Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
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.
When the DXCC rule change was made that eliminated the IARU society
requirement as one of the criteria for identifying a "political entity",
it was done by the ARRL board, apparently without input from the DXAC,
the Awards Committee, and the Programs and Services Committee. My
understanding is that this was discussed by the board in closed session
for the specific purpose of keeping the discussion confidential.
Apparently the creation of these somewhat questionable IARU societies
was causing unexpected problems. My guess is that it was seen as
reducing the credibility of the overall IARU organization. Does anyone
doubt that some of these IARU societies were created solely to justify
new DXCC countries? Has anyone ever heard the full story behind this
closed-door ARRL board session? Inquiring minds want to know!
73,
John, K9MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/dx-news@njdxa.org
THE DXR is sponsored by the North Jersey DX Association.
Please visit our website:
http://www.njdxa.org/index.php
scroll to bottom for subscribe/unsubscribe options
----------------------------------------------------------
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
