In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of
THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC,
it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ...

Carl, I think that is "irrelevant" in this newsgroup. If it hasn't
been officially published by the ARRL, it can't apply at all to
amateur radio! :-)

Actually, ARRL was instrumental in developing the recomendation
and pushing it through WP8A and SG8 ...

Carl, you deserve a bigger hand for helping the changes at WRC-03
regardless of the few ARRL actually involved with Working Group 6
at the FCC. The minutes of those meetings, terribly late in coming,
are on public view.

I would suppose that ARRL executive-president-for-life Dave Sumner
did help change S25 in Geneva. From his reportings to the IARU
website - NOT the ARRL web pages - he was NOT expressing any
enthusiasm for changing S25 nor showing much bias for either side.

It is also evidenciary that IARU policy on code testing had ALREADY
shifted to no code test in 2002, almost a year before WRC-03. ARRL
public policy statements took a neutral stance, supporting only
obediance to federal regulations whatever they would become. That's
a clear case of division of opinion within the ARRL upper echelons...
the public (and membership) is shielded from internal divisions by the
public stance of "neutrality" on code testing.

Any sign of internal division in a membership organization (a minority
group considering all the licensed amateurs NOT members) shows
that ARRL cannot reach any consensus itself! It would then be
useless to use any neutral ARRL public policy statement to show a
"consensus" opinion on "representation of US amateur opinion."

The rest of the radio world goes on advancing to the future. ARRL
leadership seems firmly rooted to the past, trying to regain the glory
of the executives' and BoD' youth long past.

LHA