June 2009 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:17838] FD Shirts
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

Hi, Since we have had a few inquiries about this, I just wanted to let everyone know that, regrettably, we ran out of some of the sizes on Field Day shirts this week. We still have S, M and 4XL. Our best selling size is XL. We're sorry if we have inconvenienced any of our members. However, this year we ordered 4,500 shirts, 1500 more than last year. We also re-ordered a few weeks ago when we realized that the shirt was such a success. Unfortunately, it requires at least seven business days to reorder, restock, process and ship additional shirts. So, it is too late to re-order the popular sizes. 73, Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 Telephone: 860 594 0220 email: hkramer(a)arrl.org <mailto:hkramer@arrl.org> web: www.arrl.org/ <http://www.arrl.org/>

1 0

[arrl-odv:17837] Re: RE: RE: EmComm Advisory Committee?
by Mickey Cox 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

Jay, I simply must try to shed some additional light on where I'm coming from. K4CJX is most emphatically not pushing the advisory committee idea on ME. (I need no encouragement from Steve Waterman for that!) If such an advisory committee were to be approved by the BOD, I can also assure you that I would not appoint K4CJX to be the Delta Division representative. Steve is most definitely a Winlink fanatic; I know a number of hams within the Delta Division with very impressive EmComm credentials and operating experience in ARES, NTS, Winlink, MARS, etc., who are much better suited by temperament to sit on an advisory committee. I got the idea when Dave Patton mentioned that the BOD might want to create an EmComm AC during the PSC meeting this past January. I thought it was a very good idea then and I still do. The folks I've talked with in my home Division, including the current AR, LA, MS, and TN Section Managers, think the BOD isn't paying adequate attention to EmComm; they believe the creation of such an advisory committee would, at the very least, be a move in the right direction. BTW, I am a member of the PSC subcommittee studying EmComm (Greg W4OZK is the chairman and the other two committee members are Tom W3TOM and Dennis Dura K2DCD). The subcommittee presented a progress report to the PSC on April 4. I expressed some rather serious misgivings about the current direction of the subcommittee during the PSC meeting, but since my concerns didn't appear to make much of an impression on anybody else, I decided to share the progress report with the LA and MS Section Managers for their feedback. (I was really beginning to doubt my judgment at that point!) Much to my personal relief, however, both of the SMs responded to me with many of the same concerns. I summarized the concerns held by the two SMs and myself to the subcommittee, but the response I received back was essentially words to the effect that I should not have shared the progress report with the SMs. I told Greg I was sorry if I violated the normal protocol (I certainly didn't think the subcommittee report contained any confidential information), but I also told him that the procedure of seeking feedback from appropriate League members is an issue that the PSC, if not the entire Board, needs to discuss. When I received the email from K4CJX the other night, I decided to pass it along to the ODV with my EmComm AC suggestion. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Bellows" <jbellows(a)skypoint.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:46 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17832] RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? > > The current discussion arose from comments from Steve Waterman, K4CJX to > Mickey. Steve is an avowed Winlink zealot who feels Winlink isn't being > given its due and isn't being backed and promoted by the NERPC committee > or ARRL. Frankly I am inclined to think Steve wants a second bite at > that apple and is pushing the committee idea to foster that result. I > would be surprised and disappointed if true believers such as Steve and > the D-Star advocates didn't press their case. ARRL ought to make sure > that new useful technologies and systems are featured in QST and on the > Website, but I don't believe ARRL should back or endorse any particular > system or technology, particularly a proprietary technology. > > There are any number of excellent technologies and systems out there. > There are any number of professional emcomm folks out there who are > Amateurs. Just because a technology or system exists or an Amateur has > expertise in structured governmental or NGO communications doesn't mean > that technology, system or expertise is transportable to Amateur emcomm > services. Let's not forget the needs or seek the input of guys on the > line, the SM's and SEC's, when dealing with emcomm issues. > > 73, > Jay, K0QB

1 0

[arrl-odv:17836] Re: RE: EmComm Advisory Committee?
by Brian Mileshosky 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

