Note - Committee B and C are usually two separate committees, however there are very few papers submitted to the conference regarding VHF/UHF matters so the two were combined. Committee D (Finance) Chair - Noel Donawa, 9Y4NED Elected members: Lorne Libbe XE1V and Jose Carlos, YV5GJC Note - the bylaws call for two members to be elected from the plenary to this committee. Committee E (Election) - Comprised of three elected members from the Plenary Joel Harrison, W5ZN, Chair Francesco Quieroz, PT2FR Norma Leiva, HR2NL Committee F (Credentials) Comprised of three elected members from the Plenary Earle Smith, VE6NM, Chair Reinaldo Leandro, YV5AMH Noel Donawa, 9Y4NED This committee verifies that a society is a valid member of IARU Region II and eligible to participate in the conference as a voting member (each eligible society has one vote, regardless of the number of attending delegates.) Any registered delegate may participate in Committee A, B, C or D. As ARRL's Principal Delegate, I have appointed our team as follows: Committee A - Dave Sumner, K1ZZ Committee B - Kay Craigie, N3KN Committee C - Frank Butler, W4RH Committee D - Joel Harrison, W5ZN Committees met for approximately 1 hour this afternoon to review their agenda and will begin work tomorrow. Societies represented are: Argentina Brazil Canada Chile Cuba El Salvador Guatemala United States Mexico Venezuela Panama Trinidad & Tobago Also attending as observers are IARU Vice President Tim Elam, VE6SH, and IARU Region I President Ole Garpstadt, LA2RR. Tonight we will attend a reception hosted by LABRE at our hotel. There is an Amateur Radio station set up here at the hotel that will be on the air. I do not know if we will have time to operate, but if you hear ZW2IARU on the air, please give a call. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

[arrl-odv:15941] Re:FW: Draft message for your consideration
by Frank Fallon 10 Sep '07

10 Sep '07

Joel, Good move. The only suggestion that I have is to make it clear in the first sentence that you are talking about "director and vice director" elections. As it stands now it is not obvious that you are referring to division wide election and not section elections until you get to the last paragraph. 73 de Frank...N2FF...... Joel Harrison wrote: > > FYI, at the direction of the Ethics & Elections Committee, the > following message has been sent to the SM reflector. This is not in > response to any specific issue, but rather a general information > communication. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > > > > > To All ARRL Section Managers > > Toward the end of September, ARRL Headquarters will be mailing ballots > to Full members in five Divisions: Pacific, Rocky Mountain, > Southeastern, Southwestern, and West Gulf. There are nine (out of a > possible ten) contested positions, with 22 candidates in all; only one > incumbent has been re-elected without balloting. > > This level of participation and interest in the governance of the ARRL > is a very healthy sign. Not only is ARRL membership growing, our > members are increasingly engaged in the issues facing the > organization. You are all a part of that success, and I thank you for it. > > As a former Section Manager myself, I know how devoted you must be to > Amateur Radio and the ARRL to perform the often thankless job of SM. > It is only natural that each of us, as active and committed > volunteers, will have strong opinions about the direction our > organization should take and the leaders who should take us there. > > While some SMs choose to remain strictly neutral in Director and Vice > Director elections, you are not obligated to do so. You have every > right to express your opinions -- as long as you make it clear that > they are your personal opinions and do not reflect the official views > of any part of the ARRL. You may campaign for a candidate, or for > yourself if you are a candidate, as long as it is clear to members > that official ARRL communications channels have been not used and it > is not done at ARRL expense. > > Thanks again for all you do for Amateur Radio and the ARRL. > > Sincere 73, > Joel Harrison, W5ZN > President, ARRL >

2 1

[arrl-odv:15944] Re: FW: Draft message for your consideration
by Henry R. Leggette 10 Sep '07

