Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
I agree 100%. Where are the locals? If they decided to make Tennessee a new DXCC entity, I would be on the air as much as Martti was (what an amazing effort). If I could not be FIRST, then I would be first to get the QSL cards in the hands of the deserving. I'd have a local printer working hard on a basic card and have my logs uploaded to LoTW every 24 hours. There is more than one way to win this race. Garth, KW4MM - Original Message - From: Joe Stepansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 6:45 AM Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long) Well, 7O1YGF was disallowed for DXCC because the license (or whatever) was supposedly signed by the wrong person. I'm not trying to start something, but I figure if that technicality is enough to disallow credit, this probably is too. But several have mentioned something I'd not thought about. Let's assume for a minute that FJ/OH2AM is disallowed for DXCC. WHERE ARE ALL THE FJ HAMS RIGHT NOW? Yes, I'm shouting. Were it me, were I an FJ ham, I'd be doing two things: 1. Not worrying much about FJ/OH2AM DXCC legality. I might be a little cheesed they started first, but I wouldn't have let that situation develop to begin with. I'd have been on the air on the first day FJ became an entity. Even with FJ/OH2AM's presence I would have been on 10 (you never know), 15, RTTY, 160, etc. 2. With FJ/OH2AM no longer operating, I'd be pounding away giving everybody a new one. That's what bothers me right now. What is the possible motivation to avoid being on the air? FJ5KH has already been on the air, so it's not like this will be another first time operation. By far, #2 bothers me the most. OK, feel free to question the legality of the previous operation, but then don't keep your rigs cold. Get on the air and have some fun. I'm confused. 73, Joe KQ3F At 12:23 AM 12/29/2007 -0500, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: 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? 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1201 - Release Date: 12/28/2007 11:51 AM 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
RE: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
I was wondering when that was going to come up. 7O1YGF was NOT disallowed by the DXCC because the license was signed by the wrong person. In fact... it has not been disallowed at all, as I understand it. 7O1YGF remains in pending documentation status. That is to say that, as would be the case of ANY entity on the list that operation from is for one reason or another difficult or near-impossible to come by, the 7O1YGF DXpedition has been expected to provide documentation that they had permission to enter the country and operate legally from it. (This is the legacy of Don Miller, Romeo, and a few others of that ilk, I might add). My understanding is that this documentation has yet to be produced. When he was still at the League, Wayne Mills N7NG was waiting for any documentation. Do a search on the League web site, you can read his own words on the subject for yourself. While Wayne is no longer in CT, I suspect that the same attitude remains the same. The onus on the approval of the operation rests on the team. Have they nothing to show that they were allowed to be there? But getting back to our current little tempest in a teapot: Was the OH2AM club call improperly used? As I said before, I lack sufficient knowledge of the CEPT rules to judge. If it was improperly used, presumably in error (as I can't see any reason for it to be anything else), is this alone an infraction sufficient enough to disallow the operation? (Remember that the discretion on this lies with the DXCC -- it MAY rule that this is a large enough infraction, but it doesn't HAVE to) And yes... where are all the FJ hams? And I have to further wonder... if they choose not to operate, then what's the beef? 73 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Stepansky Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 7:45 AM To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long) Well, 7O1YGF was disallowed for DXCC because the license (or whatever) was supposedly signed by the wrong person. I'm not trying to start something, but I figure if that technicality is enough to disallow credit, this probably is too. But several have mentioned something I'd not thought about. Let's assume for a minute that FJ/OH2AM is disallowed for DXCC. WHERE ARE ALL THE FJ HAMS RIGHT NOW? Yes, I'm shouting. Were it me, were I an FJ ham, I'd be doing two things: 1. Not worrying much about FJ/OH2AM DXCC legality. I might be a little cheesed they started first, but I wouldn't have let that situation develop to begin with. I'd have been on the air on the first day FJ became an entity. Even with FJ/OH2AM's presence I would have been on 10 (you never know), 15, RTTY, 160, etc. 2. With FJ/OH2AM no longer operating, I'd be pounding away giving everybody a new one. That's what bothers me right now. What is the possible motivation to avoid being on the air? FJ5KH has already been on the air, so it's not like this will be another first time operation. By far, #2 bothers me the most. OK, feel free to question the legality of the previous operation, but then don't keep your rigs cold. Get on the air and have some fun. I'm confused. 73, Joe KQ3F At 12:23 AM 12/29/2007 -0500, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: 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? 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 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
WHERE ARE ALL THE FJ HAMS RIGHT NOW? I think we can assume that the FJs that live on the island are not DXers, and probably could not handel the resulting pile-ups. Win, W0LZ 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
