Hank,
4U1UN and 4U1ITU are both considered, for most amateur radio purposes
including most contests, as separate countries/entities from their
surrounding host nations, since they land areas that they reside in are
considered UN territory. This is a distinction that 4U1WB does not have,
since (if I am not mistaken) only the World Bank building itself is
considered UN territory.
(DXCC does not consider 4U1WB or, for that matter, 4U1VIC as separate
entities due to rules changes since 4U1ITU and 4U1UN were so recognized. I
believe that TP2CE also falls into the same category as 4U1WB and for the
same reasons)
But here's one to consider...
What if someone decided to run a CQ WPX op (prior to any rules changes, of
course) from 1A0KM at SMOM. Under the same strict interpretation of the
rule, would it not also be DQ'd? And yet, would there be any doubt from
anyone who worked the station about where it was located and who had
sanctioned it? (OK, yes, some would, but a quick lookup would take care of
the issue)
How about someone running a 1S station from Sealand? Or 1B Northern Cyprus?
I suspect that the purpose of the rule was to prevent someone from picking a
self-assigned call and operating (or claiming to) from certain areas of the
world that are, to put it mildly, in political... Flux. (If that is the
case, one may want to argue whether or not it is truly necessary, but set
that aside for right now). Or for similar reasons, to prevent some
far-fetched and possibly improper combinations.
That being said, I do not believe that the rule was ever intended for some
of our "special cases" like 4U1WB, who operate under unusual BUT LEGAL
situations.
I am glad to see that the DQ is being rescinded. I do regret though that
this situation had to come up in the first place, and put the 4U1WB team
through this aggravation.
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Hank Greeb
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 10:09 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Is 4UITU and other calls with 4U1 prefix illegal?
Who "sanctions" 4U1ITU and 4U1UN for examples. 4U1ITU has been in many
contests, not sure of in CW WW contests, but I'm >99.44% sure that it is
one of the "HQ" stations for the IARU World Championship contest held every
year. Maybe, if IARU and the Untied Nations is disqualified, perhaps the
every four year World Championship contest needs to be disqualified.
Or, maybe, just maybe, someone in charge of the CQ Contests should consult
with reps of the Contest Community, like Oh Fishy Alls of the RAC, WIA,
LABRE, ARRL, the RSGB, the DARC, the Russian Amateur Radio Union (sorry
folks, I don't have a Cyilic Alphabet Handy, and don't remember much of my
college Russian anyway, JARL, et. cetera, and get a mutual opinion rather
than an arbitrary (and in my estimation,
capricious) judgement on the subject of 4U1 prefix calls.
I personally don't know if ITU, IARU, or the Untied Nations issues these
calls, but they been in use since before I was licensed (shortly after sp*rk
was banned), so i'd think that at least one or two of the ham radio
fraternity must believe they are legitimate calls.
Lettuce be reasonable. Lettuce knot pic nits. If the holder of 4U1WB is
NOT operating from the UN HQ, or a building leased by the Untied Nations,
there may be a very fine point. I don't know these details.
Or, maybe we'll "strip" all he contacts which have been made with these
calls from all records. And, declare that the World Championship is a sham
because IARU claims to sponsor it, and the IARU is NOT a National
organization?
However, whatever the decision, it will be a consensus decision, rather than
that of one person.
72/73 de n8xx Hg
QRP >99.44% of the time
CQ contests needs to consult with representativesOn 10/27/2017 5:52 PM,
cq-contest-request@contesting.com wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:51:12 -0500
> From: Zack Widup<w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
> To: CQ Contest<cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX
> Contest?
> Message-ID:
> <CANJxhWj3y4tyKHcg+vJVCkcb1JgJVrzpNgxwc9YMSq3_pb57iw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> How do they happen to be operating with that callsign, then? Is it illegal
for them to use that callsign?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> 73, Zack W9SZ
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Terry Zivney<n4tz@arrl.net> wrote:
>> Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX Contest?
>>
>> As Masa, AJ3M, noted in his posting about the disqualification of
>> 4U1WB in the 2017 CQ WPX SSB contest, I informed him that:
>>
>> "4U1WB violated rule V.C.2:
>>
>> 2. Special event, commemorative, and other unique prefix stations are
encouraged to participate. Prefixes must be assigned by the licensing
authority of the country of operation.
>>
>> 4U1 is not assigned by the FCC, the licensing authority of the USA, which
is what the log of 4U1WB showed as the country of operation."
>>
>> *********
>>
>> The WPX contest rule cited clearly states that the callsign must be
assigned by the licensing authority. The FCC did not assign the callsign,
and has no authority to issue 4U1WB callsigns. Thus, the station did not
operate in compliance with the existing contest rules.
>>
>> Since 4U1 prefixes can be in multiple countries, rule V.C.1 would also
apply. The DXCC list includes 4U1UN and 4U1ITU as separate entities. So, the
4U1 prefix does not denote the country of operation. This rule states:
>>
>> "A station operating from a DXCC entity different from that indicated by
its call sign is required to sign portable." Because the 4U1WB callsign does
not reflect the DXCC entity of USA, it is required to sign portable.
>>
>> I did not write these rules, but was charged with interpreting and
enforcing them.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|