Ron,
The rules are clear. If they don't meet the current need, they may need to be
changed but not retroactively.
Gerry VE6LB
- Original Message -
From: Ron Notarius W3WN
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Re:Kosova
Gerry,
The more I think about it, the more I agree with your position.
I think if I had the power to make one change, at this point, it would be to
revert to the original wording of the DXCC-2000 rules regarding IARU societies.
Or failing that, at least putting that rule back on the books. While the
current criteria for the 3rd choice is fine in and of itself, as we can see
here, the Rule of Unintended Consequences shows us that there are always going
to be situations that the rules don't quite cover.
Now, IF that rule were reinstated (which, I know, is not going to happen, but
let's just what if? here a moment), there's still no guarantee that a
national amateur radio society for Kosova would be admitted to the IARU. But
that's poltics of another sort.
The bottom line remains that, in this and in several other situations, the
operators knew or should have known what the rules are when they began planning
and began operating. Should they choose to operate in situations where DXCC
approval is uncertain or unlikely, the onus on that should be on the operators,
not on the DXCC Desk. To constantly demand that the DXCC rules change,
virtually on a moments notice, to accomodate situations where the operators
could (and probably should) have known they wouldn't meet the criteria, is
unfair to the DXCC and everyone involved in it, and will only result in a
devauled program mired in chaos.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
73
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gerry Hohn
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:13 PM
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Re:Kosova
There are clear rules that cover this situation. There is no need for yet
another rule that further devalues the DXCC program to satisfy political
desires.
Gerry VE6LB
- Original Message -
From: Ron Notarius W3WN
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Re:Kosova
Pardon me?
The ARRL is neither for nor against Kosova's independance. The DXCC desk
is simply applying the rules as they currently exist. Unwarranted smears
against the organization are not going to help matters any, if you're inclined
to try and change their minds on the matter.
Funny that you should mention this today. In today's mail came my card
from FJ/OH2AM. Within the letter, besides the usual fillers for The Daily DX
and NCDXF was a nice, slick, preprinted post card, already addressed to my
Division Director -- in short, a form letter that all I had to do was sign
stamp drop in the mail -- requesting a change in the DXCC rules retroactive
to February 17, which (not coincidentally, I'm sure) would make the operation a
few weeks back count.
This troubles me on several levels. I don't like it in general when
someone, even people I know and respect, try to do an end-run around the rules
that were in place at the time of the operation. I don't like it when someone
tries to influence an organization with mass-mailings like this, which
sometimes work, but sometimes backfire.
What I dislike the most, though, are these continued calls for a
quick-fix to the rules we've had in place for close to 10 years. Overall, the
current DXCC rules (while not perfect -- I still disagree about not placing new
deleted entities on the existing deleted list) are fair, baqlanced, and devoid
of many of the unintended loopholes that existed in the past.
The irony is that the rules originally had a way around the UN / ITU
recognition. The existance of an IARU society. Now, I always thought that
rule was simply a way to make certain that a few entities (Hong Kong and Macao
specifically) to stay on the list after their political situation changed. But
it has been pointed out to me, by someone who was very involved in the drafting
and updating of the rules, that this was also intended to be used to cover
political situations similar to Kosova.
[Why did the rule get dropped? Do an internet search on the original
Swain's expedition. I can't say more about that, or the rule that replaced it
(which did get Swain's put on the list after all) without revealing some of my
sources; I should not speak for them or put them further on the spot.]
Bottom line is that the rules of unintended consequences have led to this
situation.
Yet, in all of the clamor to add Kosova to the list, no one seems to be
able to suggest HOW to do it, in a fair way. Just THAT it should (or
shouldn't) be done.
Rather than try to put
