Your explanation / desire for delegation sounds perfect to me. It ensures that the trustee has authorized usage of the call sign, but doesn't burden them with additional work if they can find someone else to do the work.
There was a separate comment from Eric AE0JE, commenting that a lot of trustees don't have the technical chops for this. I see his concern, but could it be mitigated with the following?
ARDC could provide a call sign authority delegation PDF file that can be filled out and signed by the club call sign trustee. This document would state that a particular person is the designated ARDC delegate for the club and is authorized to utilize the club call sign in the ARDC related systems. This would then be submitted back into the portal as a scan / upload by the ARDC delegate. Call it a Call Sign LOA, similar to the routing LOAs we use to delegate portions of BGP allocations and assure the appropriate parties that the usage is approved.
What do you think Eric?
I hope this is helpful.
73
Bill Buhler - AF7SJ
Of course this is also only necessary for a group.
On 6/13/2024 5:34 PM, Dan Cross via 44net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 6:03 PM Bill Buhler via 44net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
Thanks Dan,
You've expressed my concern extremely well.
Thanks, Bill. That's very kind of you to say.
I suspect there are many clubs, and will be many more that will desire a 44net allocation / callsign.ampr.org subdomain.
Indeed. I'm surprised this hasn't come up already, honestly. AMPRNet is a bit of an undiscovered jewel in that regard, and could probably use some advertising; I wonder if someone would consider writing an article for QST or RADCOM or a similar publication to get some exposure.
Once suggestion, since club callsigns are managed by a club trustee, should that be the designated POC for these relationships?
This is just my opinion, but I think the short answer is "yes, but with delegation authority."
In my club, for instance, I've been the one pushing the idea of getting an allocation; I pitched it at the last meeting and got told, "great; go off and do it!" I did confirm with the callsign trustee that he was ok with me acting on the club's behalf, under the club's callsign, for this purpose. Further, he's perfectly willing to give me documentation of some kind or another that would make it clear that the club has authorized me to act on its behalf. But I also kind of got the impression that, since I'm the one singing AMPRNet's praises, it would be much preferred if I were the person doing the actual legwork. That is, I don't think other folks in the club want to spend a lot of time creating accounts on the portal, etc; they'd just prefer that I do that on the club's behalf. So while everything I'm doing is on the up-and-up, the largesse of the club (and the other members' time) only extends so far.
I imagine that sort of situation is pretty common: someone gets excited about doing something cool with AMPRNet, and gets their club to give the go ahead, but with the caveat that they do the work. Forcing that onto the trustee may prove to be a limiting factor in that regard.
Again, this could all be helped with some support in the portal, but before that, we need a clear policy. And hopefully it will have some community input.
- Dan C.On 6/13/2024 2:40 PM, Dan Cross via 44net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 4:31 PM Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV via 44net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
[snip]
- We are in fact coming out with a policy re: subdomains, and it will
likely be as described in the email sent out earlier this week.
In this case, I'd like to reiterate my request that this policy formally take into account non-individual organizations such as amateur radio clubs. These organizations can be, and often are, assigned call signs by various licensing authorities (for example, the Boston Amateur Radio Club, BARC, has been assigned W1BOS in the US by the FCC: https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=781017). And while certain individuals may be designated by those organizations to liaise with e.g. ARDC for requesting IP address allocations an so on, the organizations themselves are not individuals, and right now there's a gap in the policy and infrastructure spaces for how such things are handled. I know this was not an envisioned use case, but it _is_ something that is going to come up.
- Dan C.
44net mailing list -- 44net@mailman.ampr.org To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave@mailman.ampr.org
44net mailing list -- 44net@mailman.ampr.org To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave@mailman.ampr.org
44net mailing list -- 44net@mailman.ampr.org To unsubscribe send an email to 44net-leave@mailman.ampr.org