March 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:16638] FW: [smlist:5043] Highlights of March SM Teleconference
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

As I have done in the past, I am forwarding Steve Ewald's notes from last week's SM Teleconference to the ODV list. 73, Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio 860 594 0220 hkramer(a)arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org/> ________________________________ From: Ewald, Steve, WV1X [mailto:wv1x@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:22 PM To: smlist Subject: [smlist:5043] Highlights of March SM Teleconference Hello, Section Managers. I have prepared a summary of highlights from the March 2008 Teleconference with Section Managers. On Wednesday evening, March 26, the Membership and Volunteer Programs hosted an ARRL telebridge teleconference with the Section Managers of the Central Division and Dakota Division. We welcomed Section Managers Skip Jackson, KS0J (Minnesota); Tom Cicicora, KA9QPN (Illinois); Kent Olson, KA0LDG (North Dakota); John Ellis, NP2B (US Virgin Islands). We also welcomed Greg Widin, K0GW (Dakota Division Vice Director). Steve Ewald, WV1X, and Chuck Skolaut, K0BOG, were HQ staff representatives. All Section Managers and Affiliated Club Coordinators recently received a request from HQ to name a few top clubs in their sections that do an outstanding job of recruiting, training and mentoring new licensees. The plan is for ARRL HQ to contact these suggested clubs to find out more about what they do and how they do it so well -- and then to share some of their success stories. The teleconference participants discussed how clubs in their sections are successfully recruiting and training new radio amateurs. Some clubs are associated with a school, and others clubs help sponsor a state wide QSO Party. These kinds of club commitments help foster the growth and activity levels of Amateur Radio. ARRL Field Day is also an active time of the year for recruiting new radio amateurs and mentoring new operators to get involved in various Amateur Radio activities. Call participants talked about the strategies that they employ to visit Field Day camps around their respective sections. When representing ARRL at a hamfest, convention or club meeting, it would be helpful for SMs to have access to a summarized list of "talking points" on various subjects in order to help answer questions or to appropriately make referrals. The ARRL Web's news articles, QST, and Web pages are good, timely resources to study and refer to when preparing for a meeting or hamfest. Over the years, several net frequencies - such as 14.300 MHz, 14.325 MHz, 21.360 MHz, 3.760 MHz - have also become well known and established frequencies for handling emergency traffic and situations. Teleconference participants discussed the scenario that could happen if a radio amateur with a true emergency were to call for help on those frequencies during a heavily populated contest weekend. The fear was that a station in distress would not be heard. In order to help alleviate this scenario, the group wondered if it would possible to ask contest organizers/sponsors to better promote the emergency frequencies and to ask contest participants to avoid those frequencies. One potential operating activity came to mind. How about a QSO party that promoted the Field Organization? This idea was reminiscent of the ARRL Communications Department contests of several decades ago and of the Hiram Percy Maxim birthday celebrations in the 1990s. 73, Steve Ewald, WV1X Supervisor, Field Organization Team ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio 860-594-0265 sewald(a)arrl.org <mailto:sewald@arrl.org>

1 0

Another Constituent's Opinion
by Bob Vallio 30 Mar '08

30 Mar '08

I'm sure you're aware of the 'letter writing' campaign that has been initiated by OH2BH, W3UR, etc, to solicit favorable consideration by the ARRL to retroactively change the DXCC rules to accept Kosova as a new DXCC entity, effective February 17, 2008. (And consequently approve the YU8/OH2R operation as counting for the new entity.) *I am opposed to changing the DXCC entity rules retroactively, after the fact.* While I personally think that accepting Kosova as a new DXCC entity is a noble and moral idea, the idea of changing the rules *after *the operation is over simply does not smell right to me, and would lead to many questioning the integrity of the DXCC program. I am well aware that among the DX community there is a large group of 'Martti haters', that oppose the proposed rule change simply because Martti/OH2BH is involved. I am emphatically *not *among that group. I have been, and remain a big 'fan' of OH2BH/N7NG/W3UR, and have become weary of listening to what seems to be incessant whining by those who dislike Martti for reasons that were and remain unclear to me. I have always admired Martti and continue to hold him in the highest regard. But my opposition to the proposed DXCC rule change to accommodate the 'unique' situation in Kosova has nothing to do with who supports/opposes it. (If personalities *were *the only thing involved, I'd be strongly in *favor *of the change.) My opposition is based on my belief that it is generally ill advised to change the rules after the 'game has been played', and I see this situation as just that. In addition, I would be *very *cautious about changing the DXCC rules in the future to accommodate the 'Kosova' situation. I can imagine future cases where a group 'declares independence', is recognized by some other country, but the moral legitimacy is counter to what we in the USA believe. Recognizing Kosova as a new entity, even though it does not meet UN membership or ITU call sign block assignment criteria sounds good 'this time', but if we change the rules to recognize Kosova, we may find ourselves forced to recognize other 'entities' that have no real validity or legitimacy. (E.g. the Indian tribe that declared it's 'independence' from the USA some years ago.) I trust your integrity and judgment for what influence you may have in this issue, but felt compelled to voice my opinion as a counter to the many 'pro-Kosova' cards I suspect that you will receive. ---------------------------------------------------- 73, Bob -- W6RGG

