Yes Ria, I am well aware of the DXCC status of 4U1WB and many of the other
entities or areas of the world that I mentioned in example.
My point was and is that the rule, as currently written, was ultimately not
at all clear. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion about 4U1WB.
( Sorry if that wasn't clear. ) And under the same strict interpretation of
the rule, should not any entry from Z6 also be DQ'd under the same
reasoning as given? NOT that I am advocating that this be done, not at all!
But the rules ought to be the same for the goose as they are for the gander.
I am not certain that the proposed change in wording would completely clear
up these potential discrepancies. I can think of a few ways to solve that
issue once and for all, but considering how beaten up N4TZ has been getting
via emails the last few days... If he'd like my opinion on the matter, he's
welcome to ask, but otherwise I am going to keep it to myself and try to
finish my club newsletter in time to have a few hours in the CQ WW before
the end of Sunday evening!
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: Ria Jairam [mailto:rjairam@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 2:16 PM
To: Ron Notarius W3WN
Cc: Hank Greeb; CQ-Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is 4UITU and other calls with 4U1 prefix illegal?
Hi Ron,
Remember that DXCC is an ARRL program. The country list for DXCC for CQ
awards and contests closely mirrors DXCC, however there are a few
differences such as African Italy, Kosova, and the UN entities - with 4U1VIC
being a separate entity.
SO for CQ contests such as CQWW DX, CQ 160, and CQ WPX, you follow the CQ
list.
1A as SMOM is recognized under the CQ list. 1S in Sealand is not. I don't
think just any prefix goes. What if you contact an 11 meters operator
operating in the 10 meter band signing something like
123AT234 or something like that? It won't be a valid contact.
Let's take another case - Z6 Kosova. It is not on DXCC. The prefix block is
not assigned by the ITU/UN. But it's a CQ entity. Perfectly valid for the
contest and counts as a mult.
4U1WB lalls into a kind of outside of those - not recognized either by CQ or
ARRL as a separate entity but authorized by the ITU and the UN.
However the correct response was not to DQ them. The status of 4U1WB should
be fixed and CQ awards branch should decide whether they are a separate
entity or not, once and for all, and if they are not, recognize the UN as a
licensing authority in the USA for UN callsigns.
Very easy fix.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Hank,
>
> 4U1UN and 4U1ITU are both considered, for most amateur radio purposes
> including most contests, as separate countries/entities from their
> surrounding host nations, since they land areas that they reside in
> are considered UN territory. This is a distinction that 4U1WB does
> not have, since (if I am not mistaken) only the World Bank building
> itself is considered UN territory.
>
> (DXCC does not consider 4U1WB or, for that matter, 4U1VIC as separate
> entities due to rules changes since 4U1ITU and 4U1UN were so
> recognized. I believe that TP2CE also falls into the same category as
> 4U1WB and for the same reasons)
>
> But here's one to consider...
>
> What if someone decided to run a CQ WPX op (prior to any rules
> changes, of
> course) from 1A0KM at SMOM. Under the same strict interpretation of
> the rule, would it not also be DQ'd? And yet, would there be any
> doubt from anyone who worked the station about where it was located
> and who had sanctioned it? (OK, yes, some would, but a quick lookup
> would take care of the issue)
>
> How about someone running a 1S station from Sealand? Or 1B Northern
Cyprus?
>
>
> I suspect that the purpose of the rule was to prevent someone from
> picking a self-assigned call and operating (or claiming to) from
> certain areas of the world that are, to put it mildly, in political...
> Flux. (If that is the case, one may want to argue whether or not it
> is truly necessary, but set that aside for right now). Or for similar
> reasons, to prevent some far-fetched and possibly improper combinations.
>
> That being said, I do not believe that the rule was ever intended for
> some of our "special cases" like 4U1WB, who operate under unusual BUT
> LEGAL situations.
