[Noisebridge-discuss] Transparency Pattern. Serious matter. - Re: Information needed for our LPFM filing.
john_re at fastmail.us
Fri Nov 1 04:34:27 UTC 2013
Excellent post, Norman.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013, at 08:43 AM, Noisebridge Radio wrote:
> There seems that there is concern that I may be doing something nefarious
> and secret
Speaking only for myself & my previous comments to this nb-d list on
1) I had zero concern you might be doing something nefarious ,
2) I did have the concern that a "(design) pattern of open disclosure"
[See email re that, from two weeks ago on this nbd list,
Pasted at bottom of this msg,
from another thread;
Oren Beck, re Transparency Patterns.]
would be beneficial to the nb community
by showing that the application is being assembled in an open way,
& 3) Given that few nb'ers have been through an FCC licensing procedure
(as have you and I)
nor have dealt with other US Govt licensing applications,
I believe that the presentation here on this list
will have a positive effect on the nb community,
by explicitly showing the language of the license requirements.
Someone reading this type of government language
will likely acquire the sense that this Noisebridge LPFM broadvast Radio
is not some umimportant little play type thing,
with little serious implication or consequence.
Good job, Norman.
so here is the information needed and why. I need the
> information ASAP so I can submit our application. These are from FCC Form
> 318. [http://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form318/318.pdf]
> The, legal name, residence address, citizenship, and position, of the
> members and officers (#3 below). I need the answers to the questions
> below. I don't need details for 6 through 9 and only need information for
> #5 if the answer is no. Some of these answers are a bit touchy so please
> respond privately to this address or find me at the Tuesday meeting. All
> answers except #3 will be kept confidential. #3 needs to go on the form
> when submitted.
> 3. Parties to the Application.
> a. List separately each party to the application including, as
> applicable, the applicant, its officers, directors, five percent or
> stockholders, non-insulated partners, members, and all other persons and
> entities with attributable interests. If a corporation or partnership
> an attributable interest in the applicant, list separately, as
> its officers, directors, five percent or greater stockholders,
> non-insulated partners, and board members. Create a separate row for each
> individual or entity. Attach additional pages if necessary.
> 5. Ownership.
> a. Applicant certifies that it and all parties to the application
> comply with the multiple ownership limits set forth in Section 73.855 of
> the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.855. [
> b. Applicant certifies that it and all parties to the application
> comply with the cross-ownership limits set forth in Section 73.860 of the
> Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.860. [
> c. Applicant certifies that it and all parties to the application
> comply with the Commission's policies relating to media interests of
> immediate family members; and
> d. Applicant certifies that it and all parties to the application
> comply with the Commission's policies relating to investor insulation and
> the non-participation of non-party investors or creditors.
> 6. Character Issues. The applicant certifies that neither the applicant
> any party to the application has or has had any interest in, or
> a. any broadcast application in any proceeding where character
> were left unresolved or were resolved adversely against the applicant or
> party to the application; or
> b. any pending broadcast application in which character issues have
> been raised. Adverse Findings. The applicant certifies that no adverse
> finding has been made and no adverse final action has been taken by any
> court or administrative body as to the applicant, any party to this
> application, or any non-party equity owner in the applicant, in a civil
> criminal proceeding brought under the provisions of any law related to
> following: any felony; mass media related antitrust or unfair
> fraudulent statements to another governmental unit; or discrimination?
> 8. Unlicensed Operation. The applicant certifies, under penalty of
> that neither the applicant nor any party to the application has engaged
> any manner, individually or with other persons, groups, organizations, or
> other entities, in the unlicensed operation of any station in violation
> Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
> Section 301. [
> 9. Anti-Drug Abuse Act Certification. Applicant certifies that neither
> applicant nor any party to the application is subject to denial of
> benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 21
> U.S.C. Section 862. [
> Noisebridge-discuss">Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss">Noisebridge-discuss at lists">Noisebridge-discuss">Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Oren Beck comment rated +1 by Giovanni Re. Tag: Transparency pattern.
Add this to nb wiki, re NB Patterns. - Re:
[Noisebridge-discuss">Noisebridge-discuss] SudoRoom blog puts NB to
shame - Re: noisebridge blog - still confused
Oren- great comment! :)
It would be great if you added this to a NB Success Patterns wiki page,
linked from the top of the nb home psge.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Oren Beck wrote: > Uh- just saying-
Point Zero- the reading comprehension dig as I see it-> is > way
UN-Excellent mnnkay... > > And from my Point-Of-View as a participant in
online life back to dial > BBS > circa 1980's on... TRANSPARENCY in all
possible areas of dialogs is the > BEST path for countless basic
reasons. > > To be 100% unambiguous about it- off list requests are a
perception and > transparency FAIL. Oh- someone can say that only #n of
requests were > filed > but absent a public archive validation method-
do we really feel safe in > saying that's so? Trust But Validate can
banish a lot of drama:> > > Here's the sober point: I feel we have a
perception risk that folks apply > and are not granted access. From the
off list request path alone. I'd go > so far as to consider some
list/blog admin stuff to warrant meeting > minutes > even if only in a
summary log reading into minutes. Because- failure do > do > so leaves
FUD. > > And failure to banish FUD is Inherent Perception FAIL from step
zero as > it raises the grim specter of many discriminatory scenes. And
for that > alone- my comment on perception risk- should be weighed on
it's merit of > Transparency as a central tenet of Hackerdom. > > We are
supposed to be in all things ... a transparent, inclusive process > and
group. Are we being that or not? Forgive me if I as a "spiritual >
member" seem to have overstepped. But DO ask each other to weigh my >
points > on their merits alone. >
Noisebridge-discuss">Noisebridge-discuss mailing list >
Noisebridge-discuss">Noisebridge-discuss at lists">Noisebridge-discuss">Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
--- Join the BerkeleyTIP-Global mail list - http://groups.google.com/group/BerkTIPGlobal. All Freedom SW, HW & Culture.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss