By Ron Goossen, PB0ANL, Chairman VRZA Licensing
matters committee.
This
article was first published in Dutch in CQ-PA,
August 2000. This approved translation by Peter Halpin, PE1MHO.
“That’s a missed chance to dispose of the Morse
exam that we won’t have again until 2006” is the first thing that entered my
mind after visiting the DARC web-site(1) and reading a
draft proposal for a PDNR (Preliminary Draft New Recommendation) known as M-AOQ
This draft PDNR contains a proposal for a new ITU RR (International
Telecommunications Union Radio Regulations) article S25. The PDNR M-AOQ (2)
contains a summary of the requirements a radio amateur must meet in order to
qualify for an amateur radio license. The PDNR in question is meant to serve as
input for a point on the agenda of the next WRC (World Radio Conference) in 2003
which covers possible changes to
article S25.
I noticed that this proposal contains a reference to
“Radio telegraphy”. As the Executive Committee (under the leadership of
Chairman PA0LOU) had already sent this paper to the ITU in March of this year I
was naive enough to think that the IARU would examine the need for the Morse
requirement again. After reading another paper from the EC(3), this
one sent to the CEPT, the
commission of European PTTs, it
became horribly clear that I was indeed being naive. A statement from this
“information paper” (dated June 2000) caused me some amazement:
“Do not
delete Morse Code from the test requirements for an amateur license.
Currently
it appears that a number of Administrations are taking steps to remove this
requirement against the wishes of the majority of Radio Amateurs.”
IARU Region I appears to be a fervent
supporter of maintaining the Morse requirement, based upon the assumption
that the majority of radio amateurs agree with this. How the EC arrives at
this conclusion is somewhat vague, but even if that should be the case
at this moment, it would be interesting to know if this will be so in 2003, when
the WRC will tackle S.25! Has the EC lost all touch with reality, are they
wearing blinders, or are there some people busy warping reality to suit
their own purposes? That
last possibility seems not so improbable.
At the
International Informal Meeting of the IARU Region 1 at Friedrichshaven on 24
June some questions were asked of PA0LOU about the new draft PDNR M-AOQ (4).
After all, PDNR M-AOQ was discussed and voted upon at the last formal meeting in
Lillehammer in September 1999 and accepted without a mention of a “Radio
telegraphy” requirement (5) How is it possible that the draft
PDNR M-AOQ was sent to the ITU in March 2000 with a different text to that
agreed upon in Lillehammer? PA0LOU answered that the EC felt that the Lillehammer
Conference had voted in a confusing manner, and that the EC had therefore
decided to revert to the results of the 1996(!)
conference: to retain the Morse requirement. This led to the “IARU Information
Paper” that was sent to the ITU.
Larry Price, W4RA, the IARU President, indicated that
the PDNR M-AOQ was on the agenda for the Administrative Council meeting in
September, where all three IARU regions are represented, and that the document
could be discussed further. I find this very strange indeed: after all,
there’s a particularly “tasty” draft PDNR M-AOQ already in the ITU’s
in-tray and an even tastier “IARU Information Paper” available for the
CEPT’s RR6 members.
Everything points to the conclusion that the
Executive Committee (under the leadership of Chairman PA0LOU) has decided to
give their own interpretation to the decision made at Lillehammer: a
decision that was unanimously backed by the Administrative Council of the
IARU! Surely that would not have happened if there was any “confusion” about
the results?
This autocratic position, together with the
manipulation (by rewording the accepted version) of the PDNR M-AOQ has clearly
angered the RSGB. In a letter to all Region 1 societies (6), Don
Beattie, President of the RSGB, has made clear that inclusion of the words
“Radio telegraphy” in the draft PDNR is counter to what was voted on and
agreed at the Lillehammer conference. The RSGB has requested the member
societies to draw the EC’s attention to this matter, and has also formally
requested that the wording of PDNR M-AOQ be returned to that agreed upon at
Lillehammer.
“Oh dear”, I can’t help thinking: “even if
all member societies agree with the RSGB, restoration of the original text
can’t happen without causing a great deal of loss of face with the ITU and
CEPT.” Will the IARU have the courage to comply? I look forward to
seeing what happens.
We will be following developments at IARU Region 1 -
and especially the actions of the Executive committee - very closely indeed.
73,
Ron PB0ANL,
VRZA Licensing matters committee
References:
1.
DARC Web-site: http://www.darc.de/referate/ausland/aktuell/prop-s25.html
2.
Document M-AOQ (Amateur Operator Qualifications). Known to the ITU as
8A/TEMP/91-E . This file can be found on the DARC web-site mentioned
above.
3.
IARU Information Paper for CEPT RR6 meeting op 13 t/m 15 June 2000
4.
Minutes of the International Informal Meeting held at HAM Radio 2000
Friedrichshafen on 24 June 2000.
5.
Report of Lillehammer Conference 1999.
6.
A letter
from Don Beattie G3OZF, President of the RSGB, dated 5 July 2000 to
“Member Societies in Region I IARU
”.