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, firstname.lastname@example.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, email@example.com This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org