>
> I am glad to see that the DQ is being rescinded. I do regret though
> that this situation had to come up in the first place, and put the
> 4U1WB team through this aggravation.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of Hank Greeb
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 10:09 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Is 4UITU and other calls with 4U1 prefix illegal?
>
> Who "sanctions" 4U1ITU and 4U1UN for examples. 4U1ITU has been in
> many contests, not sure of in CW WW contests, but I'm >99.44% sure
> that it is one of the "HQ" stations for the IARU World Championship
contest held every
> year. Maybe, if IARU and the Untied Nations is disqualified, perhaps the
> every four year World Championship contest needs to be disqualified.
>
> Or, maybe, just maybe, someone in charge of the CQ Contests should
> consult with reps of the Contest Community, like Oh Fishy Alls of the
> RAC, WIA, LABRE, ARRL, the RSGB, the DARC, the Russian Amateur Radio
> Union (sorry folks, I don't have a Cyilic Alphabet Handy, and don't
> remember much of my college Russian anyway, JARL, et. cetera, and get
> a mutual opinion rather than an arbitrary (and in my estimation,
> capricious) judgement on the subject of 4U1 prefix calls.
>
> I personally don't know if ITU, IARU, or the Untied Nations issues
> these calls, but they been in use since before I was licensed (shortly
> after sp*rk was banned), so i'd think that at least one or two of the
> ham radio fraternity must believe they are legitimate calls.
>
> Lettuce be reasonable. Lettuce knot pic nits. If the holder of 4U1WB
is
> NOT operating from the UN HQ, or a building leased by the Untied
> Nations, there may be a very fine point. I don't know these details.
>
> Or, maybe we'll "strip" all he contacts which have been made with
> these calls from all records. And, declare that the World
> Championship is a sham because IARU claims to sponsor it, and the IARU
> is NOT a National organization?
>
> However, whatever the decision, it will be a consensus decision,
> rather than that of one person.
>
> 72/73 de n8xx Hg
> QRP >99.44% of the time
>
> CQ contests needs to consult with representativesOn 10/27/2017 5:52
> PM, cq-contest-request@contesting.com wrote:
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:51:12 -0500
>> From: Zack Widup<w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
>> To: CQ Contest<cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX
>> Contest?
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <CANJxhWj3y4tyKHcg+vJVCkcb1JgJVrzpNgxwc9YMSq3_pb57iw@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>
>> How do they happen to be operating with that callsign, then? Is it
>> illegal
> for them to use that callsign?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>>
>> 73, Zack W9SZ
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Terry Zivney<n4tz@arrl.net> wrote:
>>> Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX Contest?
>>>
>>> As Masa, AJ3M, noted in his posting about the disqualification of
>>> 4U1WB in the 2017 CQ WPX SSB contest, I informed him that:
>>>
>>> "4U1WB violated rule V.C.2:
>>>
>>> 2. Special event, commemorative, and other unique prefix stations
>>> are
> encouraged to participate. Prefixes must be assigned by the licensing
> authority of the country of operation.
>>>
>>> 4U1 is not assigned by the FCC, the licensing authority of the USA,
>>> which
> is what the log of 4U1WB showed as the country of operation."
>>>
>>> *********
>>>
>>> The WPX contest rule cited clearly states that the callsign must be
> assigned by the licensing authority. The FCC did not assign the
> callsign, and has no authority to issue 4U1WB callsigns. Thus, the
> station did not operate in compliance with the existing contest rules.
>>>
>>> Since 4U1 prefixes can be in multiple countries, rule V.C.1 would
>>> also
> apply. The DXCC list includes 4U1UN and 4U1ITU as separate entities.
> So, the
> 4U1 prefix does not denote the country of operation. This rule states:
>>>
>>> "A station operating from a DXCC entity different from that
>>> indicated by
> its call sign is required to sign portable." Because the 4U1WB
> callsign does not reflect the DXCC entity of USA, it is required to sign
portable.
>>>
>>> I did not write these rules, but was charged with interpreting and
> enforcing them.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|