10 Sep '07

Frank, Very sharpe eye! Good! 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Fallon" <n2ff(a)optonline.net> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Cc: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:21 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:15941] Re:FW: Draft message for your consideration > Joel, > > Good move. The only suggestion that I have is to make it clear in the > first sentence that you are talking about "director and vice director" > elections. As it stands now it is not obvious that you are referring to > division wide election and not section elections until you get to the last > paragraph. > 73 de Frank...N2FF...... > > Joel Harrison wrote: >> >> FYI, at the direction of the Ethics & Elections Committee, the following >> message has been sent to the SM reflector. This is not in response to any >> specific issue, but rather a general information communication. >> >> >> 73 Joel W5ZN >> >> >> >> To All ARRL Section Managers >> >> Toward the end of September, ARRL Headquarters will be mailing ballots to >> Full members in five Divisions: Pacific, Rocky Mountain, Southeastern, >> Southwestern, and West Gulf. There are nine (out of a possible ten) >> contested positions, with 22 candidates in all; only one incumbent has >> been re-elected without balloting. >> >> This level of participation and interest in the governance of the ARRL is >> a very healthy sign. Not only is ARRL membership growing, our members are >> increasingly engaged in the issues facing the organization. You are all a >> part of that success, and I thank you for it. >> >> As a former Section Manager myself, I know how devoted you must be to >> Amateur Radio and the ARRL to perform the often thankless job of SM. It >> is only natural that each of us, as active and committed volunteers, will >> have strong opinions about the direction our organization should take and >> the leaders who should take us there. >> >> While some SMs choose to remain strictly neutral in Director and Vice >> Director elections, you are not obligated to do so. You have every right >> to express your opinions -- as long as you make it clear that they are >> your personal opinions and do not reflect the official views of any part >> of the ARRL. You may campaign for a candidate, or for yourself if you are >> a candidate, as long as it is clear to members that official ARRL >> communications channels have been not used and it is not done at ARRL >> expense. >> >> Thanks again for all you do for Amateur Radio and the ARRL. >> >> Sincere 73, >> Joel Harrison, W5ZN >> President, ARRL >> > >

1 0

RE: Confidential: BPL Appeal Memo
by John Bellows 10 Sep '07

10 Sep '07

My Comments: 1. The work product of Wilmer-Hale has been first rate. 2. A good faith estimate is just that, it is an estimate not a guarantee. 3. The discussion between Chris and Mr. Frankel reflects W-H understanding that the fees have substantially exceeded and pushed the outer limits of the estimate, as well as, an appreciation of an obligation to see this appeal through to the end. 4. Changing counsel at this point would be expensive and may indirectly send an unintended message. 5. I believe Chriss is correct that Wilmer-Hale has a reputation for excellent work and is not going to reduce their effort and risk tarnishing that reputation if they agree to cap the fees in this matter. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:38 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Confidential: BPL Appeal Memo MEMORANDUM [Text Removed]

