| |
PE1MHO > IARU 19.07.00 12:26l 90 Lines 4020 Bytes #-9007 (0) @ WW
BID : 18237_PE1MHO
Read: GUEST DK3EL
Subj: Strange goings-on!
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<DB0GE<DB0ME<DB0SGL<DB0FHK<DB0BRI<DB0SM<PI8DAZ
Sent: 000719/0937Z @:PI8DAZ.#TWE.NLD.EU #:47482 [Hengelo] FBB $:18237_PE1MHO
From: PE1MHO@PI8DAZ.#TWE.NLD.EU
To : IARU@WW
# Generated by: TstHWin v2.21b - Registered to PE1MHO
# On : 00/07/19 11:20:13
# UTC: 00/07/19 09:20:13
Hello there,
There's something really strange happening within the IARU Region 1.
Decisions are being reversed, the results of votes are being deliberately
ignored, and texts of agreed resolutions are being changed after acceptance
by member societies. How is this possible? Who is responsible? Things have
come so far that the RSGB has written to IARU Region 1 member societies
to warn them against these practices. You don't believe it? Well, if you
have internet access you can read all about it by visiting www.nocode.org
and following the ARTICLES link. Reading the minutes of the Eurocom 2000
meeting at Friedrichshaven last June is pretty amusing too: here's an
extract from the minutes, which are freely available on the DARC website.
>>>>>>>
4.4 (continued) Report from Region 1
The meeting then returned to matters raised under PA0LOU’s report.
OE3REB expressed concern that no information had been received by the Austrian Society
from Region 1.
G3OZF asked for clarification on the position of Morse in the future licence
regulations and the progress that had been made since the decision at Lillehammer,
to review the IARU policy. W4RA explained that the PDNR (M-AOQ) was subject to
further review at the September 2000 meeting of the AC. PA0LOU said that the EC felt
that the Lillehammer Conference had voted in a confusing way, on the one hand to remove
the Morse requirement from M-XXX and on the other, to retain the decision of the
Tel Aviv Conference to retain Morse as a requirement. The EC had therefore decided
that the Region 1 position should be to retain Morse as a requirement. A paper had
been submitted by the Chairman of the CLG reinforcing the Regional position that Morse
should remain as a requirement for an HF licence. Some present at the meeting
expressed surprise at this statement as they had no recollection of the Tel Aviv
resolution on this matter being endorsed at Lillehammer.
Concern was expressed about the paper submitted, apparently by the CLG Chairman,
apparently without the knowledge of IS or member societies.
>>>>>>>
Here's the text of a statement made by the President of the RSGB concerning
the VERON's presentation of "the facts" concerning the Lillehammer
conference last year.
>>>>>>>
The President of the RSGB - G3OZF, Don Beattie - has expressed some surprise
at the interpretation of events at the Lillehammer conference by VERON in their
report of the conference published in Electron, November 1999, and by PA0LOU's
comments at the Eurocom 2000 meeting in Friedrichshafen:
"I am surprised. The minutes of the final plenary give confirmation to the
agreement to paper 3.17, which had previously been voted on in Committee C3.
Voting in C3 was 26 in favour,7 against and 7 abstaining. Paper 3.17 clearly
proposed excluding Morse from the future requirements for a licence, by
defining the content of M-XXX (now known as M-AOQ). The Lillehammer decision
was further endorsed by the IARU AC immediately thereafter, when the AC took
the text of paper 3.17 for their Resolution 99-1. This is hardly a vote in
favour of retaining Morse.
The papers clearly show the vote in favour of eliminating Morse as a
future requirement for an HF licence. They also show support for the
proposal on the wording of a proposed new version of Article S.25,
which does not in itself cover the Morse issue, as operator qualifications
are planned to be in M-XXX. Immediately after the S.25 paper was agreed,
the Conference discussed the content of M-XXX (now M-AOQ) and agreed "no Morse".
I am aware that the Chairman or Region 1 maintains that there was a vote in
favour of retaining Morse at Lillehammer, but neither he nor anyone else has been
able to point out where this took place, and where it is recorded"
>>>>>>>
Now that last sentence seems to me to be diplomatic language indeed...
73, Pete
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