1 0

FW: Joe Pater W8GEX License
by K8JE 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Interesting to say the least. This, of course, does not suggest the operation was not licensed and did not take place -- at least for a few days. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Fazli Shala [mailto:Fazli.Shala@eumik.org] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:52 AM To: W8GEX(a)aol.com Subject: RE: Joe Pater W8GEX License Dear Sir, Yes it is true, when I was informed for their activity, I asked them to leave the Kosovo. Regards, Fazli Shala FMO UNMIK EU Pillar ________________________________ From: W8GEX(a)aol.com [mailto:W8GEX@aol.com] Sent: Fri 28/03/2008 12:21 To: Fazli Shala Subject: Re: Joe Pater W8GEX License Fazil, What's your take on this link http://www.n4gn.com/yu8/ ? It has been reported that you asked them to leave the country, is this true? Joe W8GEX ________________________________ Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home <http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom0 0030000000001> . ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange. =

1 0

[arrl-odv:16635] Re:Appointment for Joel!
by Henry R. Leggette 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Joel, Congratulations! Keep up the good work across the river! 73, Henry - WD4Q

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16632] Re: OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation
by K8JE 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Incidentally, the "hot potato to which I referred is Dick's, not the League's. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:16 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16632] Re: OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation Tom, I have no problem with Dick forwarding Martti's "petition" to PSC. This is a time-honored way to handle hot potatoes. I also agree with you that HQ should review the issue; however, I feel it is an issue that could be taken up by the Board and, therefore, the PSC if desired. Certainly PSC could not unilaterally make changes in policy, but it would be appropriate for them to address the issue if they wish. In general, I believe staff should address most questions/issues of this type, first, but I believe this should not be considered to tie the Board's hands from initiating action itself. Incidentally, I received about 10 additional cards in the mail today. As a result, I am meeting the situation head-on in my monthly e-letter that is due out in a couple of days. Dave, I am paraphrasing some of the points you made in your excellent backgrounder. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:51 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16632] Re: OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation At 01:51 PM 3/27/2008, Richard J. Norton wrote: >I have been a personal friend of Martti Laine for many years. Martti >recently approached me about the ARRL Board getting involved with the >DXCC status of his recent Kosovo operation. > >I told him that I would forward any information he wanted the Board to >see to the appropriate Board committee, which is the PSC. In >accordance with that, here is his submission. I expect to tell Martti >that I have passed the information on, and the next PSC meeting will >be on May 31. > >Please understand that I am not advocating Martti Laine's position. I >am only forwarding information for consideration by other PSC members. I think the PSC is the wrong place to send the information. I think the PSC should handle it with a ten foot pole, hand it off to the HQ staff entrusted with DXCC country interpretations to make sure they have the available information. DXCC decisions shouldn't be handled by the Board or by standing committees. If there is a problem with DXCC rules, then consider changes with extreme caution and care. Do not make changes with the pressure of prominent DXers at your side. I'm pretty offended by Martti and by the QST DX Column editor in how they are working this on a political level. If the Board wants to get involved in DXCC decisions, we can go back and deal with Okino Torishima, 7O1YGF, 1A6SBO, 1G5A and a box full of other weird cards I have (and you probably have your own list) at the same time. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16632] Re: OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation
by K8JE 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Tom, I have no problem with Dick forwarding Martti's "petition" to PSC. This is a time-honored way to handle hot potatoes. I also agree with you that HQ should review the issue; however, I feel it is an issue that could be taken up by the Board and, therefore, the PSC if desired. Certainly PSC could not unilaterally make changes in policy, but it would be appropriate for them to address the issue if they wish. In general, I believe staff should address most questions/issues of this type, first, but I believe this should not be considered to tie the Board's hands from initiating action itself. Incidentally, I received about 10 additional cards in the mail today. As a result, I am meeting the situation head-on in my monthly e-letter that is due out in a couple of days. Dave, I am paraphrasing some of the points you made in your excellent backgrounder. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:51 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16632] Re: OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation At 01:51 PM 3/27/2008, Richard J. Norton wrote: >I have been a personal friend of Martti Laine for many years. Martti >recently approached me about the ARRL Board getting involved with the >DXCC status of his recent Kosovo operation. > >I told him that I would forward any information he wanted the Board to >see to the appropriate Board committee, which is the PSC. In >accordance with that, here is his submission. I expect to tell Martti >that I have passed the information on, and the next PSC meeting will >be on May 31. > >Please understand that I am not advocating Martti Laine's position. I >am only forwarding information for consideration by other PSC members. I think the PSC is the wrong place to send the information. I think the PSC should handle it with a ten foot pole, hand it off to the HQ staff entrusted with DXCC country interpretations to make sure they have the available information. DXCC decisions shouldn't be handled by the Board or by standing committees. If there is a problem with DXCC rules, then consider changes with extreme caution and care. Do not make changes with the pressure of prominent DXers at your side. I'm pretty offended by Martti and by the QST DX Column editor in how they are working this on a political level. If the Board wants to get involved in DXCC decisions, we can go back and deal with Okino Torishima, 7O1YGF, 1A6SBO, 1G5A and a box full of other weird cards I have (and you probably have your own list) at the same time. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:16632] Re: OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation
by Tom Frenaye 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