1 0

Confidential: BPL Appeal Memo
by w3kd＠aol.com 10 Sep '07

10 Sep '07

MEMORANDUM To: Officers and Directors From: Chris Imlay, W3KD Re: BPL Appeal (Confidential, Attorney-Client Privileged Communication) Date: September 10, 2007 It is necessary to inform you of the financial circumstances involving the BPL appeal and the Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr law firm. As is normal in court appeal proceedings where an organization retains outside counsel, we interviewed several law firms before deciding on WilmerHale. As I informed the Executive Committee last March, if ARRL is dissatisfied with WilmerHale, the responsibility stops essentially with me, since I recommended them to Dave and Joel in the first place. I am sold on this Firm, due not only to my past experience with them in a Supreme Court appeal, but also with their interest and ability to conceptualize what is really a very complicated, technical agency appeal in this case. However, they are not inexpensive, and we knew that going in. As the Board has previously been informed, we asked them early on what they anticipated it would cost to handle this appeal. This was long before the Petition for Reconsideration had been adjudicated, but after the initial Report and Order was released and our Petition for Reconsideration filed. They told me they thought it would cost $600,000. I politely told them thanks, but no thanks; that was far outside our means. Later, they sent us a comprehensive memo on the Section 301 argument (free, prepared by a summer associate of theirs who was a ham), and said that they would like to talk with us about the appeal, and they thought they could work with us on the fee issue. Long story made short, we asked them for a good faith estimate of the cost of handling this appeal, and they came up with an estimate of $200,000. They asked that the number not be considered a cap, but rather a good faith estimate of the total cost of the appeal. This was acceptable to us, and we proceeded with WilmerHale on that basis. The next firm down our list of outside counsel was Wiley, Rein & Fielding, which had estimated the cost of the appeal at $250,000, again, not a cap, but an estimate. We rejected WRF for other reasons. The mechanics of WilmerHale billing have been that monthly, or bimonthly bills have been sent to me, and I have reviewed them and then forwarded them to Barry Shelley for payment. I reviewed the time expended by each of the “team” at WilmerHale. The bills, and the time expended are fairly typical of large law firms (of which I am not a fan). I have, perhaps foolishly, not kept a running tally of the payments made or the billed amounts, but Barry Shelley did. What triggers this memo now is a very, very large bill, just received, for work done primarily on the reply brief during the month of July. The reply brief in this case is most important because it rebuts the briefs of the FCC and of the intervenors in favor of FCC. While none of us was overly impressed with the FCC’s brief (and from what FCC said to the WilmerHale lawyers, neither was the FCC General Counsel’s office), the Intervenors for FCC prepared a fairly strong brief, very fact-oriented. It required some skill to rebut, and I think WilmerHale did a good job of that. But here are the numbers of what they have billed us so far: Aggregate payments made to WilmerHale during 2006: $ 43,240.47 Payments made to WilmerHale to date in 2007: $ 192,594.79 Total Payments to WilmerHale to date, EXCLUDING current bill: $ 235,835.26 Amount of Current Bill, not yet paid: $ 83,105.79 Total Payments to WilmerHale to date, INCLUDING current bill: $ 318, 941.05 As you can see, the amounts billed to date exceed the good faith estimate by more than 50%. We had earlier, several months ago, before the initial brief was filed, cautioned WilmerHale that their billing was getting out of hand, and that they were approaching the total of the good faith estimate even before the main brief was filed. They responded at that time that they would caution the “team” to work more efficiently. This latest bill, larger by more than twice any prior bill, included a hand-written note to me from Jon Frankel, the lead lawyer at WilmerHale on this case. It said essentially that he had written off a large part of the time spent that would otherwise have appeared on the bill, not due to inefficiency or wasted effort on their part, but because the billing was “so far above the initial discussions’ figures.” He said he realized that this was an expensive set of briefs, and we still have the oral argument to get through, but it is a “hard and important case” and he hoped the end product shows the results of the efforts. After discussing this with Barry, Dave and Joel, I called Frankel and sent an e-mail to him. Briefly summarized, I told him that the most recent bill created a dilemma for us. They had exceeded the good faith estimate by more than 50%; the case does not have unlimited value for ARRL; and we were not aware of what work was done in August, or what would be required to get through the oral argument. However, it is easy to estimate that at this rate, the cost of the appeal would be frighteningly close to $400,000, and had that been the estimate at the time we commenced the project, we would not have gone forward. Because we based the decisions (1) to go forward with the appeal, and (2) to retain WilmerHale, based on their $200,000 estimate, and having received a bill which will make the total paid to date almost $319,000, it was necessary to ask them now to cap their fees at what has been billed so far. I told him that I was obligated to refer the matter to our Board of Directors for evaluation, and that I did not know whether our Board would allow the case to proceed further under the current arrangements. I noted that our Board has to answer to constituencies, and that for a non-profit, these fees are not sustainable. I reiterated that the case does not have limitless value for us. I received a response from Frankel late that same evening, saying that they were going to their finance committee and asking for approval to cap their fees at the amount already billed to us. He anticipated that it would be approved. I anticipate that it will as well. If not, I will inform you what alternative proposal they have. While I told them that we are entirely pleased with their work-product, we are not at all pleased with the billing situation. Dave was worried that taking such a line with them might cause them to deemphasize the work on the oral argument, which is an important component of the case. While that is a very reasonable concern, I believe it is not likely. Firms in WilmerHale’s category have important reputations to maintain in order to capture other business, and they have to perform well (and they play to win at all costs). I believe that forcing them to cap their fees at this point will not have any effect on their performance whatsoever. Your views are welcome. Again, while the extent that the billing exceeded the good faith estimate was not entirely foreseeable (since the main part of the overrun is due to this current bill, which is larger by a great deal than expected and larger than prior experience would have led us to expect), any failure to monitor or control the legal costs is my own failure. Any dissatisfaction you have with WilmerHale is the result of my strong recommendation of that Firm to Dave and Joel, and to the Executive Committee, and therefore rests with me. I continute to suggest, however, that this Firm has done very good work for us, and has put us in a position where we might win, and establish some very valuable precedent in dealing with Part 15 issues in the future, not just BPL. 73, Chris Imlay W3KD ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

1 0

[arrl-odv:15940] RE: [arrl-odv:15937] New license?
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 10 Sep '07

