This rule has been discussed many times. At the Visalia DX Convention for
example, Wayne Mills talked about it at length before a very large crowd of
DXers. He even ask for a show of hands from those who would like to see
some new additions to the list. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
Rule changes are one reason we have a DX Advisory Committee made up of every
day good DXers. The DXAC was in favor of this rule change. Maybe those who
are unhappy should contact their DXAC member.
Dave - K4SSU
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dx-Chat" <dx-chat@njdxa.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 10:13 AM
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule
Under the existing DXCC rules (aka DXCC 2000), there was originally a rule
that permitted recognizing a new or existing entity if there was an
existing
IARU society. The purpose of that rule, IMHO, was to keep Hong Kong and
Macau on the list once administration of those two territories were turned
back over to the People's Republic of China.
As it turns out, ironically, Hong Kong and Macau remain pretty much
autonomous (although not 100% so), so if that was the purpose of the rule,
it was unneccesary.
The unintentional side effect was the creation of several new entities by
creation of an IARU society -- Ducie for one comes to mind, which followed
from the creation of the Pitcairn Is IARU society. Consider that at least
one of these IARU groups was created solely to in turn create a DXCC
entity,
and appear to otherwise be inactive groups (if not total shams). So I for
one was not upset when the rule in question was removed. However, as you
will recall, the previous KH8SI group was more than a little upset, since
they were in the process of trying to set up their "American Samoa ARA" to
be another IARU society... which in and of itself is another story.
So now we have another rule change which permits redefinition of certain
entities into political entities. Did we need this rule change? I don't
know... I never heard any discussion of a rule change either, it was just
suddenly announced, and there it was.
And almost simultaneously, application is made for Swain's Island to be a
new one, it's approved, and here comes the KH8SI team for another go.
Coincidence?
I have nothing per se against a new entity. It's the process that bothers
me. I'm in favor of open discussion and debate. Now I'm not saying that
anything wrong was done... but I dislike an appearance of impropriety, and
right now, there is (IMHO) such an appearance.
In the future, I believe open discussion of rules changes should be
undertaken prior to new rules being adopted.
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of Barry
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:42 AM
To: Dx-Chat
Subject: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule
Just wondering why DXCC changed the rules to seemingly create one new
country for JA1BK. I didn't hear anything about rule change discussion
until rules were changed. Reminds me of the Okino Torishima situation...
73,
Barry
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP
Newtown, PA
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org
This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA
http://njdxa.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org
This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA
http://njdxa.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org
This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA
http://njdxa.org