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. Gerry VE6LB - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius W3WN To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:14 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long) I was wondering when that was going to come up. 7O1YGF was NOT disallowed by the DXCC because the license was signed by the wrong person. In fact... it has not been disallowed at all, as I understand it. 7O1YGF remains in pending documentation status. That is to say that, as would be the case of ANY entity on the list that operation from is for one reason or another difficult or near-impossible to come by, the 7O1YGF DXpedition has been expected to provide documentation that they had permission to enter the country and operate legally from it. (This is the legacy of Don Miller, Romeo, and a few others of that ilk, I might add). My understanding is that this documentation has yet to be produced. When he was still at the League, Wayne Mills N7NG was waiting for any documentation. Do a search on the League web site, you can read his own words on the subject for yourself. While Wayne is no longer in CT, I suspect that the same attitude remains the same. The onus on the approval of the operation rests on the team. Have they nothing to show that they were allowed to be there? But getting back to our current little tempest in a teapot: Was the OH2AM club call improperly used? As I said before, I lack sufficient knowledge of the CEPT rules to judge. If it was improperly used, presumably in error (as I can't see any reason for it to be anything else), is this alone an infraction sufficient enough to disallow the operation? (Remember that the discretion on this lies with the DXCC -- it MAY rule that this is a large enough infraction, but it doesn't HAVE to) And yes... where are all the FJ hams? And I have to further wonder... if they choose not to operate, then what's the beef? 73 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Stepansky Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 7:45 AM To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long) Well, 7O1YGF was disallowed for DXCC because the license (or whatever) was supposedly signed by the wrong person. I'm not trying to start something, but I figure if that technicality is enough to disallow credit, this probably is too. But several have mentioned something I'd not thought about. Let's assume for a minute that FJ/OH2AM is disallowed for DXCC. WHERE ARE ALL THE FJ HAMS RIGHT NOW? Yes, I'm shouting. Were it me, were I an FJ ham, I'd be doing two things: 1. Not worrying much about FJ/OH2AM DXCC legality. I might be a little cheesed they started first, but I wouldn't have let that situation develop to begin with. I'd have been on the air on the first day FJ became an entity. Even with FJ/OH2AM's presence I would have been on 10 (you never know), 15, RTTY, 160, etc. 2. With FJ/OH2AM no longer operating, I'd be pounding away giving everybody a new one. That's what bothers me right now. What is the possible motivation to avoid being on the air? FJ5KH has already been on the air, so it's not like this will be another first time operation. By far, #2 bothers me the most. OK, feel free to question the legality of the previous operation, but then don't keep your rigs cold. Get on the air and have some fun. I'm confused. 73, Joe KQ3F At 12:23 AM 12/29/2007 -0500, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: 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? 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 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 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
If that's true, there should be no complaint about the other operation. John K5MO At 11:24 AM 12/29/2007, Win wrote: WHERE ARE ALL THE FJ HAMS RIGHT NOW? I think we can assume that the FJs that live on the island are not DXers, and probably could not handel the resulting pile-ups. Win, W0LZ 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 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
7O1YGF remains in pending documentation status. As is, at least for me, ZB2/4O3AL. I fail to understand, if an operation is legitimate, why the operator(s) are reluctant to send documentation? HNY to all C'Ya, Shelby - K4WW 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
RE: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
Remember VK0LD/VK0MM? When he first went on the air in 1999, at least one third party sent a routine query to the DXCC desk regarding the legitimacy of the operation from Macquarie. The third party received back a standard we have to see documentation reply. This was then relayed to Alan, copied via another DX reflector. But it was done in such a way as to imply that the ARRL was demanding immediate response with copies of license etc. In other words, someone just HAD to stir up trouble by putting a nasty slant on things. Of course, there were plenty of people to chime in on both sides of the issue and escalate the temperature up a few notches. And sure enough, Alan got very angry and responded in kind that since HE was the licensing authority at the time on the island, he didn't need to provide proof to any third party and they could go pound salt. (Well, that's not EXACTLY what he said, but this is a family reflector) The matter was sorted out in short order, but the whole incident was completely unneccesary and only served to get a few twisted individuals a momentary cheap thrill. But that's one reason that some legit ops don't like being asked to provide documentation. The reality is that the days where Don Miller and his World Wide Propagation Study could just suddenly announce that he was now QRV from Pongo Bongo Reef, and his word as an Amateur Radio Operator was good enough to accept that he was there, is long gone. (In large part because of Don Miller, and Romeo and his North Korea and Burma ops, and a small handful of others). Now mix into that some governments who have complained about illegal operations -- some of which may be due to a change of politics following a change of administration, ie 9U a few years back; or our public servants at the US FWS who are hell bent on keeping US citizens off of certain FWS administered islands, hams or not, and whom have demanded that the ARRL remove their islands from the DXCC entity ranks -- and it's little wonder that we have to live with these aggravations these days. 73 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shelby Summerville Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:39 PM To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long) 7O1YGF remains in pending documentation status. As is, at least for me, ZB2/4O3AL. I fail to understand, if an operation is legitimate, why the operator(s) are reluctant to send documentation? HNY to all C'Ya, Shelby - K4WW 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 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