10 Sep '07

I don't have a copy here in Brazil, but there's an article about it in March 2006 QST, page 82. Dave PT2/K1ZZ ________________________________ From: William Sawders [mailto:k7zm@hotmail.com] Sent: Sun 9/9/2007 4:49 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15937] New license? Last night, I worked VK2FGCV. He said it was a "new simple to obtain entry class license" in Australia. Anyone ever heard of this? Bill, K7ZM

1 0

[arrl-odv:15939] Re: New license?
by Tom Frenaye 09 Sep '07

09 Sep '07

At 11:49 AM 9/9/2007, William Sawders wrote: >Last night, I worked VK2FGCV. He said it was a "new simple to obtain entry class license" in Australia. >Anyone ever heard of this? Bill - I have worked one or two of them here. 73 Tom >*************** >The ARRL Letter >Vol. 24, No. 43 >November 4, 2005 >*************** >==>NEW FOUNDATION LICENSE, AMATEUR REGULATORY CHANGES INTRODUCED IN AUSTRALIA > >Australia has introduced an entry-level Foundation Amateur Radio license and >established a new overall licensing and certification structure. The >Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) put the new regulations >into effect October 19. Other rule changes combined Novice and Novice >Limited licensees into a new Standard license class, and all Limited, >Intermediate and Unrestricted licensees are now Advanced licensees with full >amateur privileges. Wireless Institute of Australia (WIA) President Michael >Owen, VK3KI, welcomed the "long-awaited" changes--in particular the new >Foundation license--and expressed the hope that they would encourage >newcomers. > >"We also know that there will be many amateurs operating on the 40 and >20-meter bands for the first time with those bands available to Standard >licensees," he said. "We urge all amateurs to make all these newcomers >welcome." Owen also praised ACMA for what he called its "cooperative >approach" in establishing examination standards and procedures. > >The first Foundation license was issued October 21 to Amanda Gray, who >requested the call sign VK4FRST before knowing that hers was, indeed, the >first Australian Foundation license issued. ACMA has adopted the distinctive >and unusual four-letter suffix starting with "F" for all VK Foundation >licensees. > >Foundation licensees will have limited access to 80, 40, 15 and 10 meters as >well as the entire 2 meter and 70 cm bands using voice modes or "hand-keyed" >CW only (ie, no keyboard or computer-generated code). Licensees will be >permitted to run up to 10 W on SSB and 3 W on AM, FM and CW--although the >WIA wants ACMA to increase that limit to 10 W as well. Foundation licensees >may only use commercially manufactured transmitters. The new license is >similar to the Foundation class license that's been available in Great >Britain since 2002. > >In addition to creation of the new Foundation license, ACMA amended >Australia's Amateur Radio regulations to regulate by necessary bandwidth >rather than by emission mode. The new rules permit the use of any emission >mode with a bandwidth not exceeding 8 kHz. > >Said Owen: "The WIA believes that these changes to the Australian amateur >license structure will strengthen our hobby and encourage many more people >to become licensed radio amateurs." More information is on the ACMA Web site ><<http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65690>http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65690:STANDARD::pc=PC_1256>. ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

FW: Draft message for your consideration
by Joel Harrison 09 Sep '07

09 Sep '07

FYI, at the direction of the Ethics & Elections Committee, the following message has been sent to the SM reflector. This is not in response to any specific issue, but rather a general information communication. 73 Joel W5ZN To All ARRL Section Managers Toward the end of September, ARRL Headquarters will be mailing ballots to Full members in five Divisions: Pacific, Rocky Mountain, Southeastern, Southwestern, and West Gulf. There are nine (out of a possible ten) contested positions, with 22 candidates in all; only one incumbent has been re-elected without balloting. This level of participation and interest in the governance of the ARRL is a very healthy sign. Not only is ARRL membership growing, our members are increasingly engaged in the issues facing the organization. You are all a part of that success, and I thank you for it. As a former Section Manager myself, I know how devoted you must be to Amateur Radio and the ARRL to perform the often thankless job of SM. It is only natural that each of us, as active and committed volunteers, will have strong opinions about the direction our organization should take and the leaders who should take us there. While some SMs choose to remain strictly neutral in Director and Vice Director elections, you are not obligated to do so. You have every right to express your opinions -- as long as you make it clear that they are your personal opinions and do not reflect the official views of any part of the ARRL. You may campaign for a candidate, or for yourself if you are a candidate, as long as it is clear to members that official ARRL communications channels have been not used and it is not done at ARRL expense. Thanks again for all you do for Amateur Radio and the ARRL. Sincere 73, Joel Harrison, W5ZN President, ARRL

1 0