February 2010 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:18538] RE: Another 97.113 petition
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

Chris and I had our first discussion with a Commissioner's chief of staff on Wednesday afternoon by telephone. I am in Baltimore at the moment, heading to DC shortly to meet Chris for meetings with two or three more Commissioners' advisors depending on the weather (there's a big storm bearing down on the DC area). Dave K1ZZ ________________________________ From: James F. Boehner MD [mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com] Sent: Fri 2/5/2010 5:33 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: Another 97.113 petition As a matter of fact, the 97.113 issue was mentioned in both CQ and Pop Comm this month (February). - CQ magazine put forth its 4 point proposal, as noted below: e) Communications on behalf of an employer may be transmitted on an occasional basis, provided that: 1) Such communications are incidental to the employee's normal job responsibilities and are conducted voluntarily; 2) Such communications are conducted during an employee's personal time, including but not limited to lunch hours, days off and other non-compensated time periods; and 3) The primary beneficiaries of such communications are other amateurs and /or members of the general public, and not the employer 4) Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit the recreational use of an amateur station on an employer's premises by a duly licensed employee, as authorized by the station licensee -Pop Comm had an editorial by Gordon West, asking readers to support his petition, as previously filed. CQ did have a statement that the ARRL BOD was to discuss this issue at their January Board Meeting. The author (W2VU) also stated that the only unacceptable option is to do nothing. Just FYI, I am on a Yahoogroup list that has a constant discussion on this topic. One of the most outspoken members (originally very much against the ARRL), upon finding out the ARRL BOD action, has asked everyone to write their Directors, Vice Directors and SMs to thank them for the ARRL proposal. Another on the list (a co-petitioner of the Gordon West petition) was not entirely satisfied with the ARRL wording but would prefer to have the ARRL's wording and support than what exists now. I truly feel our proposal is the best of both worlds. I would also be interested in knowing whether Chris and Dan have met with the FCC, and if there is any feedback yet. I see that the Vanity Call issue was immediately addressed by the FCC. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio(tm) From: David A. Norris [mailto:k5uz@suddenlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Another 97.113 petition QSL! Has Chris met with the FCC yet to discuss the ARRL proposal? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Sarratt [mailto:w4ozk@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:20 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Another 97.113 petition According to CQ magazine, February 2010 issue, Zero Bias. CQ has filed their own petition for rule making, seeking a broader clarification to 97.113. Their language opens the barn door further for abuse and adds more confusion. 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK

1 0

Another 97.113 petition
by James F. Boehner MD 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

As a matter of fact, the 97.113 issue was mentioned in both CQ and Pop Comm this month (February). - CQ magazine put forth its 4 point proposal, as noted below: e) Communications on behalf of an employer may be transmitted on an occasional basis, provided that: 1) Such communications are incidental to the employee's normal job responsibilities and are conducted voluntarily; 2) Such communications are conducted during an employee's personal time, including but not limited to lunch hours, days off and other non-compensated time periods; and 3) The primary beneficiaries of such communications are other amateurs and /or members of the general public, and not the employer 4) Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit the recreational use of an amateur station on an employer's premises by a duly licensed employee, as authorized by the station licensee -Pop Comm had an editorial by Gordon West, asking readers to support his petition, as previously filed. CQ did have a statement that the ARRL BOD was to discuss this issue at their January Board Meeting. The author (W2VU) also stated that the only unacceptable option is to do nothing. Just FYI, I am on a Yahoogroup list that has a constant discussion on this topic. One of the most outspoken members (originally very much against the ARRL), upon finding out the ARRL BOD action, has asked everyone to write their Directors, Vice Directors and SMs to thank them for the ARRL proposal. Another on the list (a co-petitioner of the Gordon West petition) was not entirely satisfied with the ARRL wording but would prefer to have the ARRL's wording and support than what exists now. I truly feel our proposal is the best of both worlds. I would also be interested in knowing whether Chris and Dan have met with the FCC, and if there is any feedback yet. I see that the Vanity Call issue was immediately addressed by the FCC. '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur RadioT From: David A. Norris [mailto:k5uz@suddenlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:33 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Another 97.113 petition QSL! Has Chris met with the FCC yet to discuss the ARRL proposal? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Sarratt [mailto:w4ozk@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:20 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Another 97.113 petition According to CQ magazine, February 2010 issue, Zero Bias. CQ has filed their own petition for rule making, seeking a broader clarification to 97.113. Their language opens the barn door further for abuse and adds more confusion. 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK

1 0

[arrl-odv:18536] Re:Another 97.113 petition
by Brian Mileshosky 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

