Ron Notarius W3WN a écrit :
Then there's the matter of the use of the OH2AM call itself. Now, on
this matter, I'm on shakier ground since I'm not extremely familiar
with the CEPT regulations. But the implications in the letter of
"criminal offenses" bother me on several levels. Here in the US,
there's a difference, often a big difference, between minor
(misdemeanor) and major (felony) infractions.
Well, in France we have three levels of infractions: "contraventions"
(driving over speed limit)=you get fined; "délits" (you steel
something)=you can go to prison <10 years, and "crimes" (you kill
someone)=you can go to prison more than 10 years. Violating the "amateur
rules" worth up to 6 monthes of prison and 30000EUR, so it's not
criminal. In the french version of his letter, F6GOX wrote "délictuel",
not "criminel".
IF this is correct... if the club call was improperly used... is THIS
enough to cause the DXCC desk to disapprove of the operation for
DXCC purposes? I don't know the answer to that... only Bill Moore
NC1L can ultimately answer that.
I guess VE6LB summed it up well when he wrote
I think it's really up to the licensing authority for FJ (the French
I believe) to decide if the use of the CEPT licence is valid in this
case.
My opinion is that french authorities will not do anything, as they do
not enforce amateur radio rules.
Which starts to move into the second major issue. Why is this
controversy being raised at all?
Well.. I don't want to write a long post too. When you come to operate a
foreign place that has local hams, you CAN contact them, meet them,
greet them, drink a beer with them. I don't mean you HAVE to, but you
CAN. That's good manners.
DXCC does not list good manners as accreditation criteria.
To be the first, the finnish decided NOT to tell the locals about their
plan. They decided to play only with compulsory rules, not with good
manners.
As a result, nobody attacks them on their manners. They are attacked on
their playground, rules, BECAUSE of manners they didn't follow.
Let's look at some history, or at least as much as we know. The
French Ministry decreed that St. Barthelemy become an Overseas
Collective on February 21. [...] And this was the effective date of
this decree
No. The law itself tells it will be effective after the newly elected
"territorial council" meets for the first time. It has been elected on
July 8 and met on July 15, so July 15 is the date the Feb. 21 law came
into effect. The new "oversea collectivity" did not exist before.
Now one can argue that the date that the entity came into being was
February 21 and that the addition to the entity list should be
backdated accordingly.
Not only we can, but no one should agree !! Let's read the 1.c criteria
(under which FJ has been created) (short form by myself):
c) The Entity [...] is administered by a local government [...]. To
satisfy [this] criteria of this sub-section, an Entity must be listed
[...]
So.. To satisfy, it MUST be listed.
Or.. if it's NOT listed, it does NOT satisfy.
Was St Barthelemy listed before December 14 ? No.
So did St Barthelemy satisfied before December 14 ?
--
Laurent Ferracci
Blog radio http://www.ferracci.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
