Tom, the Executive Committee had this same discussion. The problem with 3650 is that it reduces our argument from a reasoned proposal, on what amounts to administrative appeal, to nothing more than (re)negotiation. Reconsideration is not a means of attempting to renegotiate. It is a process of establishing that FCC was wrong about a portion of the order and needs to fix it. I can do that with 3635. I can't do that with 3650. Is there some objective reason why 3650 is a good dividing line? If there is, why didn't we advocate it in our Petition or our comments in the docket proceeding? You see the draftsman's conundrum here. We really can't as a practical matter be wishy-washy at this stage of the proceeding. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: frenaye@pcnet.com To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 8:55 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:14882] Re: Resolution for Board Vote I support the EC motion to file a Petition for Reconsideration. I strongly suggest we use references to and from the nearly 900 comments we received about the changes - some of them were quite well written. My preference would also be for the dividing line at 3650. Perhaps the discussion in the Petition can at least suggest that would be OK with us (if it is), but that we are asking for the least change (3635) in hopes that will be accepted. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@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 ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.