Not only a "Report to America" type document, but -- and sorry to shift gears abruptly -- with regard to attracting attention of government officials on legislative matters, we should also have our positions on various issues documented and available as Dr. Woolweaver has advocated before. My point is that such documentation, but it position statements or "Reports to America" are great tools and certainly can't hurt us. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Marty Woll wrote: > Good questions, Jim. I'd like to add one more: Might a "Report to America" along the lines of the one produced by the ARC and as suggested by former Director W6XD be an appropriate vehicle to communicate our capabilities and performance history to governmental and NGO leaders and influencers? > > 73, > > Marty N6VI > ----- Original Message ----- > From: K8JE > To: arrl-odv > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:03 PM > Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? > > > Kay, et al, > > Tnx for refreshing our fleeting memories by submitting the two pages from > the NERPC study. Am I correct that no particular action has been taken > regarding the possible development of the "committee of expert volunteers" > mentioned in the report? I ask this not to point fingers, but as a simple > question. > > Off hand, a committee of volunteer experts sounds fairly good to me. > Without suggesting we study the subject to death, I wonder if it might be > useful to explore how such a committee or group (a rose by any other name > . . .) might be structured? For example, one solution to the problem of > being limited to only one delegate or member from each Division could be to > appoint one or more sub-members from each Section to report to the committee > delegate. Other organizational possibilities exist. > > I'm with Jay and Mickey (and possibly others) in thinking the idea is worthy > of being revisited. Without suggesting I know more about the topic than > "the least of my brethren," there clearly seems to be a large hole between > what we amateurs know we can do and what many citizens and served agencies > recognize we can do. My concern is that the things only we can bring to the > EmComm party will be overlooked at least at the lower end of the ladder > (e.g. local EMA, local RC Chapter, local Sheriff's Department, etc.) if we > do not develop modified strategies to sell our benefits at this level. > > At the risk of having a few shoes heaved at me, I will also suggest there is > some evidence (i.e. the apparent absence of an acceptable SOU with the > National RC) that upper management of certain agencies also fails to > appreciate what we offer. > > Could a committee of volunteer experts help improve our relations with > served agencies in many instances? Could such a committee also help with > our ability to support serve agencies? > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17832] RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?
by John Bellows 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

David: An interesting suggestion. You and Mickey have the perspective of having been former SM's. I can't say I have heard concerns along the lines you mentioned in the Dakota Division and those SM's and SEC's have considerable experience in dealing with emcomm emergencies such as month long floods over many hundreds of square miles in sub-zero temperatures. My point is emcomm may not have a "one size fits all" solution. Perhaps you are right and we should listen to amateurs with professional emergency management experience a bit more. Still I feel we need to first listen to the elected SM's and volunteer SEC's who have the on the ground experience are in the best position to evaluate their needs and no allegiance to any particular system or technology. The NERPC committee did a fine job of identifying a way for ARRL to address future emcomm needs, particularly in wide area disasters. This Board accepted and praised the NERPC committee report and recognized the good work of the members and the leadership of VP Kay Craigie. New views and new ideas should always be welcome on the Board. BUT before creating another committee, advisory or otherwise we ought to first be clear that what we already have in place isn't adequate or can't be adjusted to meet the perceived shortcoming. The current discussion arose from comments from Steve Waterman, K4CJX to Mickey. Steve is an avowed Winlink zealot who feels Winlink isn't being given its due and isn't being backed and promoted by the NERPC committee or ARRL. Frankly I am inclined to think Steve wants a second bite at that apple and is pushing the committee idea to foster that result. I would be surprised and disappointed if true believers such as Steve and the D-Star advocates didn't press their case. ARRL ought to make sure that new useful technologies and systems are featured in QST and on the Website, but I don't believe ARRL should back or endorse any particular system or technology, particularly a proprietary technology. There are any number of excellent technologies and systems out there. There are any number of professional emcomm folks out there who are Amateurs. Just because a technology or system exists or an Amateur has expertise in structured governmental or NGO communications doesn't mean that technology, system or expertise is transportable to Amateur emcomm services. Let's not forget the needs or seek the input of guys on the line, the SM's and SEC's, when dealing with emcomm issues. 73, Jay, K0QB -----Original Message----- From: David A. Norris [mailto:k5uz@suddenlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:01 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17832] RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? Good Points Kay, I think we should look in to this PSAC/ECAC idea again citing the following from the NERPC Report: Conclusion Disaster preparedness is a moving target, moving faster all the time. No recommendations, no plans, no systems should be considered as graven in stone and the permanent answers for all circumstances and hazards. The level of professional expertise in emergency communications and emergency management among Amateurs in the USA is growing, and the expectations these Amateurs place upon their League to provide first-rate leadership and guidance is growing, too. This committee appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the ARRL's ability to provide that leadership and guidance. We trust that the process will continue. If "lessons learned" are not followed by "behaviors changed," then the lessons have not been learned at all. To coincide with this I hear a lot of talk about ARRL not sufficiently promoting and supporting Emcomm throughout the division and the need for the ARRL to "get out in front" WRT Emcomm. Many members cite the above report and these members are of the opinion that we aren't doing enough in support of Emcomm. The ECAC/PSAC idea is worth looking at as well as a "committee of experts" approach. Perhaps we could look at a hybrid committee with 15-16 division/Canada appointees and a number of additional Emcomm experts selected either by the President or a committee of the whole. Let's all bear in mind that there is a tremendous amount of expertise to draw from. I think we have a very good topic for discussion here. David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? [I sent this nearly 2 hours ago and it hasn't come through to me. Sorry if it causes a dupe.] During the NERPC study, I asked the group to consider whether or not the PSAC/ECAC should be revived. No one said yes. There are so many hams with so much expertise in the field that the rigid one-representative-per-Division structure of Advisory Committees seemed ill-suited to the task of ensuring that the Board and Staff have the most timely, highest-quality input reflecting a diversity of viewpoints. Having just 15 or 16 (if Canada's included as it is on the other AC's) voices seemed to the committee to make the funnel just too small. It would also make a Director's life a credible version of hell to have to choose just one person from a large number of possible appointees in his or her Division -- some of whom have great big axes to grind and do not listen at all well to viewpoints different from their own. The NERPC volunteers suggested a different model, if a committee of volunteers is thought to be desirable, and that is the PR Committee. Because it is not an Advisory Committee, the PR Committee is not limited to one representative per Division and so it's possible to achieve both geographic balance and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. We were looking specifically at input from the field to HQ, but that does not rule out the same input being available to, say, the Board's PSC as the basis for policy recommendations. I have appended the relevant two pages from the NERPC report. The relevant section starts about halfway down the first page. 73, Kay N3KN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?
by K8JE 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

