On Sep 19, 2020, at 7:12 AM, tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities? 

Here's a starter list

1M  - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities? 

Here's a starter list

1M  - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

-- 
Bruce A. Manning

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities? 

Here's a starter list

1M  - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

Kingman Reef already has been deleted in 2016:

http://www.arrl.org/news/kingman-reef-kh5-deleted-from-dxcc-list

73, Andreas, N6NU


On Sep 19, 2020, at 7:12 AM, tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

Here's a starter list

1M - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

Here's a starter list

1M - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

The rule says:

"Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the
surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of
this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two
surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100
meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the
connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a
chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any
island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered
in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part
2 of the criteria.


As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no
longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not
required.

Ria
N2RJ

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

Here's a starter list

1M - Minerva Reef
3D2 - Conway Reef
BS7 - Scarborough Reef
KH5K - Kindman Reef
OJO - Market Reef
VK9M - Mellish Reef
Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)
Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of Ria, N2RJ
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 8:41 AM
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Reefs?

Hi Bernie,

 

I referenced that rule because the general rule for deletion is this:

 

"

 

5. Deletion Criteria

a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. However, if the Entity continues to meet one or more currently existing rules, it will remain on the List. "

 

For BS7, the rule says that it is deleted if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. Therefore it would seem that we are stuck with it until it is voted off the list. 

 

However this rule means that other entities that were added because they qualified under previous rules can now be deleted if they no longer qualify. So if an island was added because it was 100m and not under water at high tide, and now (for whatever reason) it's under water at high tide it no longer qualifies and should be deleted.

 

73

Ria

N2RJ 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM W3UR Bernie McClenny via groups.arrl.org <bernie=dailydx.com@...> wrote:

That rule is for an island to be added to this list as a new DXCC. It was created after BS7H was added to the list. The purpose for that rule was to determine possible new DXCC entities, not delete them.



Bernie McClenny, W3UR



Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)

           The Weekly DX (2001-2020)

           How's DX? (1999-2020)



Two week trial -

http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/   

https://twitter.com/dailydx

410-489-6518



> On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

>

> The rule says:

>

> "Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the

> surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of

> this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two

> surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100

> meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the

> connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a

> chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any

> island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered

> in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part

> 2 of the criteria.

>

>

> As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no

> longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not

> required.

>

> Ria

> N2RJ

>

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

>>

>> Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

>>

>> Here's a starter list

>>

>> 1M  - Minerva Reef

>> 3D2 - Conway Reef

>> BS7 - Scarborough Reef

>> KH5K - Kindman Reef

>> OJO - Market Reef

>> VK9M - Mellish Reef

>> Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

>> Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

>>

>

>

>

>

>

On Sep 22, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

Hi Bernie,

I referenced that rule because the general rule for deletion is this:

“

5. Deletion Criteria

a) An Entity may be deleted from the List if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. However, if the Entity continues to meet one or more currently existing rules, it will remain on the List. “

For BS7, the rule says that it is deleted if it no longer satisfies the criteria under which it was added. Therefore it would seem that we are stuck with it until it is voted off the list.

However this rule means that other entities that were added because they qualified under previous rules can now be deleted if they no longer qualify. So if an island was added because it was 100m and not under water at high tide, and now (for whatever reason) it’s under water at high tide it no longer qualifies and should be deleted.

73
Ria
N2RJ




On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM W3UR Bernie McClenny via groups.arrl.org <bernie=dailydx.com@...> wrote:
That rule is for an island to be added to this list as a new DXCC. It was created after BS7H was added to the list. The purpose for that rule was to determine possible new DXCC entities, not delete them.



Bernie McClenny, W3UR



Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020)

The Weekly DX (2001-2020)

How's DX? (1999-2020)



Two week trial -

http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/

https://twitter.com/dailydx

410-489-6518

On Sep 21, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:

The rule says:

"Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, **the

surface of which is above water at high tide.** For the purposes of

this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two

surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100

meters measured in a straight line from point to point. **All of the

connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a

chart of sufficient scale.** For the purposes of this award, any

island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered

in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part

2 of the criteria.

As for timeline, as soon as the DXCC desk confirms that the entity no

longer meets the criteria it should be removed. Board action is not

required.

Ria

N2RJ

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:21 PM tonydicenzo <kx1g@...> wrote:

Curious if anyone knows how many "reef" entities will dissapear from the face of then earth because of rising ocean levels, and how long they must stay submerged before they become 'Deleted" entities?

Here's a starter list

1M - Minerva Reef

3D2 - Conway Reef

BS7 - Scarborough Reef

KH5K - Kindman Reef

OJO - Market Reef

VK9M - Mellish Reef

Blenheim Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

Geyser Reef (unofficial ITU Allocation)

Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear.  Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later. 

it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.

worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are 
preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. ) 

it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. 

I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed. 

KX1G

 

-- 
Bruce A. Manning

Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear.  Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later. 

it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.

worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are 
preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. ) 

it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. 

I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed. 

KX1G

 

With all due respect, Dave, a love it or leave it pronouncement is not acceptable. 

governments take old laws off their books (ex: Massachusetts blue laws), so why shouldn’t DXCC.

i need need three to have worked them all. I will be patient with Glorioso.  less patient with P5, and somewhat angry that some dxers (such as russians) have multiple opportunities to work them while others have zero opportunity.  And not all all patient with BS7. It needs 5i be reviewed, and if there is no chance that it will ever reemerge, in this century at least, removed from the list.

73

tony KX1G

While I agree with you in principle, an entity that is permanently under water shouldn’t remain on the list. At least with P5, dear leader may have a moment of pity and grant a license. But if Mother Nature rises the seas so that an entity is completely submerged it needs to be completely off the list.

73

Ria

N2RJ 

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:41 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:

+ AA6YQ comments below



Thanks to all for noting that a few of the reefs are already deleted. But i guess I did not make my point clear.  Reefs are transient things, here today, gone tomorrow, and science tells us with rising levels of ocean due to global warming, most will be forever gone sooner or later.



it does not seem fair that some can add them to their totals and some won’t ever have that chance.



worse, some currently on the list but unworkable for various reasons, political, global warming, or whatever, are preventing a whole generation of hams from achieving the DXCC program highest honor, working them all. (Ditto the factors Preventing us from working P5. )



it is this point that i take greatest exception to. It appears i will go to my grave failing to achieve that honor because a few people think the DXCC rules are cut in stone. I for one think an award should be achievable. If not, then it should be changed.



+ The rules governing DXCC are crystal clear: you are not guaranteed the ability to confirm QSOs with every current DXCC entity. Since the dawn of radio, DXers have been pursuing DXCC Family awards with this understanding. The willingness to pursue an award for which there is no guarantee of success distinguishes what Cass WA6AUD called "true blue DXers".



+ If you don't like the DXCC Family's Award rules, then choose an award that's more to your liking. There are plenty of alternatives.



        73,



              Dave, AA6YQ