I don't believe that an entity such as BS7H and others would be accepted under the new DXCC Rules.
The real question should be is: "Is the current "4W" petition in the spirit of the DXCC Program?" Is the current petition in the interest of all those involved in the program and is the petition to be considered as a constructive or destructive force on the "program"? Operative word "Spirit."
The current "petition" , as I understand it, is based upon Section 1 subpart b of the current rules:
"The entity has been assigned a callsign prefix bloc by the ITU. A provisional prefix may be made by the Secretary General of ITU. Should such provisional assignments not be ratified later by the full ITU, the Entity will be removed from the DXCC List."
According to the petitioners, the ITU never ratified the assigned callsign block! The ball is in the hands of the ARRL and its "membership."
Perhaps we should look at Section III - 1 of the DXCC Rules: "Each nation of the world manages its telecommunications affairs differently. There rigid universal accreditation procedure cannot be applied in all situations. During more than 50 years of DXCC administration, basic standards have evolved in establishing the legitimacy of an operation."
Surely the above paragraph is in the true "spirit" of DXCC Program.
73, Jay/AF2C
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
