Tom is correct that there was no separate Web story after the conference. There was an extensive report in the September 21 ARRL Letter, however. There is a full-page report on the Region 2 conference, including the URL of the Region 2 band plan, on page 74 of December QST. In both cases the report included the fact that the Region 2 plan is modeled on the Region 1 plan, something that Rich neglects to mention either in the editorial or in the brief item, credited to Radio Amateurs of Canada, on page 4. (The RAC item also included the Region 1 reference.) Rich's basic argument is that the ARRL's decisionmaking processes are not as open and transparent as they could be or should be. In this instance he happens to have seized on something which in fact isn't an example of that at all. I have not talked to Dick Ross about either editorial. It's been a while since we have gotten together informally, which we have done in the past from time to time. We don't often actively engage the other independent amateur radio media. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16142] RE: December CQ editorial At 03:27 PM 11/26/2007, Joel wrote:

QSL Brian. Dave and I agree that the response should be worded such that Rich will come to his own realization that he really goofed on a couple of points. Wording it differently would serve no purpose but to encourage Rich to write yet another bad editorial, which ARRL and amateur radio doesn't need.

I think we need to reply differently than we did last time (just six months ago). Have we had any discussions with Rich's boss? It looks like we don't advertise in CQ, so there's none to pull. Still, I'm feeling like cooperation with CQ should chill for a while. Jay Bellows had some good suggestions last time - I was hoping to see CQ acknowledge they had their facts wrong, but unless I missed it, nothing was ever reported. I can't imagine why we still have someone who can't follow the basics of "getting the facts straight" (or even ask us for the facts) on our PR Committee. It gives him more credibility than it gives us. Further, I think we need to take a different approach to this kind of story. This one seems to have started on one person's web site, then spread through others, with flames fanned by fringe groups who seem to need a cause of their own PR, and finally found a home in a "respected" publication. We generally do not engage the writers at any stage of the discussion, except for those that write to us individually. Those responses don't generally get shared with everyone who read the original flames. Maybe we need a "rumor control" (or "setting the record straight") section of the ARRL web site. I see from yesterday's In-News that "A rapidly spreading rumor of Riley's being forced to retire after his decision NOT to do so was silenced." Perhaps rumor control happens more than I realize - so why don't we talk about it/them publicly? Do we regularly contact other ham radio publications like CQ and WorldRadio (are there really any others of significance?) and offer to answer questions, to promote specific stories of our own, etc? That might make for opportunities for questions to be answered before damage is done. As I noted in an email exchange with Joel in mid-October, the only story on our web site about the Region 2 Conference in Brazil was on September 11th as the conference opened. I still can't find one that reported on the activities that took place - including any report on the bandplan that seems to have created all of the aggravation. Nothing found in Nov or Dec QST so maybe it'll be in January? I really hate to see all of our hard work on international issues tarnished by the bad reporting by W2VU and CQ, and our lack of reporting. -- 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