FB, Greg. Would I assume correctly that you are the chairman of this subcommittee? Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio -----Original Message----- From: Greg Sarratt [mailto:gsarratt@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:01 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? The PSC is studying this. At the January 2009 PSC meeting, it was moved to establish a sub-committee to study a structure of a committee to study emergency preparedness response and assist the manager of emergency preparedness and response. There are two members of the NERPC on the sub-committee and a report of recommendations will be ready at the July meeting. 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? [I sent this nearly 2 hours ago and it hasn't come through to me. Sorry if it causes a dupe.] During the NERPC study, I asked the group to consider whether or not the PSAC/ECAC should be revived. No one said yes. There are so many hams with so much expertise in the field that the rigid one-representative-per-Division structure of Advisory Committees seemed ill-suited to the task of ensuring that the Board and Staff have the most timely, highest-quality input reflecting a diversity of viewpoints. Having just 15 or 16 (if Canada's included as it is on the other AC's) voices seemed to the committee to make the funnel just too small. It would also make a Director's life a credible version of hell to have to choose just one person from a large number of possible appointees in his or her Division -- some of whom have great big axes to grind and do not listen at all well to viewpoints different from their own. The NERPC volunteers suggested a different model, if a committee of volunteers is thought to be desirable, and that is the PR Committee. Because it is not an Advisory Committee, the PR Committee is not limited to one representative per Division and so it's possible to achieve both geographic balance and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. We were looking specifically at input from the field to HQ, but that does not rule out the same input being available to, say, the Board's PSC as the basis for policy recommendations. I have appended the relevant two pages from the NERPC report. The relevant section starts about halfway down the first page. 73, Kay N3KN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?
by Greg Sarratt 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