Greg (et al) -- Thanks for the heads up. I really think this is a mess that's possibly getting messier, and I still worry about the potential for exploitation in the future ("the door was cracked in favor of businesses back then; how much would it hurt if it was cracked just a wee bit more for purpose ABC? And a wee bit more for XYZ later on?"). I think the we (the Board) had a superb opportunity to emerge as the leader in this issue, especially since FCC solicited our straight-up opinion on the matter. If Chris and Dan were reasonably certain, based on their 'intel', that FCC's eventual NPRM would likely have been to the tune of Option B, ARRL could have put forth an Option A position ("leave it alone...97.113 isn't broken, the impact is minimal if not non-existent, and the risks of opening our doors to operations on behalf of businesses -- regardless of the purpose or scope -- is just too great"). In that case, FCC may have either (a) agreed with ARRL and gone with Option A, (b) sought a compromise between our Option A position and their likely Option B position, or (c) disagreed with ARRL and proceeded with their likely Option B position. In any of those cases, ARRL would have demonstrated its leadership as the National Association for Amateur Radio and the potential worst case scenario, though not ideal, would have been mostly palatable. Instead, the question was called to curb debate and thoughtful reasoning, and we chose not only to spend our opportunity essentially conforming as best as possible to FCC, but we also went the additional step of further liberalizing the position we thought FCC was settling on, and adopted an Option C position. It's something that obviously we can't take back now, and is nevertheless now our official position. But it'll be interesting to see what happens now that CQ has entered the fray and, if Chris gets indication that FCC will still largely stick with ARRL's position, then that just further points to us having passed up a great opportunity. This is something that's been on my chest since Newington, as I couldn't voice it before the question was called...sorry if this crosses anyone wrong; stirring a post-mortem debate is NOT my desire. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Greg Sarratt wrote: > According to CQ magazine, February 2010 issue, Zero Bias. CQ has filed their > own petition for rule making, seeking a broader > > clarification to 97.113. > > > > Their language opens the barn door further for abuse and adds more > confusion. > > > > 73, > > Greg Sarratt, W4OZK > > > > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 0

RE: Another 97.113 petition
by David A. Norris 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

QSL! Has Chris met with the FCC yet to discuss the ARRL proposal? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Sarratt [mailto:w4ozk@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:20 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Another 97.113 petition According to CQ magazine, February 2010 issue, Zero Bias. CQ has filed their own petition for rule making, seeking a broader clarification to 97.113. Their language opens the barn door further for abuse and adds more confusion. 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK

1 0

Another 97.113 petition
by Greg Sarratt 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

According to CQ magazine, February 2010 issue, Zero Bias. CQ has filed their own petition for rule making, seeking a broader clarification to 97.113. Their language opens the barn door further for abuse and adds more confusion. 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK

1 0

[arrl-odv:18533] New Web Site Reviewer Request
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 04 Feb '10

04 Feb '10

Hi, I am looking for a few volunteers from the Board to start reviewing the new Web Site. I would prefer not to have everyone test it at once. This is because we learned when it was tested here in-house that many of the same errors and bugs were found by everyone. This created a lot of work responding to everyone at once about the same problem. Therefore, I would like to have 8 - 12 (+/-) Board members start testing this site beginning tomorrow (Fri) afternoon. Fathom updates the site on Friday afternoons, so we are locked out until about 5pm, but testing can begin after that. If you are interested in being a Phase One tester, just let me know and I will send you the detailed instructions tomorrow. It does not matter what Operating System, Browser or Internet Service you have. In fact, testing on a variety of browsers and platforms would be helpful. Testing for the next group--Phase 2 - will begin next Friday. 73, Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio(tm) 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:18532] RE: [arrl-odv:18529] DXCC
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 04 Feb '10

04 Feb '10

Marty, et al: Since Harold invoked my name as well as the IT Department in his response on the DXCC remote entry portal I should respond. I apologize for not doing it yesterday but I was out of the office. First of all, just a quick clarification. We're not technically talking about "open source". The DXCC entry portal project plan does include an open "application programming interface" (API) that will be available to software developers. I'm told that that some of the key elements of that API have already been discussed on the ADIFDEV mailing list where many of the software authors participate. As for the timing of the completion of this project, I have to give the same response I gave at the A&F and Board meetings. It will depend heavily on the completion and launch of the new web site and the amount of technical work that is required immediately following that date. If everything goes as planned with the web site and depending on how much follow-on work is required post-launch, we expect the DXCC remote entry portal to be completed this spring. As Harold mentioned, management agreed that it was one of the "high priority" projects for 2010. If you have any other questions, please let me know. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc-The National Association for Amateur Radio(tm) 225 Main St. Newington, CT 06111 www.arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org/> Phone: (860) 594-0212 E-mail: bshelley(a)arrl.org <mailto:bshelley@arrl.org> From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B [mailto:wj1b@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:45 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18529] DXCC I sent Marty this response yesterday but I neglected to cc in the whole ODV list. Harold -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:02 AM To: Woll, Marty Cc: Shelley, Barry, N1VXY Subject: Re: DXCC Backlog Plan Marty, The DXCC remote entry portal is listed on the "high priority" category of the IT priority list that was distributed to the Board as part of the 2010 Plan. We all agree that it would help the DXCC backlog. I am not really knowledgeable about open source programming issues, however, I will send a copy of this email to Barry Shelley for his comment since he is now in charge of IT. 73, Harold ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:17 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Ford, Steve, WB8IMY; Glass, Katie; Hare, Ed W1RFI; Inderbitzen, Bob, NQ1R; Jahnke, Deb, K1DAJ; Johnson, Debra, K1DMJ; Kramer, Harold, WJ1B; Patton, David NN1N; Somma, Maria, AB1FM Subject: [arrl-odv:18527] Re: DXCC Backlog Plan Hi, Harold. Can you offer any estimate as to how close we are to having field-completable DXCC award / endorsement / update electronic applications? Distributing the inputting work to the applicants themselves seems to be the best hope of eliminating these crunches at Headquarters. Make it open source, and logging-program authors can add suitable output files to their respective programs. 73, Marty N6VI Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio(tm) 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:18531] Minute 29 committee - narrowband channel spacing
by Kay Craigie 04 Feb '10

