On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 01:46:08 -0400, Arnie Macy wrote:

"Penny Traytion" wrote ...

No Test International.

_________________________________________________ _________

Dang it, Penny. You took my answer. ;-)

That's where I draw the line......

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Penny Traytion" wrote ...

No Test International.

__________________________________________________ ________

Dang it, Penny. You took my answer. ;-)

Arnie -
KT4ST

Member of "Know Code" International

Dang it!

It would appear that Arnie -almost- authored "No Test International,"
as the next step for NCI, but Penetration stole his answer.

But he was thinking it. He says so above. He denies it elsewhere.

bb

"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not,
what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Director NCI

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
:


"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Director NCI




Switzerland down, how many to go?

BTW, apparently the Swiss no-coders are HB3 calls, a new one for WPX

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in
:


"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.
Bill K2UNK, Director NCI

Switzerland down, how many to go?

About 150 or so by my count :-)

Ironically, as commented elsewhere by Phil Karn,
the USA treaty approval process may resut in the
USA being one of the last to actually change.

BTW, apparently the Swiss no-coders are HB3 calls, a new one for WPX

So it appears.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...
Bert Craig wrote:
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not,
what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Director NCI

Bill is exactly correct ... NCI is NOT "No Test International" ... we have
NO
intention of trying to weaken or eliminate the written tests ... ONLY to
eliminate
the Morse test requirement.

Now that that's gone from the ITU Radio Regulations (effective July 5, 2003,
the day after the WRC closed), administrations are free to drop Morse
testing.
(see http://www.nocode.org/Articles.html for the changes to S25.5 and the
entire text of the new Article 25 ... the amateur part of the ITU Radio
Regs)

Word is that a number of administrations intend to move promptly
(surprisingly
promptly for governments ...) to eliminate Morse testing from their national
rules.

NCI's work is not done just because the ITU requirement has been eliminated.
We will continue to work with administrations around the world to get the
Morse
test dropped from national regulations.

73,
--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...

Bert Craig wrote:

Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not,
what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.


Assuming success, what then? A big party and then disbandment?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Penny Traytion" wrote in message
...

Bert Craig wrote:

Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For
all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not,
what's next?

No Test International.

WRONG...

NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address...
and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address
written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test
International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support
of any other NCI directors.

Assuming success, what then? A big party and then disbandment?

- Mike KB3EIA -

That'd be fine with me. I am also in ARRL and have held a
field assignment position (LGL) for several years. I have
repeatedly stated I did not see NCI trying to expand
beyond NCI's core objectives nor do anything else to
try and replicate ARRL functions.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Dir. NCI

"Bert Craig" wrote in message t...
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next?


Welp, since the name of the operation is No Code Test *International*
their work is far from done. Seems like code tests will continue in a
number of countries, Russia, Germany, China, the Arab states, etc. NCI
will have to schmooze the likes of Putin (Col, ret. KGB), Jiang and
the lop-yer-head-off Arab sweethearts before they can claim mission
complete. Squiggy gets Yemen, Sohl gets Mongolia for openers. Oughta
be interesting.

w3rv

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message t...
Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and
purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next?


Welp, since the name of the operation is No Code Test *International*
their work is far from done. Seems like code tests will continue in a
number of countries, Russia, Germany, China, the Arab states, etc. NCI
will have to schmooze the likes of Putin (Col, ret. KGB), Jiang and
the lop-yer-head-off Arab sweethearts before they can claim mission
complete. Squiggy gets Yemen, Sohl gets Mongolia for openers. Oughta
be interesting.

w3rv

What do I get?