I agree. The ITU is the only 'body' that would have that authority, or they could use a range already assigned to them but not yet used.
This whole change is really confusing, in that, prior to 10/10 the PJ's were individual by area but under control of Netherlands. Now, after 10-10 they (some) are now 'separate' or on their own. So then, PJ6 was PJ6, but now is PJ6!! The only real change is by whom they are governed by. I would think that a new facet of identifying a deleted country is date of deletion, that is, the old PJ6 counts for a country, and the new PJ6 counts for a totally new country. I don't know how the programming is, but couldn't that also be taken into consideration? A QSO with PJ6 on 1/1/00 would be counted as a 'deleted' country with country number XXX, and a QSO with PJ6 on 10/15/10 would be counted as country number ZZZ, Make sense? I know it would have been easier if the actual prefixes changed to something totally new i.e. PJ6 became PL6, but that obviously isn't going to happen. Just a thought. Mike K8PTT On 10/17/10 2:06 PM, "Larry E Price" <[email protected]> wrote: > If you mean the call sign prefixes those have little to do with ARRL, they > are assigned by the ITU, usually by the Secretary General under delegated > authority to be confirmed by the next World Radiocommunications conference. > > Larry, W4RA > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Neal Campbell [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 1:55 PM >> To: DXBase List >> Subject: [Dxbase] Status of PJ Updater >> >> Hi All, >> >> Looking at what everyone pre-supposes, it appears consensus is that the >> League will re-use the existing prefixes with the four new DXCC >> entities. >> This is very difficult for doing the upgrade in DXBase as some of you >> have >> commented to me. >> >> The issue, and this is programming-speak, is that the Primary Prefix >> does >> not allow duplicate primary prefixes to exist in the database. Purely >> related to the database, there is a way around this but Jack believes >> it >> would be very dangerous in terms of the logic in DXBase. >> >> If the supposition is correct of re-using the prefixes, this will >> require >> that we delete the pre-10/10/2010 entities, add them back with a >> different >> prefix as deleted entities, then add the new entities. Secondly, we >> will >> have to go through all your qsos using the old entities and replace the >> deleted prefixes with the new prefixes. The other option is to leave >> the old >> prefixes alone and just add the new entities with special prefixes to >> differentiate them. Either way, there is a question about how LOTW, for >> instance, would handle these qsos. >> >> I really, really hope the League does not reuse the prefixes so we do >> not >> have to do this convoluted process. >> >> I hope to get up with the Awards director at the League early next week >> and >> get clarification. You will be the second to know what I hear. >> >> 73 >> Neal Campbell >> Abroham Neal Software >> www.abrohamnealsoftware.com >> (540) 645 5394 >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Dxbase mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:[email protected] >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > ______________________________________________________________ > Dxbase mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Dxbase mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