04 Feb '10

Creation of a committee "for the purpose of research and to consider developing a plan to move the US amateur community to narrowband channel spacing" -- for repeaters -- was directed by the Board at Minute 29 of last July's meeting. This committee had not been created by the time I took office. The committee has now been appointed and will start work shortly. The members are Directors Sarratt (chair) and Mileshosky; Vice Director Carlson; Staff members Steve Ford WB8IMY, Dan Henderson N1ND, and Brennan Price N4QX. Because of the high potential for public controversy among repeater coordinators and repeaters users about this subject, the committee will begin by studying and reporting to the Board about the technical and (if you will) behavioral or "political" pros and cons of promoting such change. This will allow Directors to make any further decisions on the basis of a common understanding of the facts and issues. Although there is no report deadline in the authorizing motion, I have requested a progress report to be submitted to the Board in July. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:18529] DXCC
by K8JE 03 Feb '10

03 Feb '10

Harold, Tnx for reaffirming the status of remote entry (field entry) to LoTW. This and VUCC via LoTW are two reasons A&F promoted hiring a new programmer. You folks have probably thought of this already; however, one aspect of enabling direct field entry to handle much of the load of paper QSL checking currently done at HQ is to have a enough Field Checkers in the correct places. In looking over the list of Field Checkers, I'm not certain there are enough of these in the right place to accomplish this objective. Obviously, no one can force someone to take on field checking duties. However, if you, et al agree we could use more checkers, it may useful to consider actively encouraging more members to take on this task as the time to unveil direct field entry approaches. 73, 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 _____ From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B [mailto:wj1b@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:45 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18529] DXCC I sent Marty this response yesterday but I neglected to cc in the whole ODV list. Harold -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:02 AM To: Woll, Marty Cc: Shelley, Barry, N1VXY Subject: Re: DXCC Backlog Plan Marty, The DXCC remote entry portal is listed on the "high priority" category of the IT priority list that was distributed to the Board as part of the 2010 Plan. We all agree that it would help the DXCC backlog. I am not really knowledgeable about open source programming issues, however, I will send a copy of this email to Barry Shelley for his comment since he is now in charge of IT. 73, Harold ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:17 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Ford, Steve, WB8IMY; Glass, Katie; Hare, Ed W1RFI; Inderbitzen, Bob, NQ1R; Jahnke, Deb, K1DAJ; Johnson, Debra, K1DMJ; Kramer, Harold, WJ1B; Patton, David NN1N; Somma, Maria, AB1FM Subject: [arrl-odv:18527] Re: DXCC Backlog Plan Hi, Harold. Can you offer any estimate as to how close we are to having field-completable DXCC award / endorsement / update electronic applications? Distributing the inputting work to the applicants themselves seems to be the best hope of eliminating these crunches at Headquarters. Make it open source, and logging-program authors can add suitable output files to their respective programs. 73, Marty N6VI Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur RadioT 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 Telephone: 860 594 0220 email: <mailto:hkramer@arrl.org> hkramer(a)arrl.org web: <http://www.arrl.org/> www.arrl.org/

1 0

[arrl-odv:18529] DXCC
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 03 Feb '10

03 Feb '10

I sent Marty this response yesterday but I neglected to cc in the whole ODV list. Harold -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:02 AM To: Woll, Marty Cc: Shelley, Barry, N1VXY Subject: Re: DXCC Backlog Plan Marty, The DXCC remote entry portal is listed on the "high priority" category of the IT priority list that was distributed to the Board as part of the 2010 Plan. We all agree that it would help the DXCC backlog. I am not really knowledgeable about open source programming issues, however, I will send a copy of this email to Barry Shelley for his comment since he is now in charge of IT. 73, Harold ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:17 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Ford, Steve, WB8IMY; Glass, Katie; Hare, Ed W1RFI; Inderbitzen, Bob, NQ1R; Jahnke, Deb, K1DAJ; Johnson, Debra, K1DMJ; Kramer, Harold, WJ1B; Patton, David NN1N; Somma, Maria, AB1FM Subject: [arrl-odv:18527] Re: DXCC Backlog Plan Hi, Harold. Can you offer any estimate as to how close we are to having field-completable DXCC award / endorsement / update electronic applications? Distributing the inputting work to the applicants themselves seems to be the best hope of eliminating these crunches at Headquarters. Make it open source, and logging-program authors can add suitable output files to their respective programs. 73, Marty N6VI Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio(tm) 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