Shelby: This topic gets regurgetated periodically and the answer will be the same as before. Froom Hans (DK9KXA or DK9XX?) who was part of the group that went there: No documentation was sent to DXCC because they never got actual paper confirmation of permission to operate there. They had verbal permission. Written permission has be be obtained directly from the Ministry of PTT. In spite of numerous letters, the Ministry of PTT would not send the written documentation to back up their verbal permission. As far as I know, that is still the case. They did their operation in Sanaa, in plain sight and with the knowledge of the local chief of secret police who monitored their opertion and did not complain. They had substantial antenna systems installed which made it very obvious what was going on. It was 400 yards away from the HB9 and DL embassies. After 9 days of operation and 35K QSO's, they were asked to cease operation and leave the country which is what they did. No one was arrested and no equipment was confiscated. The beef is with the Ministry of PTT for failure to back up their verbal permission with the ARRL required documentation and until they do, it will not be recognized by DXCC. Per Hans, the operation was stopped because a ham radio group complained about it and caused its demise. They know who the people are. The DXpedition group is not to blame. They had every reason to believe that they had proper permission for the operation. John Owens - N7TK -- Original message -- From: Shelby Summerville [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7O1YGF remains in pending documentation status. As is, at least for me, ZB2/4O3AL. I fail to understand, if an operation is legitimate, why the operator(s) are reluctant to send documentation? HNY to all C'Ya, Shelby - K4WW 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 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
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 3EUR, 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
[DX-CHAT] FJ: Canned Worms (long)
Before I say anything, if I come across a touch cranky, I apologize in advance. Had a family event run late, which caused me to miss a small social event at W3WH's QTH; worse, my geriatric dog left me an unwelcome present, the less said about that the better... Ahem. It seems to me that, after taking a step back and giving the matter some thought, we have two separate but inter-related major issues here. First, the issue of the legitimacy (for DXCC purposes) of the FJ/OH2AM operation. Many of the issues appear, IMHO, to be at best trivial or technical (or both) in nature. But let's look at some of them anyway. The matter of how Martti and Olli arrived on the island strikes me as somewhat irrelevant, especially in view of statements from others on this reflector and others about how strict access is -- or isn't. Since that issue wasn't raised in the F6GOX/FJ5BL letter, which implies there wasn't much if anything to the original gripe, we can probably forget about this. 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. To my mind, criminal is usually close to synonymous with felony. Somehow, using a club call for operating -- a club call that the trustee was operating, amongst others -- just doesn't rise to the felony level. Which is not to say that if the indicated CEPT regulations are valid, the use of the club call may have been a mistake. Now, many of you know Martti personally, probably better than I (I'm still impressed that the man remembers my call, but that's another story). He's one of the top DX'ers in the world -- possibly THE top DX'er at present. One of the reasons for this is that the man is known as a meticulous planner. Few if any details miss his attention; that's why he's one of the best. Is it possible that he simply overlooked the CEPT reciprocity regulations on club calls? Sure. It's possible. A few days ago, I would add but unlikely. But no one's perfect. And it is not unreasonable that he and Olli may have simply assumed that since CEPT covered their personal calls, the club call was also covered. Or, they may have checked with someone who was supposed to be familiar with the details of the regulation, and were incorrectly informed that CEPT covered the club call too. The preceding paragraph is assuming on my end that the implication in the F6GOX letter, that club calls are NOT covered under CEPT, is correct. Let me be clear that I am NOT stating this as a fact. I honestly don't know. 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've met the man several times and corresponded with him on other issues; I have no doubt that he's an honest man who will make the best decision that he can. Now regardless of what his decision is, there will be controvery -- the proverbial can of worms. If the operation is disallowed, you will hear one group complaining about a minor triviality. If it is allowed, you will hear another group counter-complaining that it was only approved because it is Martti, and Martti Can Do No Wrong. So I don't envy Bill or the rest of the DXCC staff on this one -- anything they do, someone will cry foul. Which starts to move into the second major issue. Why is this controversy being raised at all? Some will say that it's because Those Who Believe In The Purity of DXCC are just trying to be fair. If you believe that, we have to get back to discussing the price of that beachfront property in Arizona you're buying from me again. Sorry, but I feel that (as I mentioned in an earlier post) that this is another application of NIMBY -- Not In My Back Yard -- Syndrome. In other words... it comes across as sour grapes from some of the FJ hams. 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 how many knew of this at the time? I dimly remember hearing something about the possibility... but contrast that with the developing situation regarding political changes in the Netherlands Antilles, which we've all been aware of for many months now). And this was the effective date of this decree, so this had been in the works for awhile. Nothing appears to have happened until July 2, when the US State Department first proposed that their list of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty be updated. The next time something happened was when FJ5DX petitioned the DXCC Desk on November 8. Again, something that happened quietly. It wasn't
