Peter wrote:
> Personally, I wish they'd re-write the DXCC criteria entirely to get
> rid of stuff which, if proposed today, wouldn't qualify (the
> 4U1UN/ITU versus 4U1WB / 4U1VIC, etc); probably Scarborough Pimple
> would fit into that category as well. Personally, I love the
> challenge of having some hard-to-work places out there, but it really
> should be equitable across the board--not one set of rules for
> old-timers' sake and one for everyone else. I've NEVER been a fan of
> "grandfathering" anything to anybody.
This new rule probably makes sense in that it recognizes essentially
self governing indigenous populations. However, DXCC needs to be
"rationalized" ... the list needs to be "cleaned" and entities that
do not qualify based on the current rules should be removed. The
criteria for entity status need to be further tightened:
1) any entity that does not have a permanent, indigenous (non-
military) population should not be a "country."
2) any territory that is privately owned, e.g., Swain's Island,
Cocos (Keeling) Island, Palmyra, etc. should not be eligible
for "country" status
3) any territory that controls access beyond normal, sovereign
(passport and visa) entry requirements should not be eligible.
4) any entity subject to jurisdictional dispute (e.g. the
Spratley Islands) should not be eligible for inclusion
until sovereignty has been settled by the World Court or UN.
Yes, I realize it will reduce the number of entities ... I'll
lose far more than I would gain. However, this will return DXCC
much closer to the original idea of the program. DXCC was never
intended to encourage amateurs to take the extraordinarily high
risk involved in landing and operating on a 10 sq meter rock in
the middle of a reef or hitting the beach in a war zone.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
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