At 01:51 PM 3/27/2008, Richard J. Norton wrote: >I have been a personal friend of Martti Laine for many years. Martti >recently approached me about the ARRL Board getting involved with the >DXCC status of his recent Kosovo operation. > >I told him that I would forward any information he wanted the Board to >see to the appropriate Board committee, which is the PSC. In >accordance with that, here is his submission. I expect to tell Martti >that I have passed the information on, and the next PSC meeting will >be on May 31. > >Please understand that I am not advocating Martti Laine's position. I >am only forwarding information for consideration by other PSC members. I think the PSC is the wrong place to send the information. I think the PSC should handle it with a ten foot pole, hand it off to the HQ staff entrusted with DXCC country interpretations to make sure they have the available information. DXCC decisions shouldn't be handled by the Board or by standing committees. If there is a problem with DXCC rules, then consider changes with extreme caution and care. Do not make changes with the pressure of prominent DXers at your side. I'm pretty offended by Martti and by the QST DX Column editor in how they are working this on a political level. If the Board wants to get involved in DXCC decisions, we can go back and deal with Okino Torishima, 7O1YGF, 1A6SBO, 1G5A and a box full of other weird cards I have (and you probably have your own list) at the same time. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16630] RE: [arrl-odv:16629] OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation
by John Bellows 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

