[Dx-qsl] OX/NA1SA rejected by DXCC desk

[Alan Zack]

The fallacy is with the US licensing system and how easy it is to obtain 
a US license and call, not the DXCC system. All my comments were 
directed to licensing, not DXCC.
Yes, I was involved with KH2D when he was in Guam and I was in the 
Philippines with the complaints that all the preferred KH2 2 by 1 calls 
were already taken, mostly by non Americans.  I gave him my inputs on 
the VE system in the Philippines on how so many Filipinos could hold KH2 
and KH0 calls without having ever left the Philippines.
_______________________________________________________
Alan Zack
Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Delta Rocket Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
Aviation Chief Warrant Officer,  U.S. Coast Guard, Retired


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
To: <dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] OX/NA1SA rejected by DXCC desk


> All the more reason for questions to be raised and documentation to be 
> asked
> when a US-licensed club station is used as a portable call outside the 
> US.
>
> So, exactly where is the "fallacy" in the DXCC system?
>
> There is certainly a problem with the FCC licensing system, but this 
> was
> booted around ad infinitum ad nauseum on another reflector a long, 
> long time
> ago... a reflector run at the time by a gentleman with a Guam call who 
> now
> resides in Florida... and so long as the FCC doesn't care, it's not 
> going to
> change.
>
> All the more reason...
>
> 73
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Alan Zack
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:08 PM
> To: Michael Keane K1MK; dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] OX/NA1SA rejected by DXCC desk
>
>
> The fallacy of the system is anyone, anywhere, can get a US Ham 
> License
> and callsign without ever stepping foot on US Soil. There are no exams
> given. All they need is a US mailing address and a couple of buddies 
> who
> already hold a US license to sign off the VE paperwork. In the
> Philippines 100's of people have a US license and call who, because of
> strict visa requirements, may never enter the USA or a territory. 
> There
> are PO boxes and these Mail Drop businesses addresses in Guam and 
> Saipan
> that are used for their mailing address. A friend, relative, or radio
> club member picks up the license when the FCC mails it to Guam or 
> Saipan
> and sends it to the ham in the Philippines. The JA's do the same thing
> but a few JA's do actually use their US Call when they travel to Guam 
> or
> Saipan to contest.
> I know, I've been there! I tried to get a DU callsign during a year 
> long
> stay there but could not because I was not a DU citizen and did not DU
> permanent residency status (very difficult to obtain)
> _______________________________________________________
> Alan Zack
> Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
> Official USCG Auxiliary Comm Station
> Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
> Delta Rocket Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
> Aviation Chief Warrant Officer,  U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Keane K1MK" <k1mk at yccc.org>
> To: <dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] OX/NA1SA rejected by DXCC desk
>
>
>> On 1/21/2009 10:48 PM, Steve Lund wrote:
>>> This is an interesting one. My QSL was rejected last month, but QSLs
>>> have been rejected since at least May 2008.
>>>
>>> The trustee for NA1SA is NT2Y.
>>>
>>> The operators for the OX/NA1SA operation were RW3GW, RW3AH, RA3MR 
>>> and
>>> UA3MQM. Doesn't it seem odd that 4 Russian operators were using a 
>>> USA
>>> call on a DXpedition to a third country?
>>
>> Well, perhaps not so odd.
>>
>> The Russian Federation hasn't implemented CEPT Recommendation T/R
>> 61-01
>> yet <http://www.erodocdb.dk/doks/implement_doc_adm.aspx?docid=1802>.
>> That implies they did not have a "CEPT radio amateur radio license"
>> issued by Russia and therefore did not have the authority under their
>> call signs to operate from OX under the terms of the  CEPT agreement.
>>
>> But then there's also the matter of there not being a reciprocal
>> operating agreement between the US and Russia. So how could those 4
>> Russian operators be the control ops for a US licensed station?
>>
>> I can see how an operation like this might raise even more questions
>> than usual about the authorization to operate.
>>
>> 73,
>> Mike K1MK