Bruce, good question. To answer it requires some background?on Ross as an individual. Suffice it to say for now?that his tweaks, and they really can't be considered to be more than that, follow on the heels of (1) Paul's presentation to the IRAC about what we wanted at 5 MHz, a meeting which Ross attended and said nothing; (2) a letter exchange with the IRAC administrator that Paul had been working with, who set up the meeting, to which Ross was privy, and said nothing; and (3) a long period of time before and?after the filing of our Petition during which Ross said nothing. Then, when the FCC rep goes to the IRAC with what should have been (at the IRAC)?an uncontested (because it was pre-sold) petition for rulemaking, Ross puts a hold on it, and comes up with a whole series of tweaks. Yes, in general, they are liberalizations, and yes, we don't object to them and didn't. But the IRAC is in a sensitive posture now, and the tweaks risked reopening wounds. Ross' initial proposal was to have the data emissions?in a separate segment outside the five channels, something that?the IRAC bristled at and?said it could not support. Furthermore, what Paul asked?the IRAC to approve initially, and what we asked for at FCC, was surgical. The idea was to pursue the liberalizations that we could get without triggering opposition from the Justice Department, the?Coast Guard, or the Navy. The 5 MHz allocation is very very sensitive with them. Paul's effort was surgical. Ross' is like an effort to get on a New York Subway?train. It was the opposite of Paul's approach.? We have been pushing at WRC-07 and in preparation documents?for that which NTIA opposes: a contiguous allocation of between 50 and 150 kHz. This is unpopular with certain IRAC members, and they have let Paul know that. So in that environment, Ross' tweaks, though not inherently objectionable, are poorly timed, overly detailed, and had the potential to reopen what had already been agreed to by the IRAC. I was being nice calling the effort not particularly worthwhile, because they are not necessary to achieve our immediate goal and were dangerous to our ability to achieve that goal. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Frahm K0BJ <brucefrahmk0bj@gmail.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; w3kd@aol.com Sent: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:55 pm Subject: 5 mHz -- Report of the General Counsel to the Board of Directors -- Document 13 Chris, ? In item I B 3, page 11 you discuss Ross Merlin's 5 mHz items and characterize them in part?as "not particularly worthwhile".? They appear to me to all be liberalizations over ARRL's proposal.? Is your concern with this action solely that it serves to slow final adjudication, or do you view any of his liberalizations as having inherent negatives attached? ? Tnx? Bruce K0BJ ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.