[CQ-Contest] Is 4UITU and other calls with 4U1 prefix illegal?

[Hank Greeb]

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 at contesting.com wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:51:12 -0500
> From: Zack Widup<w9sz.zack at gmail.com>
> To: CQ Contest<cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why was 4U1WB Disqualified in the CQ WPX
> 	Contest?
> Message-ID:
> 	<CANJxhWj3y4tyKHcg+vJVCkcb1JgJVrzpNgxwc9YMSq3_pb57iw at 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 at 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