[Dx-qsl] 7O1YGF and 7O1A

[Alfred J Cammarata]

Well, how about the Palestine op back a few years ago? What proof did
they have?  Arafats?  This could get ugly (read political which is where
I DO NOT wanna go). Seems to me, their QSL had a hint of  "propaganda" as
quid pro quo for that op. I may be wrong, but I dont think Palestine
is/was a recognized country/state.  Who gave it "entity" status? The UN,
ICAO, ITU? And who in the ham world asssumes the mantra for bestowing
"entity" status? Or decides what is and what is not proper documentation?
 In the real world, sometimes reality is not always the perception...
Just my opinion, folks.. GL & 73 Al w3awu


On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:25:45 -0400 "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <nn3w at cox.net>
writes:
> >From where I can see it, the matter simply comes down to proof.  You 
> MUST  have proof that permission was granted to operate.  Simply saying

> that you  got the greenlight is heresay.  K3LP and N3KS say that they
got 
> permission  to operate from KP5, but it was heresay until they could
produce the 
> 
> documentation authorizing their being on Desecheo.
> 
> Hams can step all over Scarborough Reef and make as many QSOs as 
> they want,  but the permission is all heresay until you can provide a
piece of 
> paper confirming you had permission to operate.
> 
> Would you rather have it in the future that hams simply say "we were 
> there,  so we must have had de facto permission."  Bad precedent.
> 
> 73 Rich NN3W
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
> To: "'DX-QSL Reflector'" <DX-QSL at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [Dx-qsl] 7O1YGF and 7O1A
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I just got done picking my jaw up off the floor.
> >
> > Doug, please explain.  I don't understand.
> >
> > Hans said that there were many phone calls from many individuals 
> to the
> > Ministry of PTT; he only cited ONE of those calls as coming from 
> the DXCC
> > desk.  How does that translate to "sabotage" by the DXCC?
> >
> > And exactly how has the DXCC desk "penalized" the 7O1YGF team?  Or
> > "declined" the operation?  Neither is the case!  It's in a 
> "pending"
> > status -- pending documentation.  Documentation that was promised 
> but not
> > delivered.  Documentation that would expected from ANY operation 
> from ANY
> > entity that is normally difficult to get a valid license from.
> >
> > It is so, so easy to blame The League.  That's the cheap and easy 
> way out,
> > isn't it?  It's certainly got to be The League's fault.  Must have 
> 
> > SOMETHING
> > to do with money, or profit, right?  Oh no, I forgot... it has to 
> do with
> > the DXCC King, or is it that guy out in Scandinavia, or maybe it's 
> the one
> > in Japan... well, one of them, anyway... the one who decides who 
> counts 
> > and
> > who doesn't.  Yeah, right, sure.
> >
> > There's no magic, no secret formula, no hidden agenda, no 
> conspiracy here.
> > The 7O1YGF DXpedition never submitted any paperwork.  Team members 
> were
> > asked, agreed to do it, and didn't.  How can this possibly be The 
> League's
> > fault?
> >
> > What's next?  Is someone now going to complain that it was really 
> someone 
> > at
> > The League with a Congressman in their pocket who deep-sixed the 
> KP5 
> > weekend
> > op December before last?
> >
> > We are becoming our own worst enemy, haven't you noticed?  There's 
> that 
> > one
> > station who seems to camp out on 14.195 as if he owns it... and 
> not only
> > chases the DX off the frequency, but has been known to follow them 
> up or
> > down the band a bit until he drives them off of 20 meters.  The 
> jamming 
> > and
> > QRM to casual DX and DX chasing is at an all time high.  It is 
> becoming
> > harder and harder to have a short ragchew with even "common" DX 
> without
> > having a ton of people descend and start screaming for the DX, 
> > obliterating
> > the frequency, the moment some schnook enters the QSO into a DX 
> cluster --
> > and gahd help them all if the call is entered wrong because 
> someone
> > "thought" they heard a rare DX.  And worst of all, induhviduals 
> with their
> > own agendas making phone calls to the FCC, IC, or other PTT 
> governmental
> > agencies or equivalents around the world asking or even demanding 
> if 
> > someone
> > is operating with a valid ticket.  Is it any wonder that some of 
> the
> > bureaucrats just say "the hell with it" and revoke or fail to 
> issue 
> > licenses
> > and just wash their hands of the whole thing?
> >
> > Pogo was more right than he ever knew.
> >
> > But -- as I said earlier tonight -- let's stick to facts, not 
> incendiary
> > supposition.  Are there facts to back up these volatile comments, 
> or are
> > they just assumptions?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> > [mailto:dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Doug Renwick
> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:06 PM
> > To: 'Hawa'
> > Cc: 'DX-QSL Reflector'
> > Subject: RE: [Dx-qsl] 7O1YGF and 7O1A
> >
> >
> > Hans,
> >
> > I am glad that this discussion has brought out people that
> > are directly involved in the 7O1YGF operation.  There has
> > been a lot of speculation, and hearing your side of the
> > story gives the issue balance.
> >
> > I agree that the 7O1YGF operation was first sabotaged and
> > then abandoned by the ARRL/DXCC.
> >
> > The 7O1YGF operation was certainly transparent and not a
> > clandestine operation.
> >
> > You have my sympathy.  I know the work that must have gone
> > into an operation of this size...the planning, the cost, the
> > equipment and so on.  And then in the end for it to be a
> > waste of time.  You have my sympathy but not the sympathy of
> > the ARRL/DXCC.
> >
> > No written documentation...true, but you were authorized to
> > operate.
> > The 7O1YGF operation was penalized by the ARRL/DXCC.  IMO
> > one of the biggest mistakes that the 7O1YGF team made was
> > not getting 'the blessing' of the ARRL/DXCC before arriving
> > in Yemen.  If you had done this, I believe the outcome may
> > have been different.
> > We may never hear the real reason for the ARRL/DXCC
> > declining the Yemen operation...it is so easy for them to
> > hide behind 'no written documentation'.  Someone will stand
> > up and say 'the rules state...' blah, blah, blah.  Some
> > rules need flexibility and this is one of them.
> >
> > I would like to hear more from the 7O1YGF team, especially
> > about the sabotage of this operation...it would certainly be
> > interesting.
> >
> > BTW to add balance to this discussion...I do actively
> > participate in the ARRL/DXCC program...honour roll, 9BDXCC.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] 7O1YGF and 7O1A
> >
> > Just to remind you all.
> > The following info I sent in 03/15/2002 in reply to a
> > message from
> > Wayne, N7NG/1
> >
> > I hope that answers all your questions!
> >
> > Well guys,
> >
> > I'll think its now the right time to give some information
> > from the
> > recent
> > 7O1YGF
> > operation.
> >
> > Wayne, N7NG/1 wrote: "In the second case (7O1YGF) no
> > documentation was
> > ever
> > submitted....."
> >
> > Thats true!
> >
> > We were not able to get a piece of paper stating about the
> > operation.
> > That was
> > NOT our fault.
> > During our operation the Ministry of PTT received faxes and
> > phone calls
> > from
> > amateurs around
> > the world, asking for the legetimacy of our operation.  One
> > of the fax
> > senders
> > was
> > DXCC Specialist Bill Moore, NC1L. This wasn't too helpfull.
> > Wayne
> > afterwards
> > apologised for that.
> > To get 7O1YGF credited for ARRL awards, Wayne want to have a
> > written
> > document
> > either faxed
> > or mailed from the Ministry of PTT in Sanaa DIRECTLY to ARRL
> > Headquarter, not to
> > us!
> > As I'm not a newbie in dxing, I never heard before from such
> > practice.
> >
> > Our operation was legal, verbal licence (Callsign 7O1YGF)
> > was given to
> > us upon
> > arrival. They denied
> > the second call (7O1II) for which we applied. We brought our
> > equipment
> > with us,
> > total of 220 pounds,
> > including two 5 element logperiodics. The operation site was
> > in the
> > diplomatic
> > quarter in Sanaa, appr.
> > 400 yards away from the HB9 and DL embassy. This area was
> > heavily
> > controlled by
> > Police and Army
> > day and night. Everybody could see our antennas, one was
> > mounted on a
> > 55ft tower
> > and the other one
> > top on a three story building.
> > We where supervised by the Chief of the Secret Police twice.
> > He didn't
> > complain
> > anything.
> > What would be happened if our operation was not legal?
> > After 9 days and 35k qso's we were forced by the Police to
> > end our
> > operation,
> > what we did immediatly.
> > Nobody was arrested and all of our equipment was taken out
> > the country.
> > Thats the story.
> >
> > AND our operation did not reflect badly on Amateur Radio but
> > those who
> > opposed.
> > We know the
> > callsigns and names.
> >
> > So, its on you to discuss if verbal permission is ok for any
> > ARRL
> > sponsored
> > award or not.
> >
> > Hans, DK9KX one of the 7O1YGF team
> > former calls: FR0ACC/G, DK9KX/S9, PY0ZSG, 5U7DX, 3D2CR,
> > ZS9AAA/1, J59KX,
> > N9KX/KH4
> > and some others
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Mills, Wayne N7NG" wrote::
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > Here is something to think about...
> > >
> > > As far as Hrane, YT1AD is concerned, North Korea
> > apparently gave him
> > ample
> > > reason why he shouldn't transmit(!) It might be
> > interesting to know
> > why he
> > > wasn't allowed to transmit, but he wasn't, and we missed
> > the
> > opportunity. On
> > > the other hand, Ed, P5/4L4FN appears to have at least the
> > tacit
> > approval of
> > > the DPRK, as he continues to operate. We don't know why,
> > and really
> > we don't
> > > have any right to know. I guess DPRK can do anything it
> > wants, and we
> > will
> > > respect their wishes.
> > >
> > > Someone wrote "...how is it decided who is the
> > "appropriate authority"?
> > > Shouldn't we be
> > > consistent?  If YT1AD was denied permission by the
> > "appropriate
> > authority",
> > > then how could that same "authority" grant permission to
> > someone else? At
> > > least, it would seem reasonable to seek a suitable answer
> > to that
> > question
> > > from the prior operators who had permission from some
> > "appropriate
> > > authority."
> > >
> > > Consistency is what we would expect based on most of our
> > experiences.
> > It is
> > > what happens in most places, but not all. On the other
> > hand, what
> > right do
> > > we have to expect that a particular government in the
> > World will be
> > > consistent? The World doesn't always work that way.  We
> > will fare
> > better if
> > > we adapt to the conditions instead of demanding what we
> > expect. Taking
> > > something off the list really isn't an option.
> > >
> > > Now this is a major point: ARRL does not want to
> > encourage any
> > activity that
> > > will reflect badly on Amateur Radio. If we were to issue
> > credit for an
> > > operation against the wishes of the "appropriate
> > authority," Amateur
> > Radio
> > > could suffer. Therefore, we would like to see tangible
> > evidence that an
> > > Amateur Radio operation is not illegal. Think about that
> > one for a while.
> > > This usually means a paper "license," but not
> > necessarily. North Korea is
> > > not the USA or France. As far as we know, Amateur Radio
> > in the DPRK
> > is not
> > > defined. To expect a license in writing like you get from
> > the FCC may be
> > > unrealistic in some situations. In general, if someone in
> > a high enough
> > > position says something is OK, and no one in a higher
> > position says
> > that it
> > > is not, it's probably OK. What happened in the first 7O
> > case (7O1A)
> > was that
> > > someone said it was OK, and then someone in a higher
> > position said it was
> > > not OK. We are not in a position to argue.
> >
> > > (In the second case (7O1YGF) no
> > > documentation was ever submitted,
> >
> > > so no should be waiting for us to make a
> > > decision on accreditation.) Every case is different. Too
> > many rules about
> > > these things don't help, and making comparisons to the
> > way things are
> > done
> > > in the US or Europe are meaningless.
> > >
> > > 73,  Wayne, N7NG/1
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems, etc
> > > DX-NEWS  http://njdxa.org/dx-news
> >
> > Fred Souto Maior schrieb:
> >> Congrats Doug. You really said how things are always
> >> hapenning. Specific rules for  particular guys and
> >> general rules to the others.
> >> And of course we have the option. Accept that fact
> >> and live with it or go away and do anything else !!
> >> That's the name of the game guys !!!
> >>
> >> Fred - PY7ZZ
> >>
> >> Doug Renwick escreveu:
> >>> My point is that the acceptance of an operation with the
> >>> ARRL/DXCC changes frequently.  Regardless of the DXCC
> > rules,
> >>> the acceptance/rejection of an operation is subjective
> > IMO
> >>> by the DXCC committee.  The ARRL could easily have made
> > an
> >>> exception for the Yemen operations as they have done in
> > the
> >>> past for other operations.
> >>> The rules are bent regularly.  Remember this is just a
> >>> hobby.
> >>> I have operated from countries where the use of a
> > callsign
> >>> had only verbal approval, no documentation.  Yet these
> >>> operations were accepted by the ARRL.  What makes the
> > Yemen
> >>> operations any different?
> >>> If you want to play the ARRL/DXCC game, you play by their
> >>> rules...and their interpretation/application of the rules
> >>> changes frequently...fact!  I understand that.  The
> >>> ARRL/DXCC rule application is not always transparent.
> > Big
> >>> Brother knows best.
> >>>
> >>> Doug
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Subject: RE: [Dx-qsl] 7O1YGF and TT8ZB
> >>>
> >>> 7O1YGF never submitted anything to the ARRL DXCC Desk!
> >>>
> >>> 7O1A submitted paper work from Aden, not Sana (the
> > capital).
> >>>
> >>> The ARRL DXCC Desk doesn't have a beef with any
> > countries!
> >>>
> >>> The ARRL DXCC program is one of the most sought after
> >>> programs by DXers
> >>> around the world and holds the highest integrity!
> >>>
> >>> Bernie, W3UR
> >>>
> >>> Bernie McClenny, W3UR
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> &quot;Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what
> > you've
> >> got...till it's gone.&quot; from Big Yellow Taxi (Joni
> > Mitchell) but
> >> also true about QSL.NET if more users don't open their
> > wallets and
> >> help financially. Please contribute TODAY !!
> >>
> >
> > &quot;Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what
> > you've got...till it's gone.&quot; from Big Yellow Taxi
> > (Joni Mitchell) but also true about QSL.NET if more users
> > don't open their wallets and help financially. Please
> > contribute TODAY !!
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release
> > Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release
> > Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > &quot;Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've 
> > got...till
> > it's gone.&quot; from Big Yellow Taxi (Joni Mitchell) but also 
> true about
> > QSL.NET if more users don't open their wallets and help 
> financially. 
> > Please
> > contribute TODAY !!
> >
> >
> > &quot;Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've 
> > got...till it's gone.&quot; from Big Yellow Taxi (Joni Mitchell) 
> but also 
> > true about QSL.NET if more users don't open their wallets and help 
> 
> > financially. Please contribute TODAY !! 
> 
> 
> &quot;Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've 
> got...till it's gone.&quot; from Big Yellow Taxi (Joni Mitchell) but 
> also true about QSL.NET if more users don't open their wallets and 
> help financially. Please contribute TODAY !!
> 

      ALFRED CAMMARATA
                  W3AWU