Brian, we have an FAQ. It's linked directly from the story. What additions or 
changes do you suggest to it?

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Mileshosky, Brian N5ZGT (Vice Dir, RM) 
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:37 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:12201] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing


Chris (et al),

I may not be reading your response correctly, but my concern is not about
us (the ODV).  My concern is of John Q. ARRL Member, and whether or not he
understands -- with clarity -- what this proposal is for, what it fixes,
what happens if we don't act, what rumors not to listen to, etc.

All I'm saying is that the League can do a better PR job with this
proposal given the fanfare (positive, or in my members' case, negative)
that it's created prior to, and especially after Denver. Rather than
asking members to dig up columns and op-eds from 2004, or reading through
4-pages of quotes and EC actions (such is the case of the latest ARRL web
article), let's provide that information in a much more consice manner. 
That's why I suggested a "Frequently Asked Questions"-type of web 
document, to address the fundamentals, answer the burning questions
members might have at this point, and kill the rumors.

Taking it a step further, perhaps send it to the 89,525 members who
receive email via an arrl.net address. Then they can become a bit more
educated, or use that info to educate and win the support of their friends
and club members.  Win-win.

Even a printed version can be handed out at Dayton.  My gut feeling is
that lots of members and general Hams are salivating at the chance to get 
answers and explanations from those of us who are going. After chatting, 
send them away with the FAQ for the same reasons mentioned above.

If this is such a crucial measure as many of us make it out to be, I'm
sure we're equally concerned with it being accepted amongst the ranks
without misinformation or rumors leading their decision-making. Perhaps a
bit of marketing between now and the July Board meeting will allow this to
happen with greater ease.

Again, just my 2-cents being the young whippersnapper I am.  (wink)

73,
Brian, N5ZGT

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 W3KD@aol.com wrote:

> The need for a better explanation of "why" on regulation by bandwidth is an 
> interesting discussion. It strikes me that, if the draft petition that has 
been 
> circulated to the Board on more than one occasion does not adequately explain 
> to the satisfaction of our own Board why the paradigmatic change is 
> necessary, then it stands no chance of persuading the FCC and other hams. We 
will have 
> a revised version of the petition for you shortly, after EC review, and the 
> Board may consider critically whether it meets the litmus test of explaining 
> "why" in a satisfactory manner.
> 
> 73, Chris W3KD