[Dx-qsl] Re: 7O1YGF and 7O/OH2YY

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

My understanding from my sources is that the "documents" that were promised
were not delivered; instead they received other "documents" that did nothing
to indicate one way or the other that they had any official blessing to be
in country or to operate.

I know I'm not going to convince anyone who's already made their minds up,
but contrary to statements that have been made, the burden here is not on
the ARRL DXCC desk but on the 7O1YGF team leaders to follow through on their
many statements, comments, and promises over the years to show some sort of
proof that they had some sort of OK from someone in the government.

What would it take?  Well, let's look at what Pekka OH2YY did, and I quote
from the 6 May 2002 OPDX Bulletin (and thanks to Osten SM5DQC for digging
this up):  "...and he has received a written
confirmation dated on April 23rd, to import his radio equipment and to
operate them during his visit."

If one man could do it for a short business trip, one must wonder why a
major DXpedition with months of planning and significant expenditure of
time, money, and effort couldn't find the same piece of paper.  THAT is the
documentation needed and requested in lieu of a "license" that only exists
verbally.  Again, my understanding from my sources is that THAT was the type
of documentation promised at Friedrichshafen.  So what happened?

Look:  I'd like to see 7O1YGF approved for DXCC as much as you guys.  I
think it is sad and unfortunate that due to no fault of the DXCC Desk, it
hasn't been approved to date.  But by the same token, contrary to some
statements made, it has NOT BEEN REJECTED yet.  It's in PENDING status.
Pending awaiting documentation.  Documentation that was promised and has yet
to be delivered.

7O1YGF is being treated the same way as every other major DXpedition or
other operation to a rare place where the Amateur Service exists in some
fashion.  (OK, except maybe for P5, but that's another story; suffice to say
that K3AIR & I are going to have an interesting chat on the way to Dayton
this year! <g>).  To do so otherwise is (1) unfair to every similar
DXpedition or operation that has managed to get their paperwork together,
and (2) risks opening up Pandora's Box for future "exceptions."  That was
one of the whole points, or so I was made to understand, for the "DXCC 2000"
update/re-write, so that the rules would be clear, spelled out, and applied
the same to everyone.

Let's take a hypothetical situation for a moment here.  Let's say that we
have two New Zealand hams in their Navy serving together, along with a
sympathetic command officer.  For the sake of argument, suppose that their
ship has permission from the Beijing government (why? research?  who knows?
don't worry about it) to be in the close neighborhood of BS7, even stop by
and check it out if they want.  So one thing leads to another, and before
you know it, our two friends are sitting on the rock with a mobile whip, a
100 watt rig with built in tuner, and a battery... and they make a bunch of
contacts.  Remember -- their ship had permission to be in the area, stop by
even, and their commander apparently didn't have a problem with how they
used their off duty time.  So -- should it count for DXCC?  I'd say "no" on
the grounds that permission to be in the area does not translate to
permission to operate from BS7... and if you agree...

Hey gang?  Are we done beating on this dead horse again, and can we just
bury it again?  Or are we going to exhume it again and beat on it some more?

-----Original Message-----
From: dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of HK3CW
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:47 PM
To: ab5c
Cc: dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] Re: 7O1YGF and 7O/OH2YY


So that brings up a nice question. Why didn't the ARRL accept the documents
handed over by the DL team back in 2002? What explanations did they give,
then?

73 de HK3CW  ROB