I'veasked the EC about having Dave Siddall and Howard (HQ) working up a release toaddress the concerns about Tyro and ELL based on the comments here on ODV. Mark,we can't have official Board votes by email. We have to call a meeting.Unofficial ones are ok if we wanted to get an idea of how everyonethinks. Nowback to the pileups. I'm finally home for weekend and there's some niceexpeditions working the bands. 73 Rick- K5UR -----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> To: Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> Cc: G Widin <gpwidin@comcast.net>; dale.wms1 <dale.wms1@frontier.com>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sat, Mar 16, 2019 6:12 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:28042] Re: "Tyro" license proposal. I don’t think it needs full board approval. Maybe just the EC. However my original comment was along the line of a FCC comment filing. This would clarify the ARRL’s position and then the release could be based on that. This way it’s on the record. RiaN2RJ On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 7:05 PM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Director Tiemstra but would like to see it go a bit further.This is something to me,,, I would expect the BOD to take a "E-Vote" and have a simple statement issued about it. "The ARRL Board of directors does not support the "Tyro" proposal and would encourage members and non members alike to submit comments in opposition." Or some wordsmith variation thereof. Might be a bit harsh.... It could even be added the bottom of the news story that has already appeared on the ARRL web page. Would something prevent the BOD from doing this? I get ballots all the time from investments where "The board recommends a no vote on the following" or "the board recommends a yes vote on the following" Why can our board not do the same? Just a question from the back row.......... Mark, KB7HDX VD NW Div. On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 2:43 PM Dale Williams <dale.wms1@frontier.com> wrote: I also have received several comments about how heavily flawed "Tyro" is and would like ARRL to respond. Unless the FCC has backed away from its position that "... there will be three and only three classes of ham license...", I don't think we need to rush a response, but instead carefully take the "Tyro" proposition apart piece by piece. It does need to be clearly separated from the ELL proposal ARRL has submitted. The timing could not be worse for confusing the two. 73, Dale WA8EFK On 3/16/2019 2:47 PM, David Norris via arrl-odv wrote: Although not a huge outpouring, what I have received on the “Tyro” license proposal has been negative as well. Some members may be confusing the two licensing proposals out there so I am in agreement with Greg that we should make a clarifying statement. I also think we need to determine what we are going to do as ARRL with regards to the “Tyro” license proposal. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2019, at 1:26 PM, G Widin <gpwidin@comcast.net> wrote: From things I see online, some people are confusing the "Tyro" proposal with ARRL's Entry Level Licensing proposal. I agree with Ria that we should respond with a position, and strongly suggest that in the process we clarify that the two proposals are different. 73, Greg, K0GW On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 12:40 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: The "tyro" license proposal seems to be causing quite a stir among members, mostly negative feedback. I have not, however, seen a position from ARRL on it. Do we have one? I assume that the league is planning to file comments either in favor or against the proposal. I received this today from a ham in my division who is also Maxim society member: "Ria: I have just done a very quick read of RM-11829 "Tyro License Proposal". I can find nothing right with it either on a technical or operational level. It is basically a proposal to to turn over much of the 430-450 Mhz band to more of the abuses of CB, GMRS and FRS combined. Much of the spectrum the author would be giving away is currently in heavy use in the Northeast for both weak signal, repeater links, repeaters and other uses. Much of the petition tries to justify itself with words like CERT, ARES, etc., just as we are trying to get away from the old versions and looking to "professionalize" our relationship with government agencies and NGOs. Anyone so inclined, certainly at the age of 11 or so can qualify for a Tech license. I would hope the ARRL takes a strong opposition to this NPRM." I am citing this neither in agreement, nor disagreement with it, but this is a sample of the feedback I have been receiving. -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2rj@arrl.org _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2rj@arrl.org_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv