
While I was still in Geneva I sent you the draft CPM text dealing with 7 MHz. Draft CPM text dealing with Article 25 (nee S25) was also agreed at the same meeting and is now available in the form in which it has been submitted for the draft CPM report. The contents of the draft CPM text are not proposals, but it is reasonable to expect that most of the proposals that will be made by administrations will be along the lines of the "methods" discussed in the CPM text. The highlights of the possible changes envisioned in the draft CPM text are: 1. Elimination of the "banned country" provision that has caused confusion over the years. 2. Elimination of the prohibition on international third-party traffic in the absence of a special agreement, or alternatively, reversing of the default condition so that such traffic is permitted unless specific steps have been taken to prohibit it. 3. Either elimination of the Morse code requirement, or modification to leave it to the discretion of the administration. 4. Three options re: technical and operational requirements to obtain an amateur license: slight simplification of language, and either a mandatory or a non-mandatory reference to Recommendation ITU-R M.1544. 5. Elimination of some redundant provisions. 6. New provisions to encourage administrations to prepare their amateur stations to provide disaster relief communications, and to encourage administrations to make arrangements to permit amateurs visiting from other countries to operate. Article 19 (call sign formation) is also covered in this draft text. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<026e_ww9.doc>>

At 03:21 PM 5/30/2002 -0400, you wrote:
While I was still in Geneva I sent you the draft CPM text dealing with 7 MHz. Draft CPM text dealing with Article 25 (nee S25) was also agreed at the same meeting and is now available in the form in which it has been submitted for the draft CPM report.
The contents of the draft CPM text are not proposals, but it is reasonable to expect that most of the proposals that will be made by administrations will be along the lines of the "methods" discussed in the CPM text.
Dave - How much will this impact the US position? Do we get a chance to file comments with the FCC in support of (or not) the proposal? Besides our work on the ITU committees, how does the ARRL's position get formally detailed to the FCC? -- 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
participants (2)
-
Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
-
Tom Frenaye