The PSC is studying this. At the January 2009 PSC meeting, it was moved to establish a sub-committee to study a structure of a committee to study emergency preparedness response and assist the manager of emergency preparedness and response. There are two members of the NERPC on the sub-committee and a report of recommendations will be ready at the July meeting. 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? [I sent this nearly 2 hours ago and it hasn't come through to me. Sorry if it causes a dupe.] During the NERPC study, I asked the group to consider whether or not the PSAC/ECAC should be revived. No one said yes. There are so many hams with so much expertise in the field that the rigid one-representative-per-Division structure of Advisory Committees seemed ill-suited to the task of ensuring that the Board and Staff have the most timely, highest-quality input reflecting a diversity of viewpoints. Having just 15 or 16 (if Canada's included as it is on the other AC's) voices seemed to the committee to make the funnel just too small. It would also make a Director's life a credible version of hell to have to choose just one person from a large number of possible appointees in his or her Division -- some of whom have great big axes to grind and do not listen at all well to viewpoints different from their own. The NERPC volunteers suggested a different model, if a committee of volunteers is thought to be desirable, and that is the PR Committee. Because it is not an Advisory Committee, the PR Committee is not limited to one representative per Division and so it's possible to achieve both geographic balance and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. We were looking specifically at input from the field to HQ, but that does not rule out the same input being available to, say, the Board's PSC as the basis for policy recommendations. I have appended the relevant two pages from the NERPC report. The relevant section starts about halfway down the first page. 73, Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:17832] RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?
by David A. Norris 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

Good Points Kay, I think we should look in to this PSAC/ECAC idea again citing the following from the NERPC Report: Conclusion Disaster preparedness is a moving target, moving faster all the time. No recommendations, no plans, no systems should be considered as graven in stone and the permanent answers for all circumstances and hazards. The level of professional expertise in emergency communications and emergency management among Amateurs in the USA is growing, and the expectations these Amateurs place upon their League to provide first-rate leadership and guidance is growing, too. This committee appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the ARRL's ability to provide that leadership and guidance. We trust that the process will continue. If "lessons learned" are not followed by "behaviors changed," then the lessons have not been learned at all. To coincide with this I hear a lot of talk about ARRL not sufficiently promoting and supporting Emcomm throughout the division and the need for the ARRL to "get out in front" WRT Emcomm. Many members cite the above report and these members are of the opinion that we aren't doing enough in support of Emcomm. The ECAC/PSAC idea is worth looking at as well as a "committee of experts" approach. Perhaps we could look at a hybrid committee with 15-16 division/Canada appointees and a number of additional Emcomm experts selected either by the President or a committee of the whole. Let's all bear in mind that there is a tremendous amount of expertise to draw from. I think we have a very good topic for discussion here. David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? [I sent this nearly 2 hours ago and it hasn't come through to me. Sorry if it causes a dupe.] During the NERPC study, I asked the group to consider whether or not the PSAC/ECAC should be revived. No one said yes. There are so many hams with so much expertise in the field that the rigid one-representative-per-Division structure of Advisory Committees seemed ill-suited to the task of ensuring that the Board and Staff have the most timely, highest-quality input reflecting a diversity of viewpoints. Having just 15 or 16 (if Canada's included as it is on the other AC's) voices seemed to the committee to make the funnel just too small. It would also make a Director's life a credible version of hell to have to choose just one person from a large number of possible appointees in his or her Division -- some of whom have great big axes to grind and do not listen at all well to viewpoints different from their own. The NERPC volunteers suggested a different model, if a committee of volunteers is thought to be desirable, and that is the PR Committee. Because it is not an Advisory Committee, the PR Committee is not limited to one representative per Division and so it's possible to achieve both geographic balance and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. We were looking specifically at input from the field to HQ, but that does not rule out the same input being available to, say, the Board's PSC as the basis for policy recommendations. I have appended the relevant two pages from the NERPC report. The relevant section starts about halfway down the first page. 73, Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:17831] Re: RE: EmComm Advisory Committee?
by Mickey Cox 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

