Let's not confuse two issues: DXCC eligibility isn't necessarily relevant
for some contests.
73, kelly
ve4xt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
To: "'Joe Subich, W4TV'" <w4tv@subich.com>; "'Richard DiDonna NN3W'"
<nn3w@cox.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL REPLY - Remote Site & Contesting Rules
> Hi Joe,
>
> That's interesting. Why is it only the rare ones? Shouldn't it apply to
> all
> entities?
>
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
>> Subich, W4TV
>> Sent: March 21, 2007 14:05
>> To: 'Richard DiDonna NN3W'; cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL REPLY - Remote Site & Contesting Rules
>>
>>
>> NN3W writes:
>>
>> > My question is whether this gives implied consent to remote
>> operation
>> > from locations other than the DXCC entity where the operator is
>> > physically located? The DXCC awards desk certainly doesn't
>> think so.
>>
>> For many of the more rare DXCC entities the DXCC desk
>> requires documentation that the operator was actually in the
>> entity - usually stamped passport and "landing permits." It
>> would be rather difficult to provide those documents for a
>> remote operation!
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|