Dave: Thanks for the through background. This appears to be a situation where the DXCC Rules operated exactly as intended. DXCC is supposed to be about radio not international politics. Whatever our individual opinions about Kosovo may be they shouldn't influence whether Kosovo is a new "counter." The UN and ITU are in a much better position to address these political questions. "Radio politics" is challenging enough without ARRL wading into a deeper stream. For a short time I thought about seeking KØSOV/Ø as a call. Thankfully it is already assigned. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16630] RE: [arrl-odv:16629] OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation Martti is right in saying that Kosovo (or Kosova) is a unique case. Whether that uniqueness justifies or requires special treatment for DXCC purposes is an entirely different question. Martti misrepresents the situation in a number of ways. First he says that in 1999 "from a U.N. point of view, Kosovo became non-Yugoslavia (now Serbia)." This is simply wrong. Security Council Resolution 1244 specifically recognized the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's (FRY) sovereignty and territorial integrity, and spoke of Kosovo only in terms of substantial autonomy and self-government within Yugoslavia. The United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has an entirely different mandate than did the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), which was established at about the same time. It is significant that UNTAET was given a call sign allocation, 4W, specifically for use in East Timor whereas UNMIK issues licenses (including YU8/OH2R) using a prefix allocated to Yugoslavia (and later, Serbia). Martti then says that the UN "outlined a roadmap for what was described as Kosovo's internationally supervised independence." What he is referring to is the "Ahtisaari Plan" which in fact deliberately does not use the word "independence" -- although a fair reading of the Plan is that that would be the eventual practical result, after a period of European Union (EU) supervision. However, the Ahtisaari Plan was not accepted by all parties and it is not, therefore, a "UN roadmap." By the way, it may be worth noting that Mr. Ahtisaari served as President of Finland from 1994 until 2000. In points 1 and 2 Martti argues that contacts with Kosovo after February 17, 2008 should not count as Serbia. However, as far as I am aware all licenses for operation from Kosovo bear callsigns with a Serbian prefix. It could be argued that using a YT or YU callsign is tantamount to acknowledging Serbian sovereignty. (The Serbs have muddied the water considerably by using YT8 and YU8 callsigns from Serbia proper, a practice that predates February 17 but that escalated considerably after that.) We assume that operations using Serbian callsigns are from Serbia; we do not ask to see copies of licenses before accrediting such operations. In any event, under the DXCC Rules February 17, 2008 cannot be the "Event Date" upon which Kosovo would become a New Entity; the February 17 date has no particular significance for DXCC purposes. Our saying so is not a political statement, but is simply the only conclusion one can reach from reading the DXCC rules. Finally, DXCC is not an instrument of US foreign policy. In point 3 he acknowledges that Kosovo does not meet established DXCC criteria and argues that it be treated as a special case. Kosovo is unique, but that does not make it a special case for DXCC purposes. The issue here is simply one of timing. In the recent case of Montenegro, Montenegro declared independence on June 3, 2006 and was admitted to UN membership on June 28, 2006. It was added to the DXCC list as of the latter date, in accordance with the DXCC rules. It did not receive an ITU callsign allocation until May 11, 2007. Whichever event -- UN membership or ITU callsign allocation -- occurred first would have triggered the addition to the DXCC list. June 3 was not a significant date for DXCC purposes. Martti is probably right when he says that Kosova's UN admission "will not materialize in the foreseeable future." However, that does not close the door to its being added to the DXCC list by virtue of a callsign allocation, if not to the Republic of Kosova then to an international supervisory body as in the case of East Timor. I'm not sure what Martti is driving at in points 4 and 5. In the case of Swains Island there was a wrong-headed effort to browbeat the ARRL into agreeing to cede responsibility for the representation of American Samoa in the IARU to a local group, solely to qualify Swains Island as a separate DXCC entity. This was an unintended consequence of a DXCC rule that made separate IARU membership a basis for being a DXCC entity. The ARRL Board rescinded the rule because of this abuse. Subsequently a way was found, and was agreed to by the DXAC, to write a rule so that Swains Island could be added without the negative consequences of the earlier rule. Since he has brought it up, let me add that an operation from Swains Island that occurred before the rules change does NOT count for DXCC; rules changes are not, and should not be, retroactive. Martti's point 6 assumes that a callsign allocation is not "on agenda." As discussed above, that is not necessarily the case. Martti accuses us of "rushing to act." The only reason we said anything at all about Kosovo was that members were asking questions about whether YU8/OH2R would count for a "new one." Reading the rules makes it clear that it would not. That's basically all we said, without specifically mentioning YU8/OH2R. In fact, there is no reason to rush. February 17 was not the end of the process for Kosovo, but was simply one step of many. There is widespread agreement that the best ultimate solution is for Kosovo and Serbia (along with the other parts of the former Yugoslavia) each to be part of an enlarged Europe. The challenge is how to get there, with as little bloodletting and as quickly as possible -- and unfortunately, there is not as much agreement on the "how" part. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:16630] RE: [arrl-odv:16629] OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