Kay, Thanks for your comments. Each Director already chooses one person to serve on each of the three existing advisory committees. It certainly will not make my life a "credible version of hell" to choose a qualified person from the Delta Division to serve on the EmComm AC if a majority of the Directors decide to establish such a committee. Furthermore, the 2009 Director's Workbook points out the ARRL President appoints the members of the Public Relations Committee for one-year terms, with options for reappointment. I am not in favor of having the ARRL President (no matter who that individual might happen to be at the moment) appoint the members to an EmComm committee set up to advise the BOD. I was elected by the Delta Division members to represent their interests and I am generally opposed to "delegating" the power of my office to anyone else in the ARRL hierarchy. 73, K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kay Craigie" <n3kn(a)verizon.net> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:53 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? > [I sent this nearly 2 hours ago and it hasn't come through to me. Sorry if > it causes a dupe.] > > During the NERPC study, I asked the group to consider whether or not the > PSAC/ECAC should be revived. No one said yes. There are so many hams with > so > much expertise in the field that the rigid one-representative-per-Division > structure of Advisory Committees seemed ill-suited to the task of ensuring > that the Board and Staff have the most timely, highest-quality input > reflecting a diversity of viewpoints. > > Having just 15 or 16 (if Canada's included as it is on the other AC's) > voices seemed to the committee to make the funnel just too small. It would > also make a Director's life a credible version of hell to have to choose > just one person from a large number of possible appointees in his or her > Division -- some of whom have great big axes to grind and do not listen at > all well to viewpoints different from their own. > > The NERPC volunteers suggested a different model, if a committee of > volunteers is thought to be desirable, and that is the PR Committee. > Because > it is not an Advisory Committee, the PR Committee is not limited to one > representative per Division and so it's possible to achieve both > geographic > balance and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. We were looking > specifically at input from the field to HQ, but that does not rule out the > same input being available to, say, the Board's PSC as the basis for > policy > recommendations. > > I have appended the relevant two pages from the NERPC report. The relevant > section starts about halfway down the first page. > > 73, Kay N3KN >

1 0

[arrl-odv:17830] Re: RE: EmComm Advisory Committee?
by Marty Woll 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

Good questions, Jim. I'd like to add one more: Might a "Report to America" along the lines of the one produced by the ARC and as suggested by former Director W6XD be an appropriate vehicle to communicate our capabilities and performance history to governmental and NGO leaders and influencers? 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: K8JE To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? Kay, et al, Tnx for refreshing our fleeting memories by submitting the two pages from the NERPC study. Am I correct that no particular action has been taken regarding the possible development of the "committee of expert volunteers" mentioned in the report? I ask this not to point fingers, but as a simple question. Off hand, a committee of volunteer experts sounds fairly good to me. Without suggesting we study the subject to death, I wonder if it might be useful to explore how such a committee or group (a rose by any other name . . .) might be structured? For example, one solution to the problem of being limited to only one delegate or member from each Division could be to appoint one or more sub-members from each Section to report to the committee delegate. Other organizational possibilities exist. I'm with Jay and Mickey (and possibly others) in thinking the idea is worthy of being revisited. Without suggesting I know more about the topic than "the least of my brethren," there clearly seems to be a large hole between what we amateurs know we can do and what many citizens and served agencies recognize we can do. My concern is that the things only we can bring to the EmComm party will be overlooked at least at the lower end of the ladder (e.g. local EMA, local RC Chapter, local Sheriff's Department, etc.) if we do not develop modified strategies to sell our benefits at this level. At the risk of having a few shoes heaved at me, I will also suggest there is some evidence (i.e. the apparent absence of an acceptable SOU with the National RC) that upper management of certain agencies also fails to appreciate what we offer. Could a committee of volunteer experts help improve our relations with served agencies in many instances? Could such a committee also help with our ability to support serve agencies?

1 0

[arrl-odv:17829] Genachowski clears Senate Commerce Committee
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

The following is from Reuters, about one hour ago. Dave * Senate Commerce Committee approves FCC nominee * Genachowski nomination next goes to full Senate * Second term for FCC's McDowell also approved (Adds vote tally, background) WASHINGTON, June 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted on Thursday to approve overwhelmingly the Obama administration's nomination of Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission. The full Senate will next consider the nomination of Genachowski, a law school friend of President Barack Obama and technology industry executive. The committee approved Genachowski 24-1, with Republican Jim DeMint the lone vote in opposition. The committee also unanimously approved a second FCC term for Commissioner Robert McDowell. Earlier this week, Genachowski told the Senate committee that he would focus on national broadband service and consumer issues, if confirmed for the FCC job. The FCC will help oversee billions of dollars in economic stimulus money that Congress allocated in incentives for states and private companies to expand high-speed Internet in rural and underserved areas. As an adviser and fundraiser during the presidential campaign, Genachowski headed a tech policy group and guided Obama's use of social networking on the Internet to reach out to voters. In the private sector, Genachowski held various positions at Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp (IACI.O <http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=IACI.O> ) and co-founded technology investment firm Rock Creek Ventures. He also served on the boards or as advisers to Ticketmaster (TKTM.O <http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=TKTM.O> ), Web.com (WWWW.O <http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=WWWW.O> ), The Motley Fool, Beliefnet, Truveo, and Rapt.

1 0