Thanks, Ria, and in theory I absolutely agree with you. I've been traveling the last couple of days, and haven't read the ARSFI letter yet. At least it seems the original ARRL press release should have indicated that we are in the process of studying the proposal and would formally comment on it once all the facts are known. That would have stemmed off member questions and queries before they could raise their collective hands. 73; Mike W7VO

On April 12, 2019 at 6:46 AM "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike -

My opinion is that the ARRL needs to refrain from making a public statement on this petition for now, at least for a few reasons. I am well aware that Mr. Kutchins from ARSFI has sent a letter to all directors and President Roderick yesterday. However, this issue is still under investigation and at this point it is not wise to appear to take a side, especially since we have requested a 90 day hold on the symbol rate petition, which ARSFI is labeling as a "strategic mistake."

Some of the directors, particularly those on the EC have been having meetings with ARSFI and Prof. Rappaport, and having discussions with other parties in this debate. By issuing a statement now, ARRL would essentially be viewed as having made a determination before the proposed meeting has taken place.

I have been telling my members - ARRL has not taken a position on RM-11831, and if/when one has been taken, membership will be notified and that there are many pieces of evidence that need to be studied. I have members on both sides of this issue. In fact, Prof. Rappaport's wireless institute is in my division. I also have maritime users who use WinLink, particularly in Long Island and coastal NJ.

So until the board or at the very least the EC COLLECTIVELY decides on its position, I think ARRL should not make a public statement in support or against this petition. And if the EC takes a position, I'd hope that they weigh all viewpoints in this debate and consider what is best for amateur radio, and not just one group or the other.

73 Ria, N2RJ

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 09:07, Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net mailto:w7vo@comcast.net > wrote:

> >

...

ODV:

On April 2nd, the ARRL put out a press release regarding RM-11831, regarding "Amateur Digital Mode Transparency", which can be found here: http://www.arrl.org/news/petition-for-rule-making-calls-for-amateur-digital-.... What the press release discusses is what the petition is all about, but does not put forth the official ARRL response to the petition, or put into other words, where the ARRL officially stands on the petition. The obvious answer is that we are against it, since the petition is in opposition to our own RM-11708, "Amendment of Part 97 of the Commissions Amateur Radio Service Rules to Permit Greater Flexibility in Digital Data Communications", but the press release doesn't really say that directly,

Here in the Northwestern Division, our WWA SM is getting numerous e-mails and phone calls asking what the position of the ARRL is on RM-11831. As a Director I cannot speak for the ARRL, so I can't even officially answer the question.

I suggest that the ARRL publish a formal response to RM-11831, if one is not already in the works. If that has already been discussed somewhere and I missed it, I apologize for taking up the bandwidth!

73;

Mike Ritz, W7VO

Director, Northwestern Division mailto:w7vo@arrl.org

w7vo@arrl.org mailto:w7vo@arrl.org http://www.arrlnwdiv.org

http://www.arrl.org

_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto: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 mailto:n2rj@arrl.org