Martti is right in saying that Kosovo (or Kosova) is a unique case. Whether that uniqueness justifies or requires special treatment for DXCC purposes is an entirely different question. Martti misrepresents the situation in a number of ways. First he says that in 1999 "from a U.N. point of view, Kosovo became non-Yugoslavia (now Serbia)." This is simply wrong. Security Council Resolution 1244 specifically recognized the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's (FRY) sovereignty and territorial integrity, and spoke of Kosovo only in terms of substantial autonomy and self-government within Yugoslavia. The United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has an entirely different mandate than did the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), which was established at about the same time. It is significant that UNTAET was given a call sign allocation, 4W, specifically for use in East Timor whereas UNMIK issues licenses (including YU8/OH2R) using a prefix allocated to Yugoslavia (and later, Serbia). Martti then says that the UN "outlined a roadmap for what was described as Kosovo's internationally supervised independence." What he is referring to is the "Ahtisaari Plan" which in fact deliberately does not use the word "independence" -- although a fair reading of the Plan is that that would be the eventual practical result, after a period of European Union (EU) supervision. However, the Ahtisaari Plan was not accepted by all parties and it is not, therefore, a "UN roadmap." By the way, it may be worth noting that Mr. Ahtisaari served as President of Finland from 1994 until 2000. In points 1 and 2 Martti argues that contacts with Kosovo after February 17, 2008 should not count as Serbia. However, as far as I am aware all licenses for operation from Kosovo bear callsigns with a Serbian prefix. It could be argued that using a YT or YU callsign is tantamount to acknowledging Serbian sovereignty. (The Serbs have muddied the water considerably by using YT8 and YU8 callsigns from Serbia proper, a practice that predates February 17 but that escalated considerably after that.) We assume that operations using Serbian callsigns are from Serbia; we do not ask to see copies of licenses before accrediting such operations. In any event, under the DXCC Rules February 17, 2008 cannot be the "Event Date" upon which Kosovo would become a New Entity; the February 17 date has no particular significance for DXCC purposes. Our saying so is not a political statement, but is simply the only conclusion one can reach from reading the DXCC rules. Finally, DXCC is not an instrument of US foreign policy. In point 3 he acknowledges that Kosovo does not meet established DXCC criteria and argues that it be treated as a special case. Kosovo is unique, but that does not make it a special case for DXCC purposes. The issue here is simply one of timing. In the recent case of Montenegro, Montenegro declared independence on June 3, 2006 and was admitted to UN membership on June 28, 2006. It was added to the DXCC list as of the latter date, in accordance with the DXCC rules. It did not receive an ITU callsign allocation until May 11, 2007. Whichever event -- UN membership or ITU callsign allocation -- occurred first would have triggered the addition to the DXCC list. June 3 was not a significant date for DXCC purposes. Martti is probably right when he says that Kosova's UN admission "will not materialize in the foreseeable future." However, that does not close the door to its being added to the DXCC list by virtue of a callsign allocation, if not to the Republic of Kosova then to an international supervisory body as in the case of East Timor. I'm not sure what Martti is driving at in points 4 and 5. In the case of Swains Island there was a wrong-headed effort to browbeat the ARRL into agreeing to cede responsibility for the representation of American Samoa in the IARU to a local group, solely to qualify Swains Island as a separate DXCC entity. This was an unintended consequence of a DXCC rule that made separate IARU membership a basis for being a DXCC entity. The ARRL Board rescinded the rule because of this abuse. Subsequently a way was found, and was agreed to by the DXAC, to write a rule so that Swains Island could be added without the negative consequences of the earlier rule. Since he has brought it up, let me add that an operation from Swains Island that occurred before the rules change does NOT count for DXCC; rules changes are not, and should not be, retroactive. Martti's point 6 assumes that a callsign allocation is not "on agenda." As discussed above, that is not necessarily the case. Martti accuses us of "rushing to act." The only reason we said anything at all about Kosovo was that members were asking questions about whether YU8/OH2R would count for a "new one." Reading the rules makes it clear that it would not. That's basically all we said, without specifically mentioning YU8/OH2R. In fact, there is no reason to rush. February 17 was not the end of the process for Kosovo, but was simply one step of many. There is widespread agreement that the best ultimate solution is for Kosovo and Serbia (along with the other parts of the former Yugoslavia) each to be part of an enlarged Europe. The challenge is how to get there, with as little bloodletting and as quickly as possible -- and unfortunately, there is not as much agreement on the "how" part. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:16629] OH2BH Input to PSC Regarding Kosovo Operation
by Richard J. Norton 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

I have been a personal friend of Martti Laine for many years. Martti recently approached me about the ARRL Board getting involved with the DXCC status of his recent Kosovo operation. I told him that I would forward any information he wanted the Board to see to the appropriate Board committee, which is the PSC. In accordance with that, here is his submission. I expect to tell Martti that I have passed the information on, and the next PSC meeting will be on May 31. Please understand that I am not advocating Martti Laine's position. I am only forwarding information for consideration by other PSC members. In view of the postcard campaign to ARRL Directors now underway, I am also sending this E-mail to the ODV reflector for the edification of the other Board member's I'll post further thoughts on this matter to the PSC reflector in a few days. My initial look is that the ARRL has rules on new countries/entities that were put in place for good reason. It also appears that staff followed those rules. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Martti Laine <martti.laine(a)kolumbus.fi> Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM Subject: N6AA de OH2BH To: n6aa(a)arrl.org Dick, after my discussion with Wayne, N7NG it was decided that I will write my own memorandum. All our DXCC related efforts are obviously based on the assumption that the ARRL would follow the U.S. foreign policy. I just received another email suggesting that this may not necessarily be the case. If following the Russia and their allies, we would never argue on these points. And U.N. - there cannot be any official standing on this! Thank you once again for taking this up for fair consideration - hopefully my memorandum would be of some help. Please confirm that you have received this with the attachment. Rgds, Martti

1 0