Re: [DX-CHAT] Re:Kosova
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
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 pressure on the DXCC desk, directly or indirectly through the ARRL board, why don't we draft a proposed rule that WILL cover this and similar situations. And if this rule can't be applied retroactively? Well, that's the risks a DXpedition trying to be first from a new one takes. Just like the first group to Swain's, or Scarborogh, or others. Them's the breaks. 73, ron w3wn -Original Message
Re: [DX-CHAT] Re:Kosova
David and All, I think this is something that should be very carefully discussed, if it is discussed at all. The issue of Kosovo is a very sensitive one politically. Kosovo is an extremely important area to serbians, primarily due to its religious history and signfiicance. I don't think I can understate the significance it has to Serbia. On the other hand, you have a population in Kosovo which is something like 80% or more non-serbian, a result of years of people being shuffled around in that part of the world. I pass this on simply because I think it is important to have at least some idea of the depth of the controversy before we go clamoring for DXCC purposes. We should let things work themselves out politically (which I am not sure has occurred, since such a large portion of the world has withheld recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state). When there is some significant meeting of the minds about Kosovo, then it might be appropriate to proceed accordingly. To push too quickly on this is like picking on a scab that hasn't healed. Dave W7AQK - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:05 AM Subject: [DX-CHAT] Re:Kosova China, Russia, ARRL against. Free world in favor. Whose the patsies guys. David W1GDQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. 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
