Hi Dick, Your thought summary is good, however I'm not sure I understand what you mean in #8. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: DIRECTORS - YOUR ATTENTION REQUIRED On 9/12/06, Harrison, Joel <Joel.Harrison@wgint.com> wrote:
A question has been posed by Director Norton that has been answered that he is pondering.
Let me state that I have no more respect for the FCC's decision than anyone else on this Board. However, as a Director, I feel I have an obligation to calmly and rationally evaluate this proposal based on information presented. I suppose I'd support an appeal of the Part 15 diminution of licensed station rights, particularly if it were done in a cost-effective manner. I wouldn't expect it to win. I'd certainly support preparation of a more detailed strategy outline. I would be happier to continue support if I saw an outline with detail that convinced me that we had a chance of winning. Regarding support of a full-blown attack with an expensive law-firm, I see that the success percentage of appeals of FCC rulemakings appears to be small. I give my support in the very weakest way, mostly in view of the Board vote so far. If it were my money, I would simply pursue this with Chris Imlay and possibly some consultation if he requested it. My thought worksheet is attached below. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA Thought Summary - 1) ARRL history of successful appeals of FCC rulemaking actions through courts - zero. 2) FCC track record in Court of Appeals for rulemaking cases - very high. 3) Requested remedy - court remands case back to FCC. Repeat - As I understand it, if we win, the court simply sends the case back to the FCC. 4) My assessment of chances of court remanding the case back to the FCC for reconsideration- not zero, but pretty small. 5) My prediction of FCC action if case gets remanded back - no improvement in permitted Part 15 interference. Possible increase in interference level which will be justified in some strange way which might teach us a lesson for contesting their action. 6) Real potential gain - more possible delay and uncertainty. Little else. 7) Predicted cost - 2% of League assets. Significant. 8) Overall evaluation- 75% expensive spleen